Methodist missionary to Israel: having portrait of Golda is "not very American"

In honor of the Fourth of July holiday, Janet Lahr Lewis, the United Methodists' chief liaison for Methodist visitors to Israel and Palestine, has published a column on the Methodists' official website in which she complains that the U.S. Ambassador's residence in Israel has on its walls

"portraits of ... Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, even Theodore Hertzl -- not very American in my view."

She goes on to write that

"For me, though, the Israel independence day evokes visions of slaughter and destruction, of forced marches and imprisonment. The U.S. Independence Day evokes thoughts of “freedom fighters” and “patriots.” ... Why don’t we refer to Palestinians fighting for the same rights as “freedom fighters” and “patriots,” instead of as “terrorists” and “extremists”?"

Lewis' column is published in the July 13, 2009 edition of the "Faith in Action" newsletter published by the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, which can be read here.

Lewis serves as the coordinator of Methodist missionaries working in Israel and Palestine. A biographical statement on their website states that

"Lewis ... educates visitors about the realities of the situation, organizes conferences, develops media campaigns, offers worship opportunities, hosts delegations to the area and oversees other special events ... (She) is the main contact for Volunteers in Mission teams and United Methodists who wish to follow the recommendation of the denomination’s General Conference to spend a significant amount of time in the area with local Christians."

While serving as the United Methodist liaison to Israel and Palestine, Lewis simultaneously served for many years as one of the leaders of the Palestinian organization Sabeel, working in Sabeel's Jerusalem office and organizing their international outreach. Sabeel is one of the main promoters of the anti-Israel boycott and divestiture movement. (Read here.)

The Methodist church may have their reasons for questioning how "American" their countrymen are. They should make those reasons explicit, rather than snipe in an offhanded manner. If they consider having portraits of Israeli leaders to be un-American, they should explain exactly why. If they cannot, they should apologize for promoting the view that friendship with Israel represents disloyalty to the United States.

Moreover, the United Methodist church needs to explain why their liaison in Israel and Palestine, charged with facilitating both missionary visits and church tours to the area, would characterize the founding of the State of Israel in such a biased, distorted manner.

Lastly, the United Methodists should clarify whether they agree with Lewis' characterization of Palestinian military actions against Israel as patriotic freedom-fighting.

Do these views represent the official policy of the United Methodists or are they only the personal views of their chief missionary representative in Israel?

Intemperate, rancorous reactions to Obama endorsements

Emory University Professor Deborah Lipstadt, who has endorsed Barack Obama for the presidency (read here), has a blog post detailing the venomous attacks she's received from Republicans in response (read here).

I have been inundated with emails that are replete with all sorts of idiocy. They are, by and large, too stupid to recount. There is a sense of real hysteria in them. There may be good reasons to support McCain but these people are off the wall.

I have been told that Obama is: pro-Muslim, anti-American,pro-Farrakhan [that Farrakhan is a close associate of Obama], anti-Israel, (and) a Manchurian candidate [this from a nameless person who was described as a top U.S. analyst in DC... ].

I have been told that I have spun and skewed, engaged in major distortions, shown a lack of critical scholarship,offered arguments with no intellectual credibility [all of the above came with no examples of how I did so... just the charges], am a self-hating liberal Jew, (and that I) don't know Jewish law.

Then today these folks really hit bottom: they sent an email out contending that the O people form with their two hands [it is akin to the three fingers people used to hold aloft as a sign of support for George W.] is the same as a Hitler salute..... This is hardly worth comment... are they suggesting that Obama and Hitler were in cahoots? Maybe they don't know that Hitler had been dead 15 years when Obama was born.... that neo-Nazis are behind his campaign?

Finally, many of these emails repeat [in exactly the same language... as if it came out of a mimeograph machine... if you remember what that is] that I told people to vote for Obama because he is Black. Give me a break. Anyone who can read that into my last paragraph smells to me like a latent racist or maybe like someone who can't read.

Jews have prospered in this country in countless and unimaginable ways. America has given us tremendous opportunities. While no one should vote for Barack Obama because he is black, the fact that a black man is a nominee for the highest office in the land constitutes an affirmation of the fact that at long last, some of the final barriers of discrimination are crumbling. For Jews it is yet another reminder of the blessings this country has offered them and other minorities.

I wonder if these folks will say the same thing about Gen. Powell's statement this morning on Meet the Press

And I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud--not just African-Americans, but all Americans--that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world.

* * *

Professor Lipstadt need wonder no longer whether General Powell will be similarly slandered. Here's historian Judith Apter Klinghoffer writing at George Mason University's History News Network (read here):

Do you believe that Colin Powell would have endorsed a WHITE DEMOCRATIC Candidate for president? Me neither. Do you believe Colin Powell would not have run for president had he been WHITE? Me neither. Do you believe that Barack Obama would have offered Powell or any other black man who failed to endorse him a seat at the table? Me neither.

To be honest, I never liked the man. He struck me as a coward. Yes, he was a general but he let fear of assassination prevent him from running for the presidency and he betrayed those who gave him a seat at the table in ill timed books.

Well, the two man deserve each other. Honor, gratitude and loyalty are not values familiar to either of them. Throwing old friends under bus is a common sport for them. All we can hope is that the American people will see through the media hype and give them their just dessert. A defeat in the polls.

Disgusting.

Klinghoffer's intemperate statement stands in sharp contrast to General Powell's thoughtful, well-reasoned one (view here). Klinghoffer is unable to mount a coherent argument against General Powell's endorsement of Obama, so instead slings senseless insults. On the other hand, in his statement, General Powell details the strengths of both McCain and Obama, explains why he supports Obama, and explicitly disavows the sort of racial bias Klinghoffer imputes. He also explicitly condemns the rancor of the Republican campaign. Klinghoffer, in her angry response, senselessly calls General Powell "a coward" in spite of his distinguished record of service in combat. Equally senselessly, she calls Powell "disloyal" in spite of his loyalty -- excessive loyalty, in fact -- to the Bush administration, who, it must be said, used him very badly indeed. Most senselessly of all, Kilinghoffer also tells us, as if we should care, that she "never liked" Powell. Her ad hominem argument (such as it is -- it's more invective than argument) tells me that, in addition to having a problem with anger management, she's also a very poor judge of character.


This blog has received a comment similarly accusing General Powell of being motivated by racial bias to endorse Obama. Here's part of my response:

(W)hy are you suspicious when one African-American supports another? Are you similarly suspicious of whites supporting other whites, or do you take that for granted? You need to examine your own racial bias. I believe that psychologists call what you're doing "projection".

* * *

Harvard University Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, a notable supporter of Israel, and, like Professor Lipstadt, a backer of Hilary Clinton's run for the Democratic nomination, has also come out in support of Barack Obama (read here). He has subsequently come under attack from the left.

Blogger Richard Silverstein, whose idealistically titled blog Tikkun Olam has a reputation for being harshly combative (especially behind the scenes), is especially harsh in his critique of Dershowitz' endorsement statement (read here).

Though Dershowitz is a nominal Democrat, I still find it odd and off-putting that he’d endorse Obama. He’s clearly far out of sync with Obama’s world view. Dersh endorsed Hillary in the primaries and certainly seems much more comfortable with her hawkish, slavishly pro-Israel line.

