As we wrote last week, the Presbyterian Church USA is faced with a choice about the future of its relations with the Jewish community and, indeed, the vast majority of Americans who ardently support the state of Israel. Unfortunately, rather than listen to voices of reason, church leaders have today taken another step toward approval of measures that place the denomination in favor of economic war against the Jewish state when their General Assembly Mission Council voted to recommend a report that calls for “selective divestment” from Israel.
Though the PCUSA claims what it is doing is meant to encourage peace, it is doing just the opposite. By approving a call for sanctions on some companies that do business in Israel, the PCUSA is not only doing something that will encourage Palestinians to persist in refusing to make peace, they have also done something that makes it impossible for Jews and others who care about Israel to continue to work with the church on any issue.
The measure approved in advance of the church’s biennial General Assembly to be held next summer specifically seeks to encourage divestment from Caterpillar, Motorola and Hewlett Packard because they do business with Israel’s Defense Ministry and the country’s home construction industry. While the Presbyterian activists who have promoted this noxious measure are attempting to distance themselves from their comrades in the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement against Israel by choosing to try and pass a more limited measure rather than a full boycott, what they are advocating is a tactic that seeks to delegitimize Israel’s right of self-defense.
The attack on Motorola and Hewlett Packard is particularly insidious because they are singled out for the fact that Israelis use their equipment to build and man the security fence that protects the country against Palestinian terrorism. The fence has saved countless lives since its erection halted a wave of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. The Presbyterian move to approve a ban on these companies is tantamount to the church taking a stand that Israel has no right to take defensive measures aimed at saving the lives of its citizens.
The criticism of Caterpillar is just as hypocritical. The church simply assumes any Israeli construction or use of machines to create roads and security stations is illegitimate.
It should be emphasized that boycotts such as these do nothing to advance peace, despite the pious rhetoric that accompanies this destructive resolution. Rather than encouraging Palestinians to stop fomenting hatred of Israel and Jews and to go to the negotiating table which they have shunned for years, the Presbyterians are simply seeking to chip away at Israel’s right of self-defense and to live in peace. Such measures are part of an international campaign of attacks on the legitimacy of Israel and Jewish rights.
As much as we would like to accept the notion that the Presbyterians are acting in good faith, it needs to be pointed out to them that anyone who singles out one state or people in this manner or who seeks to remove their right of self-defense is acting in a discriminatory fashion. There is a term for those who engage in such bias against Jews: anti-Semitism. While the church may claim to oppose hatred against Jews or anyone for that manner, it must be understood by joining the ranks of the BDS movement in any manner, what they are doing is making common cause with the haters.
It should also be emphasized, as we have pointed out in the past, that support for these damaging resolutions is largely limited to the activists who work for the church and is not shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans who affiliate with Presbyterian churches or their pastors. Like most Americans, Presbyterians support America’s democratic ally Israel and have no wish to associate themselves with extremist measures that serve only to buttress the forces of Palestinian rejectionism.
But it will be up to the Presbyterian Church USA’s rank and file to make it clear to those who attend the biennial next summer that they must vote this awful measure down if they wish to remain part of the mainstream of American religious life.
It will also be up to American Jews and their rabbis to reach out to their Presbyterian neighbors to make them aware of what has happened to their church and what they must do to stop this. The Jewish Council on Public Affairs, the national umbrella group of Jewish community relations councils, has assumed an important leadership role in this struggle and did its best via outreach to try to persuade the Presbyterians to back away from the precipice. But now it will be up to ordinary Americans of every faith to make it clear to the PCUSA that business as usual cannot continue with them as long as they are prepared to place their faith on the side of hatred and intolerance. We can only hope church members will listen to their better angels of their nature and discard this resolution before any more harm is done to ecumenical relations.
Very well said. Thank you, Mr. Tobin. I'm a "cradle Presbyterian", but I left the denomination for many of the reasons you outlined above. I'm now a "born again Anglican". The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams,is the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion. He can be a pill, but, by and large, he's a good man. At least, we still read from the Hebrew Scriptures during each service in our parish church. Our priest studied both Hebrew and New Testament Greek in seminary, so we have the benefit of his hard work.
