An analysis
Been there; done that
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman, September 30, 2010
Presbyterians favoring a balanced approach to Middle East peace initiatives cheered when commissioners to the 219th General Assembly (2010) effectively defanged a lopsided, anti-Israel report that the denomination’s Middle East Study Group [MESG] submitted for adoption. Now it appears that celebration may have been premature.
Confronted by a report that promoted Palestinian liberation and condemned Israel’s efforts to defend its people, GA commissioners struggled to find middle ground. At the end, several key recommendations from MESG were rejected, including its proposal that members of the MESG be re-authorized in order to monitor and influence denominational policy in the region.
The GA politely thanked MESG for its services and bid it adieu, instructing the current and immediate past moderators to appoint a new group that would include “at least one but no more than two” of MESG’s members. New appointees were to “comprise an authentic balance representing the fullness of the spectrum of commitments within the PCUSA toward the people and issues in the region.”
But the new slate of appointees recently announced by Moderator Cynthia Bolbach bear a striking resemblance to those whom they replaced. The seven-member panel is loaded with what appears to be a pro-Palestinian, liberationist slant. Consider the line-up:
1. Jeffrey DeYoe
The Rev. Jeffrey DeYoe served as “advocacy chairperson” for the Israel Palestine Mission Network (IPMN). He was an author and editor of “Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest for Just Peace,” an IPMN publication that has been roundly criticized for its historical inaccuracies and misleading statements by scholars Robert O. Freedman of The Johns Hopkins University, Christopher Leighton and Robert Lieber of Georgetown University, Steven Spiegel of the University of Southern California and Nicholas Rostow of the State University of New York.
DeYoe attended the 219th GA as a lobbyist for the IPMN, rooming with fellow lobbyist Mark Braverman. At the conclusion of the meeting, Braverman issued a blog report in which he praised Palestinian liberation activists and accused Israel of a multitude of sins, including the sin of “apartheid.”
Applauding the MESG report that had been submitted to the GA, Braverman said that he went to the GA fearing that “the natural commitment to social justice and support for the oppressed on the part of most Presbyterians would again be trumped by concern for preserving the relationship with the Jewish community.” But when he saw the work of the commissioners’ committee that received MESG’s report, he was most encouraged.
“The committee clearly wanted to find a way to have the report adopted,” said Braverman. “Problems with perceived bias against Israel were fixed. The obligatory language about Israel’s right to exist was inserted. None of these changes touched the faithful witness and prophetic heart of the report. While strongly asserting the church’s commitment to Israel’s security and wellbeing, the Study Committee’s report as presented to the General Assembly clearly presents the narrative of Palestinian dispossession and suffering. It asserts that Israel’s actions, illegal and in violation of international law, are an ‘enduring threat to peace in the region.’ It receives the Palestinian Kairos document, a courageous and heartfelt call of Palestinian Christians ‘from the heart of Palestinian suffering’ to the churches of the world, and recommends it for study by Presbyterians. It calls on the U.S. government to end aid to Israel unless the country stops settlement expansion in Palestinian territories.”
Braverman expressed his dismay that the General Assembly did not punish Caterpillar, Inc. with divestment because its bulldozers are used by the Israeli government. He also lamented the fact that “Presbyterians could not bring themselves to approve the overture naming Israel’s policies as apartheid.”
But on the whole, Braverman was pleased: “Watching the plenary, one witnessed a courageous and heartfelt struggle with things that matter: gay and lesbian ordination and honoring of marriages; benefits for civil union partners; how to respond to state laws that violate the rights of immigrants. With respect to the Israel-Palestine question, the struggle will continue.”
Shortly after Braverman hit the “send” button on his blog, he received an enthusiastic response from his General Assembly roommate DeYoe: “Mark, Great stuff here and good appraisal of the entire G.A. process. It was great rooming with you and working shoulder-to-shoulder with you for a Just Peace in Palestine.”
DeYoe was listed as a signatory on a letter sent to GA commissioners, urging them to reject criticisms of the MESC report and adopt it as written.
2. Roula Alkhouri
The Rev. Roula Alkhouri grew up in Syria, studied at the University of Damascus and then at Louisville Theological Seminary. “Peace and Justice” are at the top of her priority list, and she seeks to achieve them by challenging the socio-economic “systems,” a.k.a. capitalism, militarism, industrialism, etc., that enslave people.
Crediting Marcus Borg (a “Jesus Seminar” enthusiast who denies the divinity and resurrection of Jesus) with her inspiration, she sermonizes that “the litmus test for whether or not a system is just is this: Look at the results. Systemic justice is a result-oriented justice. A system that produces a pretty large and radically impoverished class of people is an unjust system. No matter how fair the rules are enforced and no matter how democratically those rules are made – it’s not a just society.”