Hardly "out of sync" with Obama, here's what the life-long Democrat Dershowitz actually said in his endorsement:

I support (Obama) on policies unrelated to Israel, such as the Supreme Court, women's rights, separation of church and state and the economy. But I also prefer Obama to McCain on the issue of Israel ... because I think it is better for Israel to have a liberal supporter in the White House than to have a conservative supporter in the oval office. Obama's views on Israel will have greater impact on young people, on Europe, on the media and on others who tend to identify with the liberal perspective. Although I believe that centrists liberals in general tend to support Israel, I acknowledge that support from the left seems to be weakening as support from the right strengthens. The election of Barack Obama -- a liberal supporter of Israel -- will enhance Israel's position among wavering liberals.

For Silverstein, a harsh critic of Israel with no interest in enhancing Israel's position among liberals, that's a bit too much. Silverstein, who refers to Dershowitz as "Dersh" (maybe he's using the Norman Finkelstein style guide), claims without any evidence or supportive argument, that the timing of the Dershowitz endorsement was cynically based on a desire to be on the winning side. In a moment of venting, he admits his bias, stating "I can’t tell whether I despise Marty Peretz or Alan Dershowitz more," and questions why Harvard would allow Dershowitz on its faculty.

Silverstein appears to be operating under the misimpression that Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are at opposite ends of a political spectrum, the nature of which he does not spell out. If he truly believes that Clinton and Obama disagree so completely about Israel (or, for that matter, about the economy or globalization or a wide range of other issues), I'm afraid that it's Silverstein and not Dershowitz who's in for a severe disappointment should Obama win.

By the way, Silverstein has already been disappointed by Obama's support for Israel. Silverstein advocates divesting stock in corporations doing business in Israel, and earlier this year supported a deceptive anti-Israel divestment referendum aimed at the Seattle municipal employee pension fund (read here) -- a referendum which was subsequently struck down by a Washington State judge as illegal (read here). When Obama gave his well-received speech at AIPAC in June of this year, Silverstein accused him of "pandering to his audience's prejudices", without specifying what he thought these prejudices were. Silverstein then complained that Obama linked anti-Israel divestiture (which Silverstein supports) with anti-Israel boycotts (which Silverstein claims to oppose). (Read here.) It seems to me that Obama's inclination to connect divestment and boycott is entirely rational, while Silverstein's attempt to differentiate between the two is either salesmanship or wishful thinking.

Something tells me that Silverstein and others on the left are in for more severe disappointments if they're hoping for Obama to demonize Israel.

Jewish Voice for Peace: for freedom of speech except when they're against it

I recently wrote about a move among anti-Israel activists in Seattle to put a referendum on November's ballot which would mandate that the city's pension funds divest stock in corporations doing business in Israel (read here). Divestment advocates have been using the endorsement of a group called "Jewish Voice for Peace" (or "JVP") to deceive Seattle voters into believing that progressive, pro-peace Jews consider divestment a legitimate tactic. In fact, there is no indication that this is true.

JVP is an extremely small group. They do not make their membership figures public, but there are some indications that actual membership in the group is in the range of 500 - 1,000. A recent petition drive by JVP collected 4,000 signatures, and a recent letter writing drive collected 1,400 signatures. Assuming that their mailing list is larger than their formal membership, and that their petitions are forwarded to others by those on their mailing list, 1,000 members would be a very generous estimate of their formal membership. Assuming that JVP's membership is 100% Jewish, the organization represents between 0.008% - 0.015% of American Jews. In spite of this, JVP's leaders and their political associates portray the group as having a wide constituency.

JVP has made a name for itself as a supporter of divestment from companies doing business in Israel. In doing so, they, on the one hand, associate with extreme anti-Israel groups like ANSWER (read the ADL's take on ANSWER here), and, on the other hand, market themselves to groups that actually have mainstream, moderate constituencies like the United Methodists. Depending on their target audience, they sometimes represent themselves as mainstream and moderate themselves, saying to those audiences that they advocate very limited divestment targeting only corporations providing direct material support to the so-called "occupation" of the West Bank, Gaza and "East Jerusalem", sometimes naming specific individual corporations. The truth, however, is that JVP has a history of calling for a complete boycott of Israel, including of Israeli artists wishing to perform in the United States.

In one instance, JVP supported the group called "Women in Black-Los Angeles" (or "WIB-LA") in demanding that the individual members of the Israel Philharmonic sign a sort of loyalty oath with respect to their views of the political situation in the Middle East if they wanted to avoid a boycott of a planned concert in Los Angeles. WIB-LA sent, and JVP's leaders co-signed, a very polite letter to the orchestra's musicians, referring to the musicians as "representatives of the State of Israel", and giving them an ultimatum to sign a letter of support for the views of WIB-LA and JVP and return it three months prior to the concert in February 2007. (The letter containing this demand bore the closing "Peace and blessings". Nice touch.)

When the musicians did not sign this loyalty oath, WIB-LA picketed outside the concert with signs reading "BOYCOTT ISRAEL".




(Read about the protest action supporting a complete boycott of Israel at Women in Black - Los Angeles. Read the letter demanding the musicians sign a loyalty oath here at the so-called "OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF NORMAN G. FINKELSTEIN".)

Now, JVP (via their blog, "Muzzlewatch") is protesting two institutions (Spertus Museum and the University of Michigan Press) banning intellectual content deemed to be biased against Israel and, in the case of one, overtly anti-Semitic (read JVP's views on this here, a press report here, and the views of Stand With Us here). JVP's reasoning? They believe in freedom of expression. Their action against the Israel Philharmonic has apparently been forgotten.

JVP did not mention their push to boycott Israeli creative artists on "Muzzlewatch", the hypocrisy of doing so being too apparent. Maybe they need to have an alternate blog for such actions. They could call it "Muzzle".

Seattle's deceptive anti-Israel referendum

A coalition of Seattle activists calling itself Seattle Divest from War and Occupation (SDWO) is petitioning to get an anti-Israel divestment referendum on November's ballot and they are attempting to deceive voters in the process. The referendum's sweeping anti-Israel provisions are concealed both in the text of the petition and in the statements of its supporters, both of which highlight its other provisions calling for divestment in companies profiting from the war in Iraq. The anti-Iraq War provisions of Initiative 97 are touted in its title ("DIVEST FROM WAR Initiative") which is printed in a large font headline above a description of the referendum in smaller print. The full text of the referendum appears on a separate page which appears after the petition's signature page, potentially deceiving voters who don't read all the way through to see the less popular anti-Israel language. (View a PDF of the petition here.)

The fact that the proposal's authors have chosen to link the potentially popular anti-war proposal to the less popular anti-Israel one raises questions as to their priorities. Are they more interested in promoting an anti-Zionist agenda than they are in ending the war? If not, what practical reason do they have to link the two issues making passage of the anti-war provisions less likely? Why don't they give voters the option of signing separate petitions, one concerning Israel, the other Iraq? Why do they conceal the anti-Israel provisions of this referendum within the Trojan Horse of the anti-Iraq-war provisions?

In addition to attempting to conceal its anti-Israel provisions, SDWO have also lied about how sweeping they would be. Some supporters of the referendum (read here) have implied that it would target only companies providing military equipment used in the West Bank and Gaza. Some have even claimed that the bill would only effect Halliburton and Caterpillar. This is patently false. Here's a quote from the proposed referendum:

The city of Seattle shall not invest its employees’ retirement funds in ...(c) corporations that provide direct material support for activities of the Israeli government within the occupied and besieged territories of West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights (and) (d) corporations with a presence (including but not limited to offices, manufacturing plants, franchises, and significant trade ties) in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories of West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights.

