American Jew ‘shocked,’ ‘saddened’ by GA report
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman, July 4, 2010
MINNEAPOLIS – Having treasured her people’s partnership with Presbyterians in matters of shared ethical concern, Rachel Lerner picked up her copy of “Breaking Down the Walls,” a publication of the Presbyterian Church (USA) Middle East Study Committee with eager anticipation.
“I read it immediately,” she said. “I was surprised, saddened, and sometimes angered by what I read.”
Rachel Lerner
Speaking to a breakfast gathering at the PCUSA General Assembly, Lerner lamented the damage that this report has already done to Presbyterian/Jewish relations, not to mention the disastrous consequences that could result if the General Assembly adopts the report later this week.
A partnership in peril
“We share your [peacemaking] goals for the Middle East,” said Lerner, “but we will not be able to work with you if this report is adopted. If your church alienates us, this would be a tragedy. We need one another now more than ever before.”
Lerner is vice president of the J Street Education Fund, a major advocacy organization that represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own – two states living side-by-side in peace and security. J Street believes that ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interest of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians and the region as a whole.
J Street’s published purposes – supported by its diplomatic track record both in America and abroad – so closely parallels the PCUSA’s historic Israel/Palestine policy that one would think these organizations are the best of friends. Both seek a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Both seek diplomatic solutions rather than military ones. Both seek multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution. Both desire dialogue with a wide range of countries rather than confrontation when conflict arises.
A sense of betrayal
In light of the fact that they have so much in common, what has caused a gaping chasm between J Street and the PCUSA? That is precisely the question that Lerner is asking.
Unable to mask her people’s sense of betrayal, she openly wonders why the study committee failed to sit down with J Street, reportedly the country’s most prominent spokesman for American Jewry on Middle Eastern issues.
And she is baffled that, having published a report with no J Street involvement, the committee would dare suggest that it had J Street’s endorsement. [Katherine Henderson, President of Auburn Theological Seminary, labeled that deception “an attempt to achieve political cover.”]
From the tenor of Lerner’s remarks, it is clear that far from “Breaking Down The Walls,” the PCUSA study committee has erected new ones. Expressing disdain for the committee’s unbalanced report, Lerner said “we reject the approach that in order to be pro-Palestinian, one must be anti-Jew.”
Lerner said that had her J Street colleagues been consulted, they would have agreed with the committee’s concern that Israel’s expansion of settlements and Gazan boycotts are counterproductive, but they would have inserted Israel’s need for certified security into the equation.
“We want a sovereign Palestinian state to succeed,” she said. “But support for a Palestinian state does not mean – it cannot mean – the destruction of Israel.”
A lost opportunity
Lerner believes that if the study committee is seeking to be a reconciling force, it has shot itself in the foot “by pointing fingers and blaming,” an approach that inevitably results in polarization, a circle-the-wagons mentality among Israel’s hardliners, and an encouragement to militant Palestinians that they can continue a pattern of violence.
“In this conflict,” said Lerner, “everyone is a victim,” and finger pointing is neither truthful nor helpful. “There must be painful compromises on all sides,” she said, “but the language in this report does not create an atmosphere in which such compromises are possible. Pointing fingers and blaming does not foster reconciliation.”
During a question period that followed her prepared remarks, an observer voiced a lament that has reportedly been voiced by study committee supporters: Why is it that those who criticize Israeli policies are instantly labeled “anti-Semitic?”
Lerner pointed out that their commitment to the Jewish state has earned for her and her J Street colleagues the right be heard when they have criticized Israeli policies. With a wry smile, the Jewish speaker said she didn’t recall anyone labeling her “anti-Semitic.”