By the narrowest of margins, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA defeated a resolution calling for divestment from companies that do business with Israel’s security forces. The 333-331 vote was the closest the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) movement has come to getting a major American Christian denomination to endorse such a measure. The close vote is a victory of sorts for the Jewish groups, such as the Jewish Council on Public Affairs (JCPA) that lobbied hard to defeat the motion. But the narrow margin is a virtual guarantee that divestment advocates will be back next year with expectations of victory at the Presbyterian conclave as well as at other gatherings of mainline Protestant groups.
Though there is little support for Israel divestment among the rank and file members of Presbyterian congregations, there is no denying the growing appeal among church activists for BDS proposals. The defeat of BDS this week may show that a narrow majority of Presbyterian delegates still understands that a vote for such a resolution involves the church in what amounts to an economic war against the Jewish state and a potential break in relations with American Jews. But the close call may indicate that support for anti-Zionism among liberal Protestant groups such as the Presbyterians is on the rise and it may only be a matter of time before they prevail.
The three companies targeted for divestment in the vote were Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett-Packard. Though church activists considered the resolution to be distinct from a broad BDS vote, even this proposal betrayed the malevolent nature of the anti-Israel movement. Motorola and Hewlett-Packard produce devices that help the Israel Defense Forces monitor security checkpoints for terrorist explosives and other dangers. Caterpillar vehicles help construct Israel’s defense barrier that keeps out suicide bombers as well as demolish illegal construction and structures that shield terrorist activities.
Thus, even this narrow divestment resolution amounts to a Presbyterian endorsement of the actions of Palestinian terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank that Israeli security forces seek to prevent. Far from being a neutral sentiment aimed at conveying sympathy for oppressed Palestinians, such a divestment vote would have been a declaration that a major American church group thinks Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself against terrorism.
That American Christians who profess to care about human rights would stand aloof from the dozens of other conflicts around the world where humanitarian catastrophes exist while concentrating their energy on trying to punish Israel is a shocking statement of their bias. Those who judge the Jewish state differently from other nations are engaging in a form of prejudice that is indistinguishable from anti-Semitism. Seen in that light, the BDS effort is no longer a well-meaning if misguided attempt to promote solidarity with the Palestinians but a vicious statement that reminds us of the link between anti-Zionism and Jew-hatred. The presence of far left Jews at the Presbyterian conclave such as the so-called Jewish Voices for Peace that actually lobbied for divestment illustrates just how misguided efforts to include such persons in the Jewish community can be.
While a Presbyterian vote in favor of divestment would have been a far greater disaster, this close call is nothing to celebrate. The vote is an ominous portent of the shift among liberal Protestants against Israel and in favor of an anti-Semitic war on the Jewish state. The fight against divestment is just beginning.
I'm not sure there is much distance between the rank and file and church activists. The PSUSA now has fewer than 1.9 million adherents, down more than a third in the past 30 years. Church membership has steadily declined every year since the mid-1960s and has been dropping 2-3 percent annually in recent years. To minister to this dwindling flock, the church has a ridiculous number of ordained ministers (courtesy of endowed divinity schools) who rattle around in mostly empty churches with the help of aging church ladies and those activists. In a few more years, the church will have to find some theological figleaf to excuse merging with the United Church of Christ to pay the bills.
Jonathan, I hear your question repeated ad nauseam: "why are the activists singling out Israel when there are so many other human rights abusers?" Although I am tired of answering it — especially since the questioners like you know the answer full well, and are seldom asking the question in good faith to begin with — I feel it is my duty once again (sigh) to answer. n nThere are in fact two answers. n n(1) The first and best answer is another question. Why do you, confronted with many examples of human-rights-abusing countries, single one out and DEFEND its right to violate human rights? n n(2) Now I will answer your question absolutely directly, as if you had been asking it in good faith, even though you were probably not. The reason Israel is rightly singled out is that Israel is the ONLY consistently human-rights abusing country that is supported by the full political and financial power of the Western world, making every abuse committed by Israel reverberate 1,000 times more in our part of the world than any equivalent human rights abuse committed by China, etc. Israel is also the ONLY human rights abusing country that is successfully exporting its own wars to the rest of the Western world. Here in the U.S., Israel is the ONLY human rights abusing country that somehow exerts greater control over my Congress than I and my fellow Americans do. It is the ONLY country whose U.S. acolytes proudly assert (not without some accuracy) that they control the U.S. government. Israel is the ONLY country whose "supporters" in the U.S. have allowed themselves to actually punch me and knock me down while I was peacefully passing out leaflets in favor of a boycott — and who not only refuse to apologize, but actually are able to gather more supporters who say I deserved it. (Evidently Israel is capable of violating human rights not only in its own country, but in America too through its proxies and supporters.) n nNow, why do I know your question was not asked in good faith to begin with? Because after hearing such an answer, right-wing BDS opponents typically go off on a burst of new outrage about supposed anti-Semitism (in fact that is, more or less, why I was punched.) After their outburst is complete, they "forget" the answer, as it is inconvenient to them, and they nauseatingly start to ask the question anew every time they are in the presence of a BDS supporter. n nIt's disgusting; your support of human rights abuses is vile; and it's why I absolutely, fully, 100% support BDS.