Please note the vagueness of the term "presence". The referendum pointedly does not limit the word "presence" to "offices, manufacturing plants, franchises, and significant trade ties". In fact, it does not define the limits of the term "presence" at all. A law with language that vague would provide bureaucrats with arbitrary power with respect to deciding which corporations to punish. In effect, any corporation doing business in Israel could be deemed by the administrators of the pension fund to be "present" by dint of some connection to the areas specified and subject to divestment.

Although the Seattle divestment proponents like to cite arms manufacturers as their targets (except Boeing, see below), in fact, this measure would mostly effect corporations doing business in completely non-military fields such as software, retail, agriculture, banking and pharmaceuticals, many of which employ and serve Arabs as well as Jews. Corporations specifically targeted by previous divestment initiatives include: Ahava, Boston Scientific, Domino's Pizza, GM, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, International Paper, Johnson & Johnson, Kodak, Lehmann Brothers, Lucent, McDonald's, Merck, Motorola, Pizza Hut, Teva, Texas Instruments and Volvo. Under the terms of Initiative 97, all of these corporations would be subject to divestment. Corporations which operate under contract with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, such as Caterpillar and Cement Roadstone would be subject to divestment as well.

In fact, this measure is so vaguely written that it could actually apply to corporations doing business with relief agencies providing services to Palestinians insofar as they act in concert with the Israeli government or provide services to Israelis. It could also apply to the corporations whose equipment is used to provide fuel or even water to Palestinians if Israelis also used that fuel or water in the regions named in the law. Many of the potentially effected corporations actually employ Palestinians and/or provide Palestinians with goods and services.

The literature produced by the New England United Methodist Conference (NEUMC), the group which spearheaded the anti-Israel divestment movement in the U.S. and provided the model the others follow, is helpful in understanding exactly how broad the intentions of the divestment movement really are, and why the provisions of Initiative 97 are so vague. (Read here and here) Take Blockbuster Video as an example. The NEUMC goes so far as to target Blockbuster for punishment because it

has kiosks in illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land. These settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Companies providing services to these settlements, which violate international law, contribute to their growth and appeal for Israelis. They make it harder to withdraw Israelis from the occupied territories, an essential step for any lasting peace agreement with Palestinians.

"(O)ccupied Palestinian land" in this instance refers to places such as French Hill (a neighborhood in Jerusalem), Maaele Adumim and Ariel. Just how video kiosks interfere with lasting peace is unclear. The theory seems to be that Israelis with access to DVDs are less likely to leave.

The fact that completely harmless commercial activity such as this has been specifically targeted by the divestment movement would seem to portend that, if Seattle were to implement this measure, the definition of "presence" would be very broad indeed. Any business whose goods or services are sold to or even used by Israelis beyond the pre-1967 "Green Line", including within Jerusalem, could be subject to divestment.

In fact, the inclusion of "East Jerusalem" in this measure also broadens the referendum's scope beyond any practicable definition. Jerusalem has effectively been unified for 41 years, since Israel removed that city's barbed wire barricades and walls which were erected by the Jordanians in 1948. Targeting a business with a "presence" on a particular block or in a particular neighborhood would be completely unworkable. Would the pizza delivery guy have to consult a 1967 map of Jerusalem to determine if he was subjecting Pizza Hut to divestment? Would he have to ask if the recipient of the pizza were Arab or Jew? And if an Arab and a Jew shared the pizza...

The measure would even punish commercial activity in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. If a publicly traded corporation produces religious articles such as siddurim, tallitot, or kipot used at the Western Wall, it would be subject to divestment.

Here's the bottom line: any corporation whose goods or services are used in Israel could be subject to divestment under this measure, depending on the interpretation of its vague language.

Local Impact

This measure has local implications specific to Seattle voters concerned about local businesses, complicating matters for its advocates. Seattle-based corporations such as Boeing, Microsoft and Starbucks could be subject to punitive divestment, and the divestment people are anxious to spin this aspect every which way but loose. The Seattle Post Intelligencer has reported that the measure's backers claim that the measure would somehow not effect Boeing, although they don't explain why not (read here, fourth paragraph). A local pro-divestment activist named Richard Silverstein has claimed (here, in the last sentence) that Boeing would be exempt because, in his words, "the company is not involved in any commercial enterprises in the settlements". However, both the NEUMC (here) and the Seattle Palestine Solidarity Committee (here) specifically name Boeing as subject to divestment because it supplies aircraft used by Israel in the Palestinian territories. Boeing also does business with the Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems (ESLT) (read here) which would fall under the "direct material support" provision of the referendum. Yet Silverstein and the referendum's unnamed "backers" maintain that Boeing's business in Israel somehow wouldn't be considered either "direct material support" or a "presence" under the referendum.

In fact, not only would Boeing's military presence fall under the aegis of this measure, such innocuous activities as Microsoft's sales, user support or training programs in the areas specified in the referendum would subject that Seattle-based corporation to divestment as well. Furthermore, Microsoft acquires several Israeli startups every year and has R & D facilities in Haifa (read here) and Herliya (read here). If the referendum passes, it would remain to be determined by whoever would determine such matters whether these operations have a "presence" in the relevant areas. Transportation or other programs for employees living in the targeted areas, subcontracts with other businesses, or contracts with the Israeli government might well open the door to Seattle being forced to divest its Microsoft stock under the broad terms of Initiative 97.

Even Starbucks, which does not have any stores in Israel (read here), might be subject to the measure, based on their "presence" as a funder of various Jewish and Zionist charities. In fact, anti-Israel activists have specifically targeted Starbucks for a boycott because of the support of its CEO Howard Schultz for Israel (read here and here). The boycott Starbucks movement has produced virulent anti-Semitic propaganda such as this. If Initiative 97 passes, Seattle's pension fund administrators may be forced to rule on whether charitable donations to Jewish institutions in Jerusalem constitute a "presence".

Seattle has relatively few Jews and little connection to Israel, but SDWO has attempted to capitalize on one local connection. The Seattle area was the home of Rachel Corrie, the Palestine Solidarity Movement activist killed by a Caterpillar bulldozer in Gaza. SDWO has played on this connection, blaming the Caterpillar corporation for Corrie's death and going so far as to claim that Initiative 97 would only mandate divestment in two companies: Halliburton and Caterpillar.

One local connection to anti-Israel terrorism took place just two years ago in 2006 when the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle (located in the 36th LD) was the subject of a horrible terrorist attack by a Muslim proclaiming opposition to Israel (read here and here). Six women were shot in that attack, including one who was 17 weeks pregnant. One of the victims died.

The Referendum's Sponsors

Initiative 97's organizational sponsors (listed here) have a history of opposing Israel's existence, supporting a "one-state solution" and advocating complete boycott of Israel. Some of them have even come out in favor of suicide bombing and terrorism. This advocacy is not at all reflected in the literature they've published in support of the petition or on the petition itself.

One of the initiative's main sponsors is the Seattle Green Party, and one of the main endorsers is the Washington State Green Party. The Washington State Greens, like the U.S. Green Party, has a history of anti-Israel activism in addition to it's better known pacificism, anti-globalization and environmentalism. With respect to the presidential election, the Washington Greens voted for Cynthia McKinney, who is now the Green Party's presumptive presidential nominee (read here and here). (McKinney is still listed as a Democrat, not a Green, on the SDWO website, here.) McKinney, who has built her political career largely around her opposition to Israel, recently advocated the "Palestinian right of return" (a code word for a "one state solution") in a speech to an anti-Israel rally at the UN on the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding (read here: "Cynthia McKinney on Israel: ‘Not in my name’"). McKinney has formally endorsed the Seattle divestment referendum and promotes it on her website, albeit in deceptive terms. Her website states that the referendum "would block the city from investing its pension funds in corporations that benefit from the Iraq war, or from certain other Middle East military occupations." (Read here.)