Alkhouri’s sermons often address the “scandal” inherent in the unequal distribution of worldly resources. She criticizes the church for being obsessed with issues of sexual immorality while ignoring the greater sin of systemic injustice. She favors ecumenical and interfaith approaches to peacemaking.
According to her sermons preached at First Presbyterian Church in Batavia, N.Y., she believes that “No one has the whole truth. God’s truth is bigger than ours. So there is truth everywhere.”
3. Laurie Anderson
Laurie Anderson is president of the Immigrant Justice Advocacy Movement (IJAM), and national coordinator of the New Sanctuary Movement. IJAM’s position, as stated on its Web site, declares that “our country’s immigration system is broken and unjust. As people representing a spectrum of faiths, we are united in our affirmation of the innate value of every human being and their right to be treated fairly and mercifully, regardless of their immigration status …We seek to create systemic change in our broken immigration system by utilizing community organizing principles and developing relationships that are rooted in our faith values.”
Anderson promotes immigration reform policies that facilitate citizenship for undocumented workers who have entered the country illegally and that ensure “workplace protections and living wages for all workers in the U.S.,” regardless of their legal status.
Anderson’s New Sanctuary movement encourages churches to shelter illegal immigrants who flee law enforcement officials. Her group offers advice on how to answer (or not answer) questions from law enforcement authorities if they are caught and interrogated (“Raid Rights: How to protect yourself during an anti-immigration raid”).
4. Ronald
Shive
The Rev. Ronald Shive was chairman of the MESG. He voted with the majority (there was only one dissenting vote) in support of the committee’s report and he argued vigorously on its behalf during GA deliberations. Shive and other MESG members admitted that their work gave substantial weight to the Palestinian “perspective,” but he suggested that this imbalance was needed in order to balance previous GA policies and statements that members of his group felt were slanted in favor of Israel.
During the 218th GA (2008), at which he was a voting commissioner, Shive said he voted against an overture that called on the General Assembly to adopt a non-partisan policy with regard to Middle East relations.
5. Laura Cheifetz
The Rev. Laura Cheifetz is a member of the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship (PPF), a pro-Palestinian network that lists itself as a “partner” with the IPMN. While her organization employs rhetoric that purports to maintain a balanced assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its Web site showcases analyses that appear more propagandistic than the result of fair-minded research.
An example can be seen in a background paper on the Gaza conflict, prepared by Walter Owensby, former staff member of the PCUSA Washington office, and prominently displayed on the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship Web site.
Israel documents the fact that it made a peace gesture by withdrawing occupation forces from Gaza in 2005. That move was followed by Gaza’s election of a Hamas government whose stated intention was and is the annihilation of Israel. Shortly after Hamas took control of the government, a steady stream of more than 8,000 rockets was fired out of Gaza into Israeli communities. Israel cites that provocation as the reason for its subsequent air strikes, invasion and blockade.
Owensby puts an interesting spin on that account. He admits that Hamas fired rockets into Israel, but he dismisses the attacks as having been relatively inconsequential. He says they were “attacks on nearby Israeli towns using poor quality, often locally made, short-range rockets,” ignoring the fact that when an Israeli child is killed by a homemade rocket, she or he is just as dead as if struck by an intercontinental missile. Noting the strength of Israeli armaments (including planes and tanks contributed by the United States) he declares, “There is no symmetry in the two forces … The destruction [caused by Israel] seems excessive if not indiscriminate.”
Owensby pays faint obeisance to Israel’s rationale for its retaliatory attack against Hamas, deeming it more an excuse than a reason: “While Israel has every right to be anxious and angry about the years-long, annoying, damaging and sometimes deadly rocket attacks by Hamas, there was no significant escalation prior to the launch of the current war.”
Owensby admits that continuous rocket trajectories from Gaza into Israel’s civilian communities were becoming increasingly sophisticated. Israeli intelligence discovered that a series of tunnels had been dug between Gaza and Egypt, enhancing Hamas’ fire power with more modern equipment. Owensby gives obligatory notice of this development and its consequences: “Hamas’ early rockets were limited to targets within 10 miles, but by December 2008, there were attacks on Ashdod and Beersheba, cities up to 25 miles away. The government voiced fears that even longer-range rockets were being introduced that would make much more of the Israeli population vulnerable.”
But Owensby opines that this escalation might not have been the real reason for Israel’s invasion. He suggests that Israel’s true motivation was to attack “while it had the full support of President Bush.”
Owensby suggests – as did portions of the MESG report – that Israel violated U.S. government conditions (and “international law”) in attacking Gaza with U.S.-made military equipment because such equipment was to be used only for Israel’s defense. To Israel’s answer that its attack on Hamas was, in fact, a defensive response to Hamas’ rockets, Owensby said, “While Israel regards every military action as defensive, it may be less clear to Americans that a kill ratio of 100 Palestinians to one Israeli is a measure of Israel’s defensive posture.”