"As much as we would like to accept the notion that the Presbyterians are acting in good faith, it needs to be pointed out to them that anyone who singles out one state or people in this manner or who seeks to remove their right of self-defense is acting in a discriminatory fashion." n nExcept for Palestinians, of course. No right of self-defense for them.
Of course, it is not the perpetrating murdering terrorist that need "self-defense", Madame Bigot. It is the victims of these attacks, you lying fool.
Yeah, right. Palestinians perpetrated 60 years of Israeli miitary occupation. Palestinians perpetrated the building of hundreds of settlements on the very land that Palestinians were forced to flee to after being dispossessed of their homes and land in 1948. Palestinians blow up their own homes, then they rebuild the homes they blew up, and then they blow up the homes they rebuilt again. Palestinians are the ones who, after blowing up their own homes, shoot and kill their own goats and other farm animals as they stand there watching themselves shoot and kill their own goats and other farm animals. Palestinians respond to rock-throwing Israelis with tanks and bombs. Palestinians built a wall so that their own land would be eaten up by the Israeli side of the wall. Palestinians steal their own water. Palestinians block their own ports so the Israelis can control what goes in and out. Palestinians arrest Palestinian fishermen trying to catch some food for their families. n nYes, of course, it's ONNNNLLLY the Palestinians who are perpetrating murdering terrorists. Israel does NOOONNNE of all of the above. Palestinians are doing all of it to themselves, and then they have the nerve to shoot rockets into Israel when Israel is just sitting there minding its own business. n nBlack and white black and white. Israelis saintly good guys, Palestinians perpetrating murdering terrorists. n nPalestinians have no legitimate grievances it's all their fault that there's no peace, Israelis would make peace tomorrow if only Palestinians would stop blowing up their own houses, shooting their own farm animals, stealing their own natural resources, building settlements on their own land so the sweet innocent entirely blameless Israelis can have everything they want and think they deserve. n n
60 years of military occupation? perhaps the bigot misspeaks herself? the only "military occupation" 60 years ago was the ILLEGAL occupation of judea and samaria by jordan, an occupation, by the way, that was never recognized by the united nations. n nbut that brings up the very interesting question, of why the "palestinians" never even mentioned independence from 1948 to 1967, when judea and samaria were under arab control? is it because the "palestinian" cause is only pursued when it can be used as a weapon against israel? n nas golda meir once said, "if the arabs put down their weapons, there will be no war, but if israelis put down their weapons, there will be no israel". n nbegone, troll!
Ah, okay, I stand corrected. Not 60 years of military occupation. 45 years of military occupation, and before that, almost 20 years of exile in what are now the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. n nFor many years after 1948, Palestinians had hopes of returning to the land and homes they were kicked out of when Israel was established. Most Palestinians have long ago given up on that dream, and now they're struggling to achieve a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories, but of course that dream also is being blocked by the Israeli settlements policy. In other words, Israel became the Jewish state in 1948, the Palestinians living there were either killed or fled to escape being killed, they were pushed into what are now the Occupied Territories, and then, after 1967, Israel started building the settlements that have now taken over large swaths of the Occupied West Bank. So not only does Israel have its state at the expense of the Palestinians who lost everything, but for the past 45 years, Israel has been trying to take the land *outside* of Israel's boundaries — the land where Palestinians were exiled to refugee camps when they left Israel. The State of Israel has a right to exist, but the point is that they want more than their own state with secure boundaries — they want their own state, PLUS they want the land Palestinians were exiled to, which they consider part of a future Palestinian state. n nIt's not anti-semitism to say this, shloime. It's truth. It's reality. It's historical fact. Palestinians — at least three generations of Palestinians — have lost *everything.* They lost their original land and now they are being told they cannot have the land they live on as refugees. Israel takes everything and asks for more. n nIf that is not injustice, I don't know what is, and all the anti-Palestinian rhetoric in the world will not lead to peace without at least a measure of justice.