The Greens elsewhere advocate a complete boycott of Israel in more open terms. In November 2005, a resolution (read here) of the national Green Party called for:

"civil society institutions and organizations around the world to implement a comprehensive divestment and boycott program (i.e. against Israel). Further, the party calls on all governments to support this program and to implement state level boycotts."

The U.S. Green Party is apparently extremely ambitious with respect to their influence on "all world governments".

In October, 2007, the U.S. Green Party again called for a complete "economic boycott", as well as an end to aid for Israel (read here). They made similar calls for a complete boycott in March 2008 (read here) and, in honor of Israel's 60th anniversary, here.

Considering the Green Party's history as the spoiler in the 2000 presidential election, one can only speculate as to their motivation in Seattle in 2008. A ballot measure such as this would almost certainly attract the attention of Republicans who would seek to tie it both to the Obama campaign and Washington State Democratic candidates.

Initiative 97 is also sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). This group has made the divestment movement their focus, especially with respect to groups such as the United Methodist and Presbyterian churches. Divestment advocates frequently cite Jewish Voice for Peace to counter charges that opposition to Israel is rooted in anti-Semitism (read here and here and this pdf). JVP, like the Green Party, goes so far as to call for a complete boycott of Israel (read here), a position which they do not generally reveal in their pro-divestment advocacy. They also recently sponsored a "Nakba" commemoration on the 60th anniversary of the creation of Israel (read here). Liat Weingart, one of the groups leaders, recently lobbied the United Methodists to divest their pension funds from Israel. In the course of her speech to the United Methodist General Conference, she said “(i)f you haven’t been accused of anti-Semitism yet, you haven’t been doing the work of Justice.” The audience reportedly "gasped and laughed". (At that same conference, the Methodist Federation for Social Action voted against resolutions opposing anti-Semitism and calling for human rights in Muslim nations.) (Read here.) The Methodists, to their credit, ultimately voted against divestment and in support of the measures opposing anti-Semitism and for human rights.

Another of Initiative 97's sponsors, Palestine Solidarity Committee, Seattle, actively opposes a two state solution and opposes Israel's existence (read here), stating

We demand ...establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital toward the establishment of a secular democratic state in historic Palestine.

Nothing on the SDWO website or in the pro-referemdum literature indicates this sponsor's opposition to the existence of Israel.

Similarly opposed to Israel's existence is Initiative 97 sponsor ANSWER. (Read about ANSWER here.) That group's record of opposition to Israel's existence is simply too extensive to cover in this forum. Suffice it to say that their extremism on this issue even got them on the fighting side of such anti-war groups as United for Peace and Justice and the War Resisters League (two groups notably absent from the list of sponsors of Initiative 97). (Read here and here.)

Fight within local Democratic Party

One of the petition's main sponsors, Amy Hagopian, is actively campaigning to win the measure the Democratic Party's endorsement in Washington's 36th Legislative District. Hagopian, who is listed on the SDWO website as being unaffiliated to a political party (read here), is also attempting to get the Democratic Party to provide workers to gather signatures for the petition. If she succeeds in getting the local Democratic Party to approve her proposals, this would certainly be fodder for the Republicans in the upcoming presidential election. It would inevitably be tied to Obama. Whatever the ultimate fate of the petition, the actions of Democrats in this small legislative district in Washington State may have national importance.

The voters in the 36th LD tend to vote to the left. Seattle's Jewish population, and its awareness about Israel, is relatively low. Support for Israel in this sort of area is frequently portrayed as intrinsically neoconservative, pro-Likud or pro-Bush. The idea of progressive Zionism is a bit of a foreign concept there. The liberal voters of the 36th LD, who are being currently being lobbied quite intensely by the divestment advocates, would seem fertile ground for support for Initiative 97. On the other hand, local opponents of the measure are organizing to oppose supporting the measure and they're putting up a good fight to tying the Democratic Party to such an extreme anti-Israel measure.

Now the good news

A coalition of Jewish groups has filed suit to prevent the measure from reaching the ballot. In the first phase of the litigation, which dealt with the deceptive language of the petition, the judge decided that the language was "unclear" but not "misleading". He also decided that, while the language of the petition should be clarified, the signatures to the earlier, unclear version should still be counted in order to protect the rights of those who signed. My question concerning that is what about the rights of those who signed based on unclear language, but would not have signed has the meaning of the petition been plain?

Now here's the good part: an upcoming phase of the litigation deals with the question of whether the resolution would be enforceable even if it were to be placed on the ballot and approved. Seattle's pension funds are administered by a board which, while appointed by the City Council, operates independently of the council. This board is not subject to referendums, City Council resolutions, executive orders by the Mayor, etc. Under the statute which established the Pension Fund board, when deciding where to invest its funds, the board can consider only factors relating to the performance of its investments. The divestment advocates, for their resolution to pass judicial muster for their resolution, will have to prove that the broad range of companies which the referendum covers will actually have perform poorly as investments. In other words, they need to prove that stock in companies like Microsoft or Pizza Hut (both of which qualify for divestment under the plain language meaning of the referendum) will lose value as the result of their business with the State of Israel or in the specified geographic area. According to Robert Jacobs of Stand With Us Northwest, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the divestment advocates may find this extremely difficult to prove.

The Seattle City Attorney, which sided with the divestment advocates in the first phase of the litigation involving the deceptive language of the petition, has joined with the petition opponents in this phase of the litigation, further improving the odds that this referendum won't be on the November ballot. The question of what damage the divestment movement will do to the Democratic Party in the process remains to be seen.

British attorney Anthony Julius, has said with respect to the British academic union's Israel boycott resolution: "Going for a boycott is gesture politics in the first place but a resolution that comes close but avoids actually spelling it out is a gesture wrapped up in a gesture - it's nothing more than a bad smell." (Read here.) This is equally true of Seattle's deceptive divestment initiative. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

The Forward's May 21 report on Seattle's anti-Israel referendum is an excellent backgrounder: "Seattle Activists Try To Put Divestment Measure on City Ballot (by Rebecca Spence).


[As an aside on another issue: in researching the Washington State Greens for this story, I was surprised to discover the extent to which they promote "9/11 truth" conspiracy theories. I have a post on that subject here, cross-posted here. Cynthia McKinney has made "9/11 truth" a main plank of her platform (read here).]

THIS ARTICLE IS CROSS POSTED AT DAILY KOS (READ HERE)

Washington State Greens promote "9/11 truth" conspiracy theories

Airplane wreckage near the Pentagon, 9/11/2001
[NOTE, June 30, 2009: the Washington State Green Party website is no longer fully funcitonal, so a number of the linked-to documents are no longer available. A notice at the Washington Green Party's URL (here, halfway down the page) states that the party itself is "dormant". I'm looking for archived copies of the linked-to material elsewhere. My apologies for the dead links below!]

In researching Washington State Green Party for a story on their advocacy of a deceptive referendum which would divest Seattle's pension fund from companies doing business in Israel (a story I hope to post soon), I was surprised to discover the extent to which they promote "9/11 truth" and other related conspiracy theories.

