Commissioners treated
to one-way conversation
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman, July 3, 2010
MINNEAPOLIS – An officially sanctioned pre-General Assembly “Riverside Conversation” turned into a 90-minute monologue representing a single point of view, that of the denomination’s Middle East Study Committee whose controversial “Breaking Down the Walls” report will be docketed for action later this week.
Susan Andrews
Presenting the report to a room full of commissioners and observers, the Rev. Susan Andrews, a former General Assembly moderator and a member of the study committee, offered an overview of the committee’s findings and 39 recommendations. She said the group’s membership was “diverse” (although only one of its members declined to sign the document) and that they had conversed with persons representing “all perspectives” (although she said they were unable to meet with Israeli government officials).
Not your ‘typical tractor’
Andrews invited the Rev. Brian Ellison, chairman of the General Assembly agency, Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI), to share his groups’ attempt to deal with Caterpillar, Inc. Ellison said that his group had been “very busy” dealing with corporations over “climate change” and other matters of moment, but that they had been singularly unsuccessful in their attempts to rein in Caterpillar. “This is not your typical tractor,” he said, “but an armor plated bulldozer.”
Brian Ellison
“We urge strong denunciation of Caterpillar’s actions,” said Ellison. In what appeared to be a distinction without a difference he noted that “it is not a denunciation of Caterpillar, but of Caterpillar’s actions.” Ellison acknowledged that a number of Caterpillar’s Presbyterian employees are unhappy with his agency’s denunciation. “We believe the impact of our work on [these] Presbyterians is regrettable,” he said.
When Andrews recovered the microphone from Ellison, she initiated several damage control observations. Picking up on MRTI’s distinction, she added another, emphasizing that her committee recommended only denunciation of Caterpillar, not divestment.
Disclaimers announced
Turning to another section of the report, she announced another disclaimer: the committee recommended only that the General Assembly study the radical Palestine Kairos document “as a resource,” not that it be adopted. She said that her committee commended only certain emphases in the Kairos document, not the entire document itself.
At several points, Andrews’ explanation of the committee report shifted from defense to argumentation. She acknowledged criticisms that have been lodged against the report for its anti-Israel slant. Early on in her presentation, she protested these accusations, arguing that her committee was balanced. But during a question-and-answer session when she was hammered by unconvinced commissioners, she suggested some reasons for perceptions that the committee’s preference was pro-Palestinian.
She pointed out that previous General Assemblies have spoken out and developed policies regarding the Middle East “for more than 30 years,” and that those position papers consistently supported the state of Israel. She said that without denying what earlier assemblies had done, her committee decided to do things differently, narrowing its focus to “what has happened on the ground since 1967” and “giving greater voice to our partner churches” (Palestinians). “Those voices,” admitted Andrews, “are paramount in this report.”
Commissioners seek answers
A commissioner from Pennsylvania pushed Andrews further on concerns over the report’s one sidedness. She asked why a committee that purportedly sought healing in this conflict would not follow the physicians’ primary principle: “First, do no harm.”
Andrews responded: “I’m not sure that ‘do no harm’ is a Biblical value.” Later, when that response clearly did not sit well with parts of her audience, she returned to the question: “I want to qualify what I said earlier. Of course we should not do harm to others. But the idea of not doing harm as a primary purpose is the issue here. ‘Do no harm’ is not our primary purpose.”
Byron Shafer
Another commissioner asked, “What about the war on terror? Arab nations have openly declared that they intend to force Israel off the face of the map … Suicide bombers are killing civilians … Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by hostile nations. Why did you not give a more balanced report with the real story of Israel?”
Andrews responded: “This was a conversation in our committee … our process was intense, emotional and tough. Almost every word was negotiated, negotiated and negotiated.”
At this point the Rev. Byron Shafer, the one committee member who declined to sign its document, spoke. “Terrorism is real in our world,” he said. “There is no question about that. But how do we address terrorism? Do we do it only militarily? The fundamental way to address it is through understanding, dialogue and discussion. ‘Breaking Down the Walls’ is based on the concept that we engage in dialogue. We need to express equal concern for both Palestinians and Israelis. This report does a fine job of expressing our love and concern for the Palestinian people, but not for our friends in Israel. It is true [as the report states] that Israel is the stronger party. But how do we move Israel to recognize the problem? It must be through dialogue and understanding. We have to meet with both parties and to be an agent of reconciliation.”
That comment triggered a diatribe from Schaffer’s fellow committee member Nahida Gordon: “The way the U.S. government supports Israel is a form of terrorism. You are using government helicopters and F-16s. This is the worst kind of terror!”
Lucy Janjigan and Nahida Gordan
Gordon’s outburst was seconded by another committee colleague Lucy Janjigian, whose “vignette” in the committee’s report included the quote: “even though the state of Israel is supposed to be a democracy, it acts like a Nazi state.”
Andrews was not alone in her attempt to put the best face possible on her committee’s report. She called in the Rev. Victor Makari, coordinator for the denomination’s work in the Middle East and for many years a liaison between the PCUSA and its partner churches in the region. Makari spoke of the relationships that the denomination had developed among Palestinian Christians and their urgent need for the PCUSA to be their voice in America. He lamented the fact that Christians are migrating out of the war torn region.
Israeli occupation is to blame
The context of his lament and the committee’s recurring theme (Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is the cause of the violence) suggest that committee members and their Louisville staff believe Israel is responsible for the flight of Christians from the Middle East. That theme has been hotly contested by Israelis who claim that Christian residents in Israel are treated with respect and that attacks on Christians by Muslims, e.g., the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, are far more apt to cause Christian out migration than anything Israel may have done.
As for the committee’s theme that Israeli occupation is the cause of Palest
inian violence, Israel claims that precisely the reverse is true: Israel occupied the territory as a matter of self defense only after repeated attacks on its citizens by inhabitants of the region. Israel also points out that after it withdrew from Gaza, Gaza’s Hamas led government increased its rocket barrage on Israeli civilians, forcing Israel to defend itself militarily and by instituting the blockade that the Middle East Study Committee wants lifted.
Victor Makari
Although Israel’s responses to the committee’s theme have been made public in a variety of venues, no one who holds this position was invited to present it as part of the General Assembly’s Riverside Conversation. So as time ran out, the event ended as unilaterally as it began. The person who convened it declared it adjourned.
The Middle East Study Committee Report will land on the desk of Commissioners’ Committee #14 on Monday, accompanied by a fanfare from 17 former GA moderators, national staff supporters appearing as “resource persons,” overture advocates from eight presbyteries, and an entourage of special interest group lobbyists. Whatever makes its way through that gauntlet will appear before the full GA for action later in the week.