You are the bigot, vandag, not me. I don't know your gender, though, so I won't prefix that designation with "Madame."
Dear Kathy, When we are all being led to the local high school football stadium, after Friday prayers at the nearby gigantic mosque that used to be a Walmart, to watch the resident Islamic fanatics publicly stone you to death for having the NERVE to be a WOMAN who has the GALL to SPEAK HER MIND, will you see the light then? Or will it still just be all the Israeli's fault that this is happening to you?
What a textbook example of hysterical bigotry. It's appalling to me that anyone would be filled with such racist hatred. Someone should wash your mouth out with soap, 5d9. I hope you're not Jewish, because if you are, your bigoted screed is even more shameful. n n
screed? n nafter spouting every bit of anti-semitic drivel, you've got a lot of nerve calling other people names.
Shloime. I have not said anything anti-semitic here. I have criticized Israeli policy toward Palestinians, and I've mouthed off a bit in response to others who mouthed off to me. I think it's really tragic — not just sad, but tragic — how the word "anti-semitic" is trivialized to mean anything negative said about Israel. n nLook. I'm certain that the editors of Commentary are quite outraged by my opinions, but if they thought anything I wrote here was anti-semitic, you wouldn't have seen it. The staffer in charge of reviewing comments here does NOT put through anti-semitic comments. I know this for a fact. n nSo please, disagree with my opinions all you want, but try to chill on the accusations of anti-semitism.
Kathy, Islam is not a race, it is a form of totalinariasm masquerading as a religion. The race of a people has to do with their genetic makeup, not their religion. Incidentally, no I am not Jewish.
Of course Islam is not a race; it's a religion. There's no such thing as race, in fact — we're all the human race. n n
Well, the Palestinians can always go back to to shooting pregnant women in the stomach before their children, or slitting the throats of sleeping babies–"self-defense" measures celebrated by Hamas and PA and local citizenry. I guess that counter boycotts wouldn't have the same PR ring. What would we do, boycott kitchen knives and shotguns? n nIs there a common reader for idiots?
The Presbyterians are a loving organization devoted to Christ. Israel's actions are racist, murderous, and Anti-Christ. All good people are with the Presbyterians on this matter.
OK we get it. Mental development has ceased and started to flow backwards in Israeli 100 land. . The Anti-Christ was a nice bit tho. Added garnish. Also demonstrated the irreconciliable and unappeasable nature of anti-Semitism. Yes, Israel should desist from leading the legions of the Anti-Christ. The elevation of Damien to PM will have to be reconsidered.
Yes besht2003, the Israeli-led legions of the Anti-Christ have been persecuting my family and I for many years now. Why they pick on us I do not know. Maybe it is because we like to eat pork on Saturdays. Why, just yesterday they built a settlement in my backyard! And last night they fired rubber bullets at me for no reason! I just wish they would leave me alone, and go back to waging genocidal war against the peace-loving Palestinians. (laughter)
You left the /sarc tag off you post. How careless of you.
It is interesting to note that it is often the case that organizations such as this one are focusing on getting support from the Jewish Community both within Israel and throughout the diaspora. They realize that anti-zionist Jewish organizations or movements have the best chance of facilitating the destruction of Israel. Liberal minded Israelis may view these ngo’s as just another voice in Israel’s diverse landscape, in truth it is nothing less than a Trojan Horse.
I would like to respond to The Presbyterean attack upon Israel, as follows:
OK, be that way.
"Icabod " sums it up
Then I throw down the gauntlet for all such peaceful people to boycott everything related to Israel, 100%. Every phone, every computer, every drug and medical tool, every product everywhere. I dare you.