They have on their platform committee a working group devoted to "9/11 truth" (read here and here and here) which has succeeded in getting the national Green Party to consider a platform provision on that subject that seems likely to be approved. (Read that resolution here.) The resolution refers to "the purported crash of United Airlines Flight 93" and calls for an investigation by "impartial experts in the fields of physics, structural engineering (and) architecture".

The Washington State Greens' website features an essay called "9/11 Truth is THE Issue: A Lesson for Green Politics" by Richard Curtis, PhD. Curtis is adjunct professor of philosophy at Seattle University and a prominent member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin's group who also chairs the Green's "9/11 truth" working group. In addition to being an advocate for 9/11-related conspiracies, he's also an advocate of Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory (read here), arguing that FDR knew of the attack beforehand and let it happen to facilitate U.S. entry into the war. This extremely absurd belief, originated by "historical revisionist" / Holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes (read here) is common among "truthers". They are apparently unaware of how close Japan came to winning the war at Pearl Harbor. If the Japanese had destroyed our fuel supplies and aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. very well might have lost the war in the Pacific. There is absolutely no way that risk would have been deliberately taken.

The failure of conspiracy theorists to consider the tremendous risks and minimal benefits of the inside jobs they imagine is just as true of 9/11 'inside job' conspiracies as well. Why would the Bush administration risk having an attack on the United States to start a war? Haven't these "9/11 truth" people ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin? If the U.S. were seeking to create an illusory act of aggression as a pretext for a war, why would it have been an attack on New York and Washington, and not an attack on a U.S. aircraft or ship, or the border of an ally being breached, or something with fewer loose ends and risk of exposure. Not to mention, as evil as the conspiracy theorists believe our government to be, who would believe that they actually want that sort of harm to come to this country? Setting aside the innumerable errors of fact in their case, as well as the questionable (and always essential) belief that the conspiracy could be kept quiet, the "truther" theories never really give a plausible motive for taking such incredible risks when lesser ones would have been just as effective.

Dr. Curtis argues at length in his piece that the 9/11 "official conspiracy theory" was a lie generated by a corrupt two party system, thus linking the Green Party's reason for being (i.e. as an alternative to the two parties) with the "9/11 truth" movement. I strongly recommend that anyone considering support for the Greens or their proposals read this Green Party document (CLICK HERE [NOTE: the Washington State Green Party website is no longer fully funcitonal, so this document is unavailable. A notice at their URL states that the party itself is "dormant". I'm looking for archived copies of the linked-to material.]) before they do so to get an indication of where the Greens are coming from.

The document connects 115 disparate assertions in "proving" that 9/11 was an inside job, but, amazingly, cites this website: (Serendipity: Geopolitics, Drugs, Religion, Music and More!) as its sole source. It contains several demonstrably false assertions, including several to the effect that no plane hit the Pentagon. It does not address the hundreds of witnesses who ACTUALLY SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON INCLUDING AN A.P. REPORTER (read here). (No explanation for the missing passengers and crew of that flight is offered. In fact, in a debate with Chip Berlet on Democracy Now, David Ray Griffin himself was unable to defend his assertion that a missile and not a plane struck the Pentagon other than to say that his case was cumulative as opposed to deductive, and therefor not as weak as its weakest links (read here). I spite of this, he and his associates such as Curtis still make these baseless allegations.)

Curtis also falsely re-asserts the commonly believed falsehood that there was an unusual spike in put orders for stocks which would reasonably be expected to go down in price as the result of the attack, an argument which is addressed and DEBUNKED HERE. Curtis also implies that Zbignew Brzezinski was in with Bush on the conspiracy, an allegation I'm sure that Brzezinski would find very puzzling indeed.

Green Party supporters: feel free to contact me to let me know why I shouldn't think this stuff is just plain mishuga.

By the way, if you haven't read the transcript of David Ray Griffin's DEMOCRACY NOW! debate with Chip Berlet, you should. You really get a sense of the twisted logic and shoddy research underlying the "truth" movement. READ IT HERE. Read the Popular Mechanics webpage on the attack on the Pentagon HERE.

Presbyterians Tell Jews: If You Support Israel, "Get a Life"

Anti-Israel activists, acting under the aegis of the mainline Protestant denominations, are telling Jews: if you care about Israel you need to "get a life". Seems to me that insult cuts a bit deeper when applied in the opposite direction.

Who are these people and what is their connection to this issue? These are the hypocrites who intervene in the name of non-intervention and support terrorists in the name of peace. They come from various liberal Protestant backgrounds but seem to share certain baggage relating to Jews. They tend to both hold Jews to a higher standard and regard Jews with disdain. They tend to have learned about Jews from the bible and apply that "information" to current events in an entirely inappropriate manner.

(Jimmy Carter has a long history of doing precisely this in his mostly neglected career as a Sunday school teacher. Those who've heard his lessons have reported that he generalizes about Jews as examples of various character flaws using the applicable biblical quotes to support his arguments. It's a short journey from that traditional form of anti-Semitic allegory to applying these lessons to current events.)

I assign all of them to read Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day for its critique of "honorable amateurs" with no understanding of realpolitik. These people, who combine their low level prejudices with naive good intentions can do more damage than they consider possible. I'm thankful for the gut feelings of the vast majority of Americans on this subject. They recognize the absurdity of these wacky amateurs and wholeheartedly reject the divestment movement.

Now read this from A Recovering Presbyterian: Presbyterians Tell Jews: Get a Life:

Since I have been examining church anti-Israel activism and its relationship to antisemitism, the following item struck me as a good example of problematic statements and actions undertaken by ‘leaders’ in mainline denominations. It contains several features that are very revealing about the current state of opinion and action in many of the ‘mainlines’.

Presbyterians ‘in the pews’ may or may not know the PC(USA) has an Israel/Palestine Network. This was formed in response to an action of the 216^th General Assembly, and it is supported, maintained, and advised by national PC(USA) staffers. It claims of itself that it:

“works in close cooperation with ecumenical partners and with the Office for the Middle East, the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program, the Presbyterian Washington Office, the Presbyterian UN Office and with other appropriate entities of the General Assembly and General Assembly Council.”

Its pronouncements therefore have a fair degree of official imprimatur from the PC(USA) and reflect opinions current among the national staff and offices of the PC(USA). Recently, the Israel/Palestine network launched a new, updated website. Among many other things (some of them very problematic in their own right), the I/P Network of the PC(USA) presented a power-point presentation that it attributed to Jeff Halper. I draw your attention to slide 31. Here the reader is told THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE DIASPORA MUST GET A LIFE.

I have said this is illustrative of the problems often encountered by churches in their pro-Palestinian activities that quickly morph into anti-Israel activities and then overtly anti-Jewish activities.

· The first problem is the painfully, unavoidably obvious double standard. This can easily be demonstrated by substituting any other group for ‘the Jewish community’. If Presbyterians regarded the Jewish community as an ethnic designation, the question arises: would Presbyterians post materials that tell the African American community to get a life? Would Presbyterians post materials that tell Italians to get a life? Would Presbyterians suggest that Native Americans should get a life? Would Presbyterians tell Iranians to get a life? The answers are NO, NO, NO, and NO. These would be extraordinarily inappropriate, insensitive and racist statements. If Presbyterians regarded “the Jewish community” as a religious designation, then the question is this: Would the Presbyterian Church publish materials that tell Hindus to get a life? Would they suggest Moslems get a life? Would they suggest that members of the Baha’i Faith get life? Would they argue that Roman Catholics ‘must get a life’? Again, in all four examples, the answer is an emphatic NO. How then is it possible that Presbyterians can think that telling “the Jewish community” it must get a life is acceptable in any possible universe? How then can the PC(USA) evade the rather obvious implication that its double standard is a form of anti-Jewish bigotry?