This traitorous 'patriot' is no more than a N-zi in disguise. The disguise is poor since his anti-Semitic rantings are immediately clear. May he rot in HELL.
I don't think at all that calling other commenters Nazis and calling for their deaths adheres to acceptable community guidelines. n nIs Commentary Magazine going to follow its guidelines and delete vandag's post?
Where did he call for your death? He simply expressed his hope as to what would happen AFTER your death. But I do sympathize. It must be awful to have people think you are an anti-Semite simply because you deny the world's only Jewish state the same rights to defend itself as are taken for granted by every other state, spread vicious lies about its actions and motives, resent the fact that anyone in Congress would give it a fair hearing in its war to protect itself against those who would wipe it off the face of the earth and murder those of its citizens who are Jewish, simply for being Jewish. And just because you point out that Jewish Americans have more power and influence than real Americans like you. I have no idea why anyone might find those sentiments anti-Semitic, do you? n nSo there you have it. American Jews are not Americans. They are simply an Israeli fifth column. And because some of them mistreated you (although if you spoke to them the the way you speak here, it is not hard to see why violence resulted), well, the Jewish state must be to blame for that too.
(1) Calling for someone to rot in Hell is the same as saying you want them to be dead. That's why nobody says please stay alive for another 30 years then rot in Hell. n n(2) REAL Americans are not Americans who are non-Jewish: they are Americans who put America FIRST — something evidently you know little about. I know many Jews who are real Americans and many Gentiles who are traitors. Regarding you, I don't know if you are Jewish or Gentile but I do certainly know about the other part. Supporting Israel's right to self-defense is fine. Putting Israel's interests as you perceive them BEFORE America's interests is unacceptable. n n(3) When we have a Congress that jeers our own elected president with "You Lie," but gives eight standing ovations to the Prime Minister of Israel — yes, that means Israel has more power in Congress than I and my fellow real American voters do.
I'm sorry, I spoke in heat and will retract part of what I said. I don't know for sure that you are a traitor, though I do have my suspicions. I take note that at least you did not directly call me an anti-Semite, which is an improvement over some commenters.
Apology accepted. I am not aware of a single instance in which Israel's American supporters have put Israel's interests before those of the US, but perhaps we have different perspectives on this. n nI was not there when you were punhced. For all I know you were minding your own business and being perfrectly civil. If you did engage in the kind of hyperbole, outright lies, abuse, double standards and angry outbursts that you have indulged in here, you might want to consider that some people may have erroneously but understandably concluded that violence was an appropriate response. n nAnd although I have no idea what vandag1 may have meant, may you live as long as G-d wills it — and then rot in hell.
Thanks, you too. n nYes, my rhetoric is harsh. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you that every time someone with half a backbone is subjected to abuse, whether verbal or especially physical, their rhetoric is prone to become harsher. Once you are slandered as an anti-Semite for the fifth time, you start to throw the gauntlet down and use tougher language. Not to mention being punched. I will tell you that my language on that day, before it happened, was hard but it was softer than what you have seen on this page. n nBDS proponents have a choice as to whether they want to use words like "Apartheid." Everyone knows that whatever the policy is, it is obviously somewhat less malign than South African apartheid. A BDS proponent could use milder terms like discrimination or violation of international law. But when you use the "A-bomb" against them repeatedly, don't be surprised when eventually they start to bring out their own A-bomb. The argument for apartheid terminology might be a stretch but leftists CAN make it and they are ready to defend it. n nI am not "plugged-in" enough to the BDS movement to know, in its case, who threw the first A-bombs. But I have strong suspicions from personal experience. Anti-Semitism accusations against me started coming before I ever used a word like apartheid, racist, etc. If you just look at Vandag1 above you will see the types of vilification BDS people are confronting. I never called anyone on this page a Nazi or told them to rot in hell (first), etc. Therefore — no, given the environment I'm not surprised at all that BDSers use terms like apartheid.