While the author of this paper was Owensby, not Cheifetz, it was posted and promoted by her PPF organization on its Web site as an informational resource for Presbyterians seeking peace in the Middle East. One may therefore assume that Owensby’s pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli position reflects not only PPF’s bias, but that of Cheifetz also. Certainly, she has made no public effort to distance herself from the document that her organization so prominently displayed.
6. Bill Borror
The Rev. Bill Borror’s background suggests that he has evangelical roots. Prior to entering seminary, he served for seven years as an area director for Young Life. He has served as chairman on the national board of Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA), a group that, under President Ron Sider’s direction attempts to woo evangelicals toward “progressive,” often statist solutions to social problems.
On the issue of Middle East Peace, ESA is pressing the U.S. government to advocate a “two-state solution.” Sider insists on the preservation of Israel’s sovereignty and national security while calling on Israel to forfeit its occupation of the West Bank and other territories that it conquered during the 1967 war.
Israel insists that its occupation of the West Bank is a necessary defense perimeter to shield it from those who have declared and proven their intention to attack its people. ESA’s proposal that this perimeter be abandoned suggests no corresponding guarantee of security for Israeli citizens.
Borror’s personal position in this area is not clear, but his leadership as chairman of ESA during the period in which ESA has promoted its two-state peace plan suggests that he shares ESA’s legislative agenda.
Borror has participated in several Presbyterian/Jewish dialogues. In 2005, a commission that he chaired shut down Avodat Yisrael, an evangelical, conversion-oriented outreach to Jewish people in the Philadelphia area. The ministry had drawn fire from the Jewish community, primarily because of its proselyte activities.
The GA moderator’s appointment of Borror to a high-level denominational committee is remarkable in light of his published opinion on the state of the PCUSA. Writing for Presbyweb in 1998, he stated, “We are a deeply divided mediocre institution that does its best work in managing dead people’s money and building retirement facilities for its increasingly aging population … In reality we hardly function as a church, but rather more akin to an ecumenical movement with a pension plan.”
Declaring that “it is time to stop pretending there is a middle ground in the current impasses in our denomination,” Borror suggested a split between liberals and conservatives – like the decision of Paul and Barnabus to go their separate ways – in which “every congregation is given local autonomy in ordering its life and every congregation is allowed sovereignty over its property and future.”
7. J.C. Austin
The Rev. J.C. Austin is a faculty member at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. His dissertation examines the role of churches during South Africa’s Apartheid regime and the subsequent reconciliation process. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is included as a case study in that paper.
Austin is a leader in New York’s “Stop the War on Prayer” campaign, supporting Muslim plans to build a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero. The campaign’s literature characterizes
opponents of the mosque construction as those who would deny Muslims the right to pray.
Before the 219th GA convened, Austin signed a letter to commissioners, accusing the original MESC report as biased against Israel, and stating that its adoption would be disruptive to Presbyterian/Jewish relations. After the GA made major revisions in the report, Austin expressed his gratitude for the compromise document.
In an opinion piece that appeared in The Washington Post, July 14, Austin and Katherine Henderson, president of Auburn Seminary, applauded the revised MESC report that was adopted by the 219th GA: “We are not so foolish or arrogant to believe that we have a plan for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But we hope we may have stumbled upon a way of building peace – by ensuring that every voice is heard, that every party is able to find what they need and accept the challenge of meeting the needs of others, that recognizes that the only path to security and justice and peace is one that is traveled together – that might just hold possibility beyond our Presbyterian borders.”
The probable tally: 5-2
No one can predict what Bolbach’s appointees will do. But viewing the public statements and alliances of the denomination’s new Middle East Monitors, it appears that the group exhibits an initial 5-2 split, with the majority weighted toward liberationist politics that are slanted strongly against Israel. That bias is exacerbated by the fact that the Rev. Victor Makari, who staffed the original MESC group and is widely known for promoting pro-Palestinian policies at denominational headquarters will staff this new group as well.
Miracles have been known to happen, and certainly initial positions could change as this group addresses its assigned tasks of providing balanced study materials for the denomination’s congregations and monitoring the implementation of GA Middle East policies.
One of its first decisions will be whether it will commit itself to transparent discussions. Will it do its work openly before the Presbyterian public, or will it sequester its business behind closed doors as other high-level task groups have done? Its answer to that question may suggest a clue as to the character of its product and a future GA’s willingness to accept it.
Correction, 10/1/10: Marcus Borg’s name was misspelled in the original version of this article, and has since been corrected. The Layman regrets the error.