· The second problem is the attribution. Jeff Halper is the coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition. Halper is Jewish, Israeli, and has a unique opinion on the situation and on American Judaism. At one point Halper asserted that “[He] would argue that American Judaism is in danger of being turned into a cult.” The thing is, even if his opinions are inherently offensive, Jeff Halper can speak because his criticism does, to some degree, come “from the inside”. The immediate problem, however, with the decision of the PRESBYTERIAN I/P Network to publish these comments with its apparent endorsement is that Presbyterians cannot criticize from the inside. When Presbyterians support comments such as “The Jewish community in the Diaspora must get a life”, they are speaking of people of a different group from themselves. It can in no way be construed as self-criticism – instead it appears to be more accurately construed as bigotry. [This is, in all honesty, a common phenomenon – engaged in by the PC(USA), the UMC, and many other groups. These have frequently found certain Jewish personalities or groups to endorse their activism as if this somehow inoculated them from antisemitism. But it is a patently false argument because it seizes on small minority opinions as if these were representative of Jewish people generally, and because it fails to account for the distinction between what it might be acceptable for a member of a race or religion to say about that race or religion and what would be unacceptable for a person to say about member of a different race or religion.]

· The third problem is the question of audience. By featuring this on a Presbyterian website, the Presbyterian I/P Network must intend it to be read by someone. The questions are who? And to what purpose? It is obvious that the Presbyterian activists who made this decision cannot really believe that telling the Jewish community in the Diaspora to ‘get a life’ will somehow prompt Israelis to change the policies to which the I/P Network objects. It is equally obvious that this is not directed at the Jewish community – because it is clear that members of the Jewish community would not be persuaded by Presbyterians telling them to ‘get a life’. Its appearance on a Presbyterian website instead seems to be directed at Presbyterians – to convince them to ignore (without a hearing or consideration) opinions from Jewish people that conflict with the I/P Network’s agenda. It seems to be indicating that good Presbyterians don’t have to listen to Jews because Jews need to ‘get a life’.

I’m left wondering how long Christian groups will content themselves with a brand of activism that clearly crosses lines into the offensive and immoral over and over again. I’m left wondering how long it will be before the members of Christian organizations will start to say enough. I’m left wondering how many times these same members will content themselves with the inherent corruption of having their ‘corporate witness’ commandeered by those so driven by their own political agendas that they take no note of the consequences of their actions – either to those organizations or to others.

Will Spotts

UPDATE: Interfaith Peace Group Removes Holocaust Denial Author from Reading List Without Comment

I recently posted about the so-called "Interfaith Peace Initiative" of Providence, Rhode Island. (read here) This organization was founded by Susanne Garrison Hoder, one of the proponents of the anti-Israel divestment campaign within the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church. (read here) Hoder campaigns against U.S. support for and corporate involvement with what she calls "Israeli Apartheid" against "non-Jews". (read here) Here's a quote:

"When the world saw what was taking place in South Africa, a global divestment and boycott campaign ended the separation of that country’s people according to race. In America, people of conscience have not been allowed to see the parallels between Israeli actions toward non-Jews and the South African experience."

The "Interfaith Peace Initiative" portrays itself as a place where people of different religions and different political views but who all advocate peace in the Middle East can come together to discuss the issues and build a coalition for peace (read here) . (In spite of the broadness of their name, the main focus of this group is the Arab/Israeli conflict -- other war torn parts of the globe must find peace without their assistance.) Their mission statement goes so far as to stress that they have included voices both Zionist and anti-Zionist, creating the impression that this is a broad-based, inclusive group (read here).

I recently discovered that this group was recommending a book by a notorious anti-Semitic polemicist and Holocaust denier named Michael A. Hoffman II. Hoffman is the sort of fellow for whom opposition to the existence Israel is not sufficient. He has devoted himself to the promotion of some of the most virulent anti-Jewish literature in current publication, as he himself would admit. In fact, on his website, (direct link here; archived version here) he actually advertises himself as a sort of pioneer of anti-Semitism saying

"Areas of interest which Hoffman has pioneered: Judaism: the anti-Biblical religion of racism, idolatry, superstition and deceit."

In addition to opposing Judaism, Hoffman's works are devoted, in large part, to denying the Holocaust, although Hoffman prefers to call himself an advocate of "historical revisionism". Not surprisingly, Hoffman is also an advocate of current events revisionism as well, having authored "The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians", a book which focuses on what Hoffman sees as the fundamental cause of the Arab/Israeli conflict: Judaism itself is fundamentally evil.

Speaking of revisionism, Hoffman actually revised the history of this book's creation in that he invented a Jewish co-author, whom he called Moshe Lieberman, and for whom he invented a fictitious biography: former researcher at Hebrew University. When confronted with the fact that Hebrew University has no records of employing a Moshe Lieberman as a researcher, Hoffman invented another bio for him and went on to say that his imaginary co-author was in hiding in order to avoid detection by Jewish assassins. Right.

Imagine my surprise when I found Hoffman's book on a list of books under the heading "By Jewish Authors" on the Interfaith Peace Initiative's list of recommended books (read archived version here). As outrageous as it is to recommend the book of this notorious anti-Semite as that of a peace advocate, or as reflective of an accurate view of Israel, these outrages are compounded by portraying Hoffman as representing a Jewish position. (Which raises the question, why does this group identify Jewish authors and separate out their books when the religious or ethnic affiliations of other authors aren't specified? More on this below.)

Since I posted on this subject, someone at the Interfaith Peace Initiative has had the good sense to remove Hoffman's book from their reading list. I am very glad to see them stop legitimizing Holocaust denial. But I still have some questions for this group:

Why was Hoffman's anti-Jewish book on this reading list in the first place? Does it reflect the views of the Providence Interfaith Peace Initiative? Was this book removed from the reading list because their views have changed or for some other reason? Why was an anti-Semitic book presented as representative of a Jewish view?

Why does this reading list single out authors it identifies as Jewish and list them separately from other authors while other groups are not so identified? This list, including works by Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Micheal Neumann and Anna Baltzer, consists exclusively of criticism of Israel, many by authors who identify themselves as anti- or post-Zionist. Is this "By Jewish Authors" reading list really intended to be representative of Jewish views?

The American right wing sometimes trot out black conservatives as representative of a significant minority viewpoint within the black community, although polling indicates that this is statistically untrue. The Republican convention tends to highlight the presence of black delegates in spite of the low representation of blacks in that party. Of course, this deliberate distortion is designed to create the image of a diverse, non-racist organization. I believe that the "By Jewish Authors" reading list of the Providence Interfaith Peace Initiative exists for precisely the same reasons: it presents a distorted impression of Jewish views on Israel, it provides cover for the extreme anti-Zionist bias of the group and, by highlighting the presence of Jewish authors, it counters charges of bigotry. 

To be blunt, this seems pretty sleazy. To restate: this group trumpets its inclusion of Zionist views, while promoting a harshly anti-Zionist bias. For propaganda, it singles out Jews for special attention while not doing so for others. It uses Jews as a cover for its bias. It deliberately tilts the debate on Arab/Israeli issues against Israel. It portrays itself as advocating peace while instead advocating for one side in the conflict, a recipe not for peace but for continued war.