Too much for their heads. Israel isn't a real place for these people, just a forum for their self-congratulatory excursion into the upper realms of sanctimonious justice. They will not throw out those Intel-inside PCs. It's hard to illuminate the darkness with a candle, unfortunately, if your head is solidly wedged up your own arse.
the "anti-israel" gambit allows leftists to express their jew-hatred without the stigma of racism. n nit gave an outlet for deep anti-jewish resentments, which were not "politically correct" in the wake of the holocaust. anti-semitism may be out of fashion, but the resentments are still there. n nand i don't believe that rubbing their noses in the facts of israel's contributions to modern life, is going to lessen the resentment of the "anti-israelis", or make them rethink what is essentially a visceral and irrational hatred.
I concur. But I have more respect for Nazis who say "I am a Nazi" than Nazis who don't. I've never understood the mindset of antisemites who steadfastly refuse to stand with or have the courage of the convictions of their own insanity. One need only to stumble onto any 'progressive' blog for 15 minutes to read comments on articles completely unrelated to Israel which are straight out of the rankest antisemitic nonsense as if they were written by Goebbels himself and yet someone, they imagine we suspend our disbelief that screaming "The Jews control the media the banks and the government" is somehow neither a slur nor is it in any way an illegitimate 'criticism' of the policies of Israel, which is their rhetorical excuse. All I ask is that they have the integrity to admit out loud they are what they are.
Wrong. I re-joined the Presbyterian Church three years ago after being away for 45 years. The people in the pews are just fine, but I am shocked how craven the leadership is. They are left wing extremists who care nothing about Jesus and use the church as a facade to advance a solely political agenda.
Dear Greg, It is for you to decide of course how you want to live your life. I completely understand why a man might wish to go to church. However, I for one will not belong to an organization that has a craven leadership. Unless one is working to replace that leadership with honorable men of course. I guess I am just sick to death of the left-wingers/liberals who have been running this country slowly off the cliff for so many years now. One possibly could remember that God is not under house arrest and stay home and watch football on Sundays.
i think your choice to return to such an organization is unfortunate, because your membership tacitly endorses the anti-semitic agenda of the leadership. n nbut that's your decision.
Why is it anti-semitic to boycott Israeli products because of the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians? I understand you don't think those policies are objectionable, but if someone else does, and doesn't want to buy that country's products, why is that anti-semitic?
"treatment of the palestinians" (sic)? n nis training and equipping abu mazzen's body guard "objectionable"? is supplying food, fuel, water, and electricity to gaza "objectionable"? is providing medical treatment for arabs from the west bank and gaza, in israeli hospitals, "objectionable"? n nconsidering that both fatah and hamas, who control the palestinian authority and by treaty the areas in which over 90% of "palestinians" live, both have charters that declare (genocidal) war to destroy israel, it is most unusual that israel should provide these things to its (literally) sworn enemies, in a state of declared war. n nif the presbyterian church were interested in peace and justice, they would certainly have (at least) equal reason to boycott the palestinian authority, for its indoctrination of children with hatred, for its glorification of terrorists, and for its many incitements to violence. n nthe fact that they single out the jews is anti-semitism.
I have to go the sixth paragraph to read your disclaimer that "support for these damaging resolutions is largely limited to the activists who work for the church and is not shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans who affiliate with Presbyterian churches or their pastors." Why then do you paint Presbyterians with such a broad brush everywhere else? n nIt would be constructive if you learned more about the PCUSA's Book of Order, a copy of which you can download for free. Armed with this knowledge, you would know that It is **not true** that the "the Presbyterian Church USA’s rank and file to make it clear to those who attend the biennial next summer that they must vote this awful measure down if they wish to remain part of the mainstream of American religious life." The "rank and file" — a peculiar formulation if ever there was one for a church — will not attend General Assembly. Only commissioners vote, and it is the presbyteries who elect them, not local church Sessions as is the practice in other Presbyterian denominations. n nIn other words, the PCUSA's governing structure is increasingly exclusive and divorced from the local churches as one works up to higher levels of church government. Further, the PCUSA is governmentally dominated by its clerics ("teaching elders"), whereas other Presbyterian churches insist that lay leaders ("ruling elders") comprise a supermajority (e.g., two-thirds) of voters. n nThe "rank and file" have virtually nothing to do with decision making by the PCUSA General Assembly. If the members of a local church object to its decisions, that's too bad. Even if they unanimously disagree and went to sever their relationship to the PCUSA, they can't. They do not hold clear title to their real estate: n n"All property held by or for a congregation, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a congregation or of a higher council or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)" –Rule G-4.0203 n nIf they are found to be using their church "contrary to the Constitution," as interpreted by their presbytery, the presbytery can kick them out and sell their church or give it away to someone else. Rule G-4.0204. n nIt's very Chinese, actually.