"When we have a Congress that jeers our own elected president with "You Lie," but gives eight standing ovations to the Prime Minister of Israel — yes, that means Israel has more power in Congress than I and my fellow real American voters do. " n nListen to yourself. It was a total of ONE congressman who rudely but trufhfully shouted "you lie." He was roundly castigated by his own party as well as by the president's party. And Netanyahu was applauded because he had the respect for Congress to speak inconvenient truths that are often overlooked or covered up, not because of the power of some nefarious Israeli lobby. n nWhat Netanyahu told the Congress was much more important to the long term welfare of the US than the disgraceful mendacity of President Obama. Does telling that unpopular truth mean that I am putting Israel's needs above those of the US? And are you so deluded by hate or whatever it is that drives you that you sincerely believe that the US would have an easier time of things in the Arab and [cont'd]
[PART 2] Muslim worlds if there were no Israel? n nIf I had the time and if I thought it would matter to you, I could list a few things that Israel has done for the US in the military, intelligence, scientific, medical, pharmaceutical and electronics sectors. Not to mention the blood and treasure that Israel has spilled as our proxy in the middle east, or at our insistence. And not to mention, to oiur shame, the many promises that we made to Israel and then broke. n nWhat have the Arab nations done for the US? Now and then dropped the monopoly price on the oil that the US helped them develop. Why have they done it? Not for our sake, but to keep their cash cow alive.
In answer to your central question, whether US interests in the Middle East would be better off without Israel: n nOne could fill a book with speculations, but the clearest and simplest way I can think to answer you is that if there were no Israel, we would read seldom about the Middle East in the newspapers, and hear about it seldom on TV. n nAnd that, in itself — yes, it would be an immense improvement. n nFortunately, though, no "disappearance" of Israel was ever necessary to bring about such a result. All it would take would be for Israel, the strong party in its neighborhood, to separate itself LEGALLY from its enemies, defend itself, and impose a just peace. This was possible and necessary at least 20 years ago and claims to the contrary have zero credibility. n nI recognize there are parties who WOULD like a "disappearance" of Israel. Those parties are irrelevant to me or to history, and therefore should not be part of a serious debate. Israel would like the debate to be about "Hamas vs. Israel," because in such a debate, Israel can be viewed more favorably. But it is not the serious debate.
If the Arabs had no guns, there would be no war. n nIf the Israelis had no guns, there would be no Israel.. n nI suppose you're right: "And that, in itself — yes, it would be an immense improvement.
Again, I don't care about your stupid war with the Arabs. Although it is odd that you seem to want Israel to vanish.
And as for the Nazi scum vandag1, he/she should also burn in Hell, and while in Hell should also be subjected to the gas chambers on a daily basis, the most fitting punishment for all Nazi slime.
Bill ignorant fool. By international law all of the "Palestine" ,eastern Jordan, the Golan Heights, and Southern Lebanon is the Jewish national homeland . Who needs dumb Christians like you. Without Jews you would still be in the stone age
Nobody cares about your stupid wars with the Arabs. Stop shoving your dirty laundry in everyone else's face.
"Nobody cares about your stupid wars with the Arabs. Stop shoving your dirty laundry in everyone else's face. " nYeah, just because they have pledged to exterminate the Jewish state and Jews in general is no reason to fight back against them. Israel should have the decency to let themselves be slaughtered. n nI remember hearing similar sentiments in the 1970's about Jews in the USSR. And reading about similar sentiments from the 1930s and early 1940s about all the war mongering Jews stirring up trouble between the US and Germany.
I just don't care about your thing with the Arabs. It is not that I support them. It is just irrelevant to me.
"I just don't care about your thing with the Arabs. It is not that I support them. It is just irrelevant to me. " nYeah, right. That's why you demonstrate in favor of economic warfare aimed at the Jewish state. For somebody who doesn't care about it, you seem to spend a lot of energy on it. nUnless it is just an excuse to give yourself permission to kick Jews, while at best making mental exception for the alibit Jews who are dumb enough or evil enough to join in your efforts. n nBut your sympathy for the likes of the AZcowboy or John-I-forget-the-rest-of-his-handle, who don't bother to disguies what they are about, should give you pause. Maybe your motives are not quite as pure as you like to pretend to yourself. Certainly you are not motivated by concern for the welfare of West Bank Arabs, as you are boycotting the very companies most likely[part 1 of 2]
[part 2 of 2] to help them put food on their tables. And they are treated much more harshly by Jordan, Lebanon. the UAE, Syria and Saudi Arabia, among other places, but you don't seem to be calling for sanctions against those countries. And some of those countries also receive US aid, so don't tell me that's the distinguishing factor, either.