But here's what I'd like to know: after having recommended a book of bigotry and Holocaust denial for several months, why have they removed this book from their website without comment? No explanation, no apology, no correction, nothing has been done to undo the damage they have done or the insult to the Jewish community.

If this group truly intends to be an interfaith peace initiative, they need to go a long way to explain their inclusion of bigoted voices and their distortion of their own mission.

"Interfaith" Peace group peddling Holocaust denial

Following up on a piece concerning Susanne Garrison Hoder, who founded what purports to be an interfaith peace group in Providence, Rhode Island, and also advocates for divestment from Israel via a United Methodist Church "Divestment Task Force" (read here):

It turns out that Hoder's "Interfaith Peace Initiative" publishes a reading list (read here) which recommends "The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians" by the notorious Holocaust denier and anti-Jewish polemicist Michael Hoffman II. Hoffman, the author of "Judaism's Strange Gods", maintains a website called www.revisionisthistory.org. The opening text of this website reads as follows: "Areas of interest which Hoffman has pioneered: Judaism: the anti-Biblical religion of racism, idolatry, superstition and deceit."

That must spark some interesting interfaith dialogue...

as must Mr. Hoffman's writings promoting the blood libel, calling Jews "parasites" and denying the existence of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. Here's a list of some of Hoffman's writings from a single page of links (the website has many, many more, as well as years of bizarre commentary on current events):

1. The Truth About the Talmud: Jewish Supremacist Hate Literature
2. The Jewish Century
3. Shavuot Pogrom: "Nazis, Christians, Whores and Goyim"
4. A Debate: Is Spielberg Guilty of Falsifying the Talmud in his Movie "Schindler's List"? The Truth About the Racist, Chauvinist Talmud
5. The Jewish Mentality - Book I
6. On Jews and Christians Living in the Same Place
7. Are They "Jews" or Are They Really Khazars?
8. The Searing Racism that is a Racist Thought Crime to Expose

In case anyone has any doubts as to the nature and intentions of Hoffman's works, they are readily available on hundreds of websites, but the reader must be willing to visit the websites of neo-Nazis and other racists.... or the Interfaith Peace Initiative of Providence, Rhode Island.

[SIDE NOTE: The Interfaith Peace Initiative reading list lists Hoffman's books under the heading "By Jewish Authors" (others on the list: Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Michael Neumann; in other words, not exactly a representative sample of Jewish opinion. The religious affiliations of other authors on the list are not specified). Of course, Hoffman isn't Jewish; for this book, he invented a co-author named Moshe Lieberman, whom he identifies as a "former researcher at Hebrew University". Interestingly, no such person has ever worked at Hebrew University as a researcher and Hoffman has been unable to produce Mr. Lieberman. Hard to believe a scholar of Hoffman's repute would make something like that up.]


Author recommended by Interfaith Peace Inititiative (not a parody -- this was posted at his website):

Methodist voices, reasonable and unreasonable

Susanne Garrison Hoder bill herself as "the founder of the Interfaith Peace Initiative in Providence, R.I., and a member of the Divestment Task Force of the New England Conference". On the one hand, she seeks peace by bringing people of different religions together. That's admirable. On the other hand, she's part of the "task force" driving the United Methodist Church's anti-Israel activism. That's reprehensible.

For one person to fill these two contradictory roles could present certain difficulties. How can someone, on the one hand, bring conflicting parties together to work for peace, and, on the other, advocate against one of the parties? And how does this dilemma play out in the area of religion, where humanity's highest aspirations mix with its worst prejudices?

Of course, dealing with those difficulties require consciousness of them, and, judging by what she's written here, that may not be a burden Ms. Hoder has borne heavily. She has just published a piece called "American tax dollars supporting apartheid" on the United Methodist Reporter website, which is an official arm of that church. The factual distortions in the piece are many, her bias is palpable and her view of the conflict completely one-sided (although she does insert in her diatribe the non sequitur that she "celebrated Rosh Hashana with a rabbi" to reassure those who may be put off by her rancor).

But let me draw your attention to what she appears to advocate. She says "(p)eople from all over the world with Jewish ancestry are invited to live on property taken from Palestinians. Yet Christians and Muslims whose ancestors have lived in the Holy Land for 2,000 years and 1,300 years, respectively, cannot return." Hodor seems to advocate the "right of return" for descendants of Palestinian refugees from Israel, and oppose the right of return for Jews. This runs contrary to two-state solution which has been the goal of the "peace process" and provides the only real hope for peace in the region. Hers is a recipe for continued war and killing in the name of a radical, unachievable peace. That kind of peace advocate Israelis and Arabs don't need.

Here's a letter from David Preston of Jacksonville, Florida published by the United Methodist Reporter in response to Hodor's commentary:

Israel, South African "apartheid" cannot be compared

To compare a system which oppressed those who were ostensibly powerless (apartheid) with a system in which one is surrounded on vitually all sides—including within your own borders—by enemies who have as their stated goal your destruction (Israel) is nonsense and is morally indefensible.

In South Africa, blacks had very little power, military or economic, and the white government was all-powerful. In Israel, the Palestinians have routinely demonstrated their power through bombings, rocket attacks and the pressure of international governments and the press.

The Palestinians have been kept in their miserable conditions by the greed and corruption of their own leaders: Arafat, Hamas and the PA. Arab governments in the region have refused to allow the resettlement of the Palestinians in their lands in order to keep the Palestinians as a useful tool to weaken and destroy Israel.

Nelson Mandela preached reconciliation and cooperation. The Palestinians and their Arab supporters continue to advocate violence, even conditioning their own children to hate from birth. Look at some of the images of children being taught to hate Israelis, and the culture of violence and death against Israel, America and the West in general, which dominates the indoctrination they receive.

Israel is fighting for its life against a sea of violent, hate-filled people that are stuck in the 7th century. To allow Israel's destruction in the face of the genocide being waged against would be immoral.

As United Methodists, it's time to get beyond this infantile notion that holding hands and talking about peace will actually bring about peace. World War II should have taught us that lesson for all time.

UPDATE: Hoder's group promotes book by Holocaust denier Michael Hoffman II. Read about that here.

Dutch church "hijacked" by pro-Arab activists

Looks like Sabeel and their friends have been at work in the Netherlands spreading propaganda and installing anti-Israel activists in key posts within the leadership of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PCN) .

from Haaretz: Dutch church to rethink its policy of solidarity with Israel By Cnaan Liphshiz

After 37 years of boasting of "inalienable solidarity" with the people of Israel, the Netherlands' second largest church plans to reexamine its stance this fall. A group of notables from the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PCN) warned last week that the organization, which has over two million members, is in danger of being "hijacked" by pro-Palestinian activists.

The warning - coauthored by Dr. Jan van der Graaf, who served for 35 years as general secretary within one of the three churches that make up the PCN, and three other prominent church figures - was an open letter against changing the reference to Israel. It was addressed to Minister Henri Veldhuis, a General Synod member who said the clause made the church adopt a biased view that ignored Israeli actions against Palestinians.

At a speech last month in Utrecht for Friends of Sabeel (a Jerusalem-based Palestinian organization), Veldhuis said the church should commit to a bond with Israel "as people of the Torah" instead of the "Jewish people as an ethnic group." Veldhuis also complained that currently, "the church has a stronger bond with a non-believing Alaskan Jewish person than a Palestinian Christian."