ok. good point. but now what? n n
The Presbyterians are not in business to accomodate the Jews. They're interested in assisting the Palestinians.
Stop digging, "to accomodate [sic} the Jews"–bingo, –jooz jooz jooz. The Palestinians are so far sunk in a path of dependency and self-immiseration, this enables not helps. Israeli (ha ha) 100 might, however, dip a small toe into the business of accommodating rational exposition.
The Presbyterians are in the business of seeking justice. A military occupation that's been going on for 60 years is not justice. One country ruling over two million unwilling stateless people is not justice. n nYou condemn Palestinian violence, yet you also condemn peaceful forms of protest, like boycotts. What are you afraid the Presbyterians boycotting Israeli products will teach Palestinians — that non-violent protest is bad?
"A military occupation that's been going on for 60 years is not justice." n nso you include the founding of israel as a "military occupation"? n n"One country ruling over two million unwilling stateless people is not justice." n nwhat does that mean? the arab refugees from palestine were "ruled over" by lebanon, syria, jordan, and egypt, who built refugee camps and forced the refugees to live in them (instead of allowing them to integrate and resettle). israel inherited the refugee camps built by jordan and egypt. n nin fact, under the oslo agreements, over 90% of "palestinians" are "ruled over" by the palestinian authority. n nif the presbyterians really were in the business of seeking justice, they would be demanding that the arab states resettle the "palestinians", as every other group of refugees since 1900 has been resettled. and they would be demanding that the league of nations mandate for palestine be implemented. n nthey would not be shilling for the invention of a second (and third) arab homeland in palestine to displace jews from their national, historical, and biblical land.
This is one of the hobby horses of our denomination's ruling elites that have very little relevance in our congregation, at least, except to cause embarassment. Well, I am only the pastor of a small church, but I also am in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and I object to and dissent from such actions that single out Israel for special condemnation. Objecting to providing equipment that protects people from being blown up by suicide bombers (relating to the check points and separation barrier) is morally obtuse, IMO. Many Presbyterians support Israel and her efforts to defend herself. Unfortunately the loud and obsessive activists get all the attention.
thank you for your comment. it makes it easier for me to believe that not all presbyterians should be tarred with the same brush as the anti-israeli bigots behind the boycott.
Wikipedia lists the Presbyterian Church USA w/2,000,000 or so members. Kind of a niche communion for the New York Times with vestments crowd.
Back in May of 2009 the church also picked on Caterpillar. I got so angry that I went out and bought their stock at 35. It is now selling at 112. n nI hope they give me the name of some other good stocks that I can buy.
"there are a milion arab citizens of israel who were not "pushed out" in 1948." n nI did not say ALL Palestinians fled or were killed. Of course, some stayed. But thousands more were killed, fled out of fear for their lives, or were forcibly transported. In the aftermath of 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians ended up as refugees in other countries all over the Middle East. That's why Jordan has such a large Palestinian population, so your using Jordan's Palestinian refugee population to argue that Palestinians "already have a state" is grotesque. n nAlso, Israel has not withdrawn from Gaza. There is a de facto wall around Gaza in the form of an embargo. No one can go either in or out of Gaza w/o Israeli permission and control. To suggest that Palestinians in Gaza are free of Israeli control, or that they have sovereignty, is also grotesque. Israel has turned Gaza into the world's largest open-air prison. n n