Sorry, I just re-read your post about why you single out Israel and was reminded that your obsession has little to do with anything except your being a conspiracy nut. When you call for economic warfare against the world's only Jewish state, and give no justification beyone conspiracy nonsence, double standards and exaggeration, all the while impugning the loyalty of Americans who don't subscribe to your paranoia, don't come crying to me when people conclude that just maybe you don't care for Jews.
Speak for yourself.
Bill Jew hating worm: Israel doesn't need the US Army which hasn't won a war except as a minor partner of a coalition since 1898. Who cares about punk like you. Without Jews Christians would still be in the stone age.
Victim mentality is the common cause here, stock in trade for the Palestinians and foundation of Leftist appeal. Such things are as inevitable as a changing climate … sometimes slower, sometimes faster. n nSoon the Presbyterians will take an overt stand against Israel, others will follow. We've seen it all before.
Why is a so-called 'Christian' church that is so deeply involved in (anti-Semitic) Foreign policy politics granted any sort of tax exempt privileges?
Israel supporters constantly claim the moral high ground ("the only democracy in the Middle East," "the world's most humane army," etc.), and use their considerable political clout to drag the US into horrid aggressive wars. That's why.
There you go again, knowingly peddling lies that were debunked long ago. That's assuming you mean that Israel encouraged the US to invade Iraq. Or are you referring to the older lies that the International Jews (there was no Israel yet) pushed the US into war with Germany, not once but twice?
The intellectual authors of the attack on Iraq, though not its sole proponetnts, were pro-Likud Zionists like Wolfowitz, Feith, et al., and it is the activist Zionists who most actively preach extreme sanctions and war against Iran today. Consider the AIPAC-urged resolutions to which much of our Congress has signed on. Jews en masse no doubt opposed the Iraq war and oppose an iran war, but the Podhoretzes and Tobins salivate for such a war. Pod père wrote a whole book calling for just such an act of aggression. n nAs for the World Wars, that's an issue for another day. Have some red herring. I'll buy the sour cream.
I guess if you are a Jew, you are only allowed to have certain modes of thoughts dictated by persons like you. If you have any thoughts or beliefs outside of those bounds, it certainly must be for nefarious, Jew-centric reasons. Of course.
Ignorant uneducated old man : Why would Israel need an army which just lost 2 more wars? They could not defeat a third world backwards Vietnam nor North Korea, nor China which had no aircraft or armor. By the time the "great" US Army joined the fight against Germany , the Soviet Union had killed 3 million Germans. You sound like a fool. Israel doesn't need the US military unless they want to lose .
Bill; n nAll the watchdogs who are crying "human rights violation" don't have any responsibility for the survival of a people. You say Israel violates human rights, I disagree – there actions have only one purpose: to end the hostility intended to destroy their nation. Their tough stance is not because they want to oppress people but because they want to be free and without suffering acts of violence against its citizens. n nYou also claim the whole Western world is supporting Israel, as if it's some kind of Jewish conspiracy – yes – you do sound anti-Semitic and if you were you'd never admit it. Anti-Semitism is the norm in some circles. Do you know that, according to the FBI, the Jews suffer more hate crimes than any other group? Perhaps you think they deserve it. n nThe US stands alone in the world in support of Israel, the European nations were first bullied by the threat of oil shortages and now they cower before the masses of Arabs inundating their lands. n nYou talk about people putting Israel's interests before Americas as if it's that clear. Maybe you think that with the elimination of Israel, there is no more threat from Islam. Surely they've made clear that you can't be friends with both. n nThe US is more than dollars and cents, Israel stands as the only beacon of hope for human dignity in that region. Most Palestinians would rather be ruled by Israel than Arab (kind of a no brainer, eh?), who know how many Africans are trying to escape their hell by getting into Israel. Medicine, education, culture, government, financial opportunity … Israel provides the only hope for most people in that region and if it wasn't for their pure intolerance they could share in the blessings of Israel. n n n