The open letter accused Veldhuis of a slanted and hypocritical approach. "We were astonished by your address before a Palestinian liberation organization that pretends to be promoting reconciliation," it read. "You accused Israel but ignored Hamas's Jew-hating ideology. You overlooked the alarming anti-Semitic upsurge in Arab countries."

Veldhuis responded that the signatories "were regrettably and falsely" trying to portray Sabeel and himself as radical left-wing activists. In a conversation with Haaretz, Veldhuis said: "It is important to preserve the lessons of the Holocaust and never forget the Jewish roots of church and bible and to fight anti-Semitism, but we have to take a more realistic position on the Jewish people as an ethnic group and on the State of Israel. The PCN's theology is now idealizing both."

He added that he believes the coauthors - Van der Graaf, Dr. Theo van Campen, Dr. Wulfert de Greef and Dr. Henk van der Meulen - are circling the wagons because of "mounting criticism of Israel's policies."

Van der Graaf said that those who advocate changing the church's charter are "only a highly motivated minority" within PCN, and he believes the clause will ultimately remain unchanged.

The PCN, which was formed in 2004 as a merger of the country's three largest protestant churches, is scheduled to discuss revising its stance on Israel in November.

Key figure in Presbyterian anti-Israel movement will resign PCUSA post, continue as president of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches

from the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal: "Top Presbyterian official will leave in '08: Kirkpatrick in 3rd term as stated clerk" by Peter Smith

A top official in the Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will be leaving his post when his term expires in June of next year.

The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, who has been elected to three terms as stated clerk of the denomination since 1996, announced his impending departure yesterday.

"This has been the best job I have ever had," he said in a written statement, but "the time has now come for me to conclude my service."

He could not be reached for further comment last night.

In his statement, Kirkpatrick, 62, said he plans to spend more time with his family and in his post as president of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a body of more than 200 Protestant denominations.

The stated clerk is the top church officer in the denomination, responsible for such things as church property, research, church legislative sessions and legal matters.

Even before taking the World Alliance position, Kirkpatrick regularly traveled the world, visiting with partner churches and speaking out on crises in Sudan, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Kirkpatrick has been a frequent target of conservative critics within the church. They have cited the denomination's membership decline -- which began in the 1960s but continued unabated during his tenure -- and his handling of ongoing controversies over homosexuality in the church.

His office announced plans earlier this year to cut seven positions, or about a 10th of its staff, because of declining donations. He has acknowledged some of the decline is due to congregations withholding funds out of protest, but has said the churches' economic struggles are a bigger factor.

Other Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) offices also have cut staff in recent years.

In his statement, Kirkpatrick said that while his work "has been a great blessing, it has also taken a significant amount of time and energy and has been accompanied by more than a fair share of stresses and strains. A change in my life patterns is probably in order."

In case you don't know about Kirkpatrick's history with respect to anti-Israel advocacy, here's a little background, starting with Kirkpatrick's two-step regarding whether or not Israel practices apartheid (from this webpage called "Presbyterian double-talk"):

"Although the decision to 'initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel' may be presumed by some to invite comparison of Israeli policies with those of apartheid South Africa, the assembly has not asserted any moral equivalency between the two. The two situations are distinct."

- Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, "Statement from the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA)," Presbyterian Church (USA), July 20, 2004 (emphasis added).

"Surely you can understand the frustrations of Palestinian Christians and Muslims forced to live under a clear form of apartheid."

- Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, "Letter from Clifton Kirkpatrick to President Bill Clinton," Presbyterian Church (USA), undated (emphasis added).

Two years ago, Solomonia had some discussion of Kirkpatrick's tendency to defend terrorism while opposing preventing or responding to terrorism. He believes and consistently portrays violence against Israeli civilians as the fault of Israel, not as part of the ongoing war against Israel's existence. Meanwhile, he casts all anti-terrorist measures by Israel as rooted in irrational fear, not as responses to a real threat.

Solomonia linked to a letter Kirkpatrick sent to Presbyterians in Dialogue for Peace, a group of Presbyterians with a different view of the Israeli Arab conflict than his own. (That link is now dead, but the letter can be found here.) Kirkpatrick, while purporting to take an evenhanded approach, in fact disparages Israeli security concerns and inflates their responsibility, as is his wont. He also "praises" Presbyterians in Dialogue for Peace for reaching out for Jewish views on the conflict, but chooses some very odd language to do so, stating "(y)our decision to put yourselves in the hands of (emphasis added) the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the Houston Rabbinical Association as a way to see something of the situation 'on the ground' in Israel-Palestine demonstrates your interest in getting a fuller understanding of the complexities you describe." That phrase "put yourselves in the hands of" draws attention to itself by its strangeness. It speaks to Kirkpatrick's fear of being manipulated by Jewish groups, and may be a deliberate disparagement of Christians he believes to be under Jewish control.

Kirkpatrick has an unnerving habit of taking contradictory positions. His letter goes on to both deny (and disparage) charges that his group is biased against Israel, and to defend that bias as a necessary counter-balance to Israel's power.

The ability to be "fair" and "balanced" (note quotation marks) rests upon the recognition that at present, things are grossly out of balance with respect to issues of power, economic stability, living conditions and even the issue of daily survival. Until that imbalance is acknowledged and addressed, rather than exacerbated, there will be no resolution. Indeed, as Phillips remarked: "I returned with two others who were with me, believing that in the name of security, Israel is destroying security."

I believe that we, along with most Presbyterians, long for the same outcome for the people of the region, which is a secure future for both Israelis and Palestinians within viable, internationally recognized borders, in which there is no justification or need for violence, one against the other. Or, as the Bible puts it, "…neither shall they learn war anymore; but they shall all sit under their own fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid." (Micah 4:3-4)

This raises the question (as Will Spotts was quoted asking here), how can Kirkpatrick claim to both advocate peace and use phrases like the "need for violence"? That phrase rationalizes acts of terrorism without addressing the issue directly. Kirkpatrick, although unable to understand why a neighbor might want to build a wall to keep out neighbors intent on killing grandmothers at seders and schoolgirls in supermarkets, CAN understand the "need" for the killing to take place. That kind of understanding is better called misunderstanding.

Goodbye Rev. Kirkpatrick...

Methodists bordering on anti-Semitism

The ADL reacts to the New England Methodist call for anti-Israel divestment | Ynetnews

excerpt:

Foxman furiously condemned recommendations made by the New England branch of the Methodist Church for its members to divest "from twenty companies identified as supporting the Israeli occupation in Palestine."

The recommendations were made by a "task force" of clergy and church members set up to implement a "resolution to end the Israeli occupation," a statement by the Church added.

Foxman, who is currently in Israel, said it was "sad that a religious institution whose job should be to reconcile continues to be biased and bigoted."

He added that in the past two years, "there has been a war perpetrated by Hizbullah, katyushas rockets, and terrorist acts. Now Hamas, that does not recognize Israel's right to exist and perpetrated violence, has gotten itself elected, and is in control of a million and a half Palestinians. And the Methodists are still there to teach Israel a lesson."

"My reaction is one of outrage to this biased decision, which borders on anti-Semitism. The facts show that any decent fair-minded, spiritual, godly person would not come to a conclusion to boycott the victim, the one that has been praying for peace, suing for peace, hoping for peace. To make Israel the target is just outrageous," Foxman added.

In the Church's statement, William P. Aldrich, chairperson of the 'Divestment Task Force,' was quoted as saying: "Selective divestment is consistent with the United Methodist commitment to a just and sustainable peace for all the people of the Middle East." He added that the divestment campaign "offers a tangible way of working toward this goal."