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

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...

When it comes to Israel, the Presbyterians don't know their nakba from their naksah

Solomonia has an interesting post about the Presbyterian Church's latest anti-Israel activism. It seems that the PCUSA is having a week of prayer in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Israel's victory in the Six Day War. Of course, the PCUSA view the Six Day War as a defeat and its anniversary as a cause for despair.

Their hatred of Israel is so palpable and their historical distortions so obvious as to scarcely deserve rebuttal. Only true believers would accept the PCUSA's propaganda at face value. It would be wishful thinking to hope to change their minds, so I won't bother to make the attempt.

However, I find it very interesting that (as a Presbyterian who opposes his church's bias reports to Solomonia) Presbyterian pro-Palestinian activists are using the term ''nakba'' to refer to the Six Day War. Doesn't ''nakba'' [(النكبة) "disaster"] refer to Israel's victory in the 1948 War of Independence in the lingo of the pro-Palestinian? I think the Presbyterians are confusing "disaster" with "setback" [''naksah''].

The use of the term "nakba" for the Israeli War of Independence was an innovation of Constantin Zureiq, the intellectual father of the Arab Nationalist Movement and a key influence on the founders of the Baathist party. Zurieq used the term in the title of his book about the 1948 War, ''Ma'na al-Nakba'' (The Meaning of the Disaster).

With respect to "naksah", according to the Egyptian journalist Mohammed Hassanein Heikal, Heikal and the then Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser came up with ''naksah'' as the party line term for the Six Day War. I use the term "party line" advisedly, as Nasser's propaganda effort seems to have been geared primarily toward leadership of the Soviet Union. According to a study published by Strategic Insights (an electronic journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California):

The two men turned to discuss Nasser’s speech and what is fascinating about the Heikal papers is the selection of Arabic word Naksah (setback) to describe the 1967 military debacle. Heikal came up with Naksah and when Nasser asked about his choice of a singular word to describe the 1967 War they went down the list of words Hazimah (defeat), Sadmah (shock), and Karithah (catastrophe) as well as the 1948 War that is called Nakbah (another Arabic dialect for catastrophe).

The choice of words to describe a catastrophic military setback for Egyptian arms such as the 1967 War was a matter of great importance. According to Heikal, Nasser was obsessed with the right description of this military defeat; he wanted to leave his successor enough political room to rebuild and place Egypt once again on the offensive. To describe the Six Day War as a Hazimah (defeat) would leave no room for reconstruction and would upset the Soviets who provided the bulk of the military hardware that Syria and Egypt incompetently deployed. He then blamed Lyndon Johnson for his defeat, accusing the United States of flying military hardware to Israel from Wheelus Air Force Base in Libya. He informed Heikal of a letter he dictated to Syrian President Atasi, urging that he accept a cease-fire to save what remained of the Syrian Army. Nasser did not need to say more, for the Syrian Army needed to be preserved to suppress any internal threats that would topple the regime. Nasser then reflected on how the Soviets were likely to help Syria more than Egypt, how Moscow seemed to understand Baathism more than Arab Socialism. Heikal and Nasser then talked about Moscow’s need to preserve its gains in the Arab world at the expense of Washington. Nasser understood he could rely on using the Cold War to extract further military aid from Moscow.

The Cold War origins of these terms is interesting and very revealing about the true nature of movements which use them. For one thing, it puts the lie to the myth of the indigenous Arab insurgency. The conflict in the Middle East is and always was part of a larger struggle. And it has always involved Arab dictators' creative exploitation of the suffering created by their own policies as part of a grand strategy. So when the Egyptian "Arab Socialists", together with the Baathists of Syria and Iraq, worsened the situation of the Palestinians, they found a way to exploit this "setback" for their own purposes. They found a way to use this to extract more weapons and money from the USSR.

How does this relate to the PCUSA? Just as the Maoists among the New Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s adopted and mindlessly repeated such bizarre phrases as "running dog lackies of the capitalist war-mongers" (okay...that's an extreme case, but one that was in general circulation), the Presbyterians now use (and apparently misuse) the party line terms "nakba" and "naksah". While the Maoist New Left had some understanding of the origins of their cant, the PCUSA has none. The PCUSA does not knowingly use the terminology of pro-Soviet Arab dictators. The origins of pro-Palestinian propaganda embarrass the Arabs by reminding the world of a history that they wish to conceal, and also embarrass their allies who would rather not ask. The PCUSA believe that they use the language of resistance to oppression by imperialists. What they don't understand, but what their language reveals, is that they have merely chosen the wrong side in a battle between global movements.