AAGH the computer erased my whole long reply. n nLet me get to the important part. Israel minus the illegal settlements and the illegal part of the wall that covers them would be absolutely fine. Yes, some Arabs might continue hating Israel with or without those changes, but frankly, they don't matter. Israel did not lose the PR war because of them, it lost the PR war because it lost people like me, people who simply object to the things that are actually illegal. n nIsrael WITH the settlements is a disaster for all Americans, who have enough problems already, without the expensive difficulty of supporting this state in the Middle East that has been involved in wars for decades and just made things much harder by putting itself on the side of wrong. The settlements ARE the chief human rights violation, because the other stuff, mostly, is indeed arguably legitimate self-defense. n nAnd yes, absolutely, the terrorists come after us too because of Israel. Where's the surprise? They're not stupid, they know we're funding Israel. n nIsrael WITHOUT the settlements might be something we could all be happy about, and maybe all those wonderful things you talk about, the medical advances etc., would be things we could really begin to take note of appreciatively. n nYou say it's too difficult to dismantle the settlements now that they're so entrenched? Maybe Israel should have thought of that 20 years ago, when the settlements were smaller, instead of spending all that time, and so much energy, slandering critics as anti-Semites. n nAnd the sad thing is, I know the only reason you are even paying minimal attention to what I am writing is thanks to BDS. Otherwise you would just be totally ignoring it. BDS has successfully instilled enough nervousness in right-wing Israel supporters, that they think maybe, just maybe, they should pay a little bit of attention to the critics, even if they disagree. And although it is sad that that is what it took, it is in fact an already visible success of BDS.
This is a complicated issue. You hold that the settlements and the wall are illegal, you're wrong – do some research. Just because some Leftists and Arabs make a claim doesn't make it true. n nWhy would you abandon Israel based on specious claims? Why, because it's convenient. Hell, how much easier life would be if we could make friends with the Arabs, eh? n nAnd no, I've had my radar up about people like you for decades – this is nothing new.
Bill the idiot : There are no illegal settlements only indigenous people living in their ancient homeland. Jews have more right to live in Judea and Samaria than you any Euro-American does to live in the US.
Remember this–it's the establishment Protestants who are anti-Israel and anti-Semitic and the non-establishment Protestants who hate us, period! n nIt is no accident, as Stalin used to say, that these establishment Protestants (Presbyterians, Espiscopalians) who are moving TO the coalition of scum, slime, filth, vermin and manure that is the Democ-rat Party and and the Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentacostalists etc. who today vote Republican.
"coalition of scum, slime, filth, vermin and manure"… I remember this phrase from earlier. You must be cutting and pasting from yourself, I see. n nAren't sweeping generalizations about all members of a particular sect a bad idea?
The comment about the Democ-rat Party is based on the scum who win Democ-rat primaries, whose votes are behind their primary victories and how they behave while in office, i.e. their voting records in office on legislation and issues and the impact of these behaviors on society. n nAs i wrote, I write again–The Democ-rat Party is a coalition of scum, slime, filth, vermin and manure!
In the eyes of the Lord, all humankind is a coalition of scum, slime, filth, vermin and manure. n nRemind me, are you Hamas or Team Israel again?
What makes a loser like you a "Patriot" . Is being a neo-Nazi the definition of patriotism?
As I'm reading the comments, and digesting the arguments for singling out the only Jewish state for criticism, I wonder to myself what the attitude of the mainline christian groups were when faced with the ongoing tragedy of the Holocaust. Did they rally to permit the St LOUIS to anchor in an American port? Did they urge their political leaders to take immediate steps to stop the slaughter? After the war of 1948, when Jordanian forces took control of East Jerusalem and immediately destroyed and desecrated the Jewish Quarter and did not permit Jews to worship at the Wailing Wall, was there a clamor from the Presbyterians protesting the gross violation of Human Rights? Was there a move afoot to boycott Jordan? Was there a protest when during the years of Jordanian control of the West Bank, there was never an attempt made to establish a Palestinian State? The answers are obvious and speaks volumes of the true motivation of the Boycotters.
Well. let's get more recent. After 9/11, a coalition of Christians accompanied Muslim Americans to supermarkets and on similar errands to protect them from the violence they were certain would follow — and which, with rare and disgusting and widely condemned excepions, never did. But during various military actions by Israel, when Jews were being assaulted on the street in the US by Jew-haters, Muslim and otherwise, and Jewish businesses and houses of worship were being targetted, did any of those same churches demonstrate similar feelings of responsiblity to protect their Jewish neighbors or show solidarity with them? Don't be silly.