Presbyterian Church (USA) has come under fire for its new study guide on the Arab-Israeli conflict, which critics contend is a “hateful document” that “promotes the eradication of Israel” by targeting the core tenets of Zionism and Christian Zionism.
The 74-page study guide, titled “Zionism Unsettled: A Congregational Study Guide,” was produced by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of Presbyterian Church (USA) and released ahead of its national assembly in June.
“Every couple of years, in the run-up to the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s General Assembly, anti-Zionist activists in the denomination put forth a hateful document that assails Israel’s legitimacy and antagonizes Jews in the United States. It happened in 2010, it happened in 2012, and it happened again in 2014 with this document,” Dexter Van Zile, Christian Media Analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, told JNS.org.
According to its website, the study guide and its companion DVD tackles “critical issues fearlessly and with inspiring scope” that “draw together compelling and diverse viewpoints from Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Israel, Palestine, the US, and around the globe.”
The study guide also seeks to confront “mainstream perceptions with important alternative perspectives frequently ignored in the media,” its website said. But B’nai B’rith International said in a press release, “Despite the rosy terms in which the church describes the guide, its description is profoundly deceptive. The church conceals the actual nature of the publication—engagement in vile revisionism of not merely Israeli, but Jewish history too—while exploiting fringe perspectives to legitimize polemics contrary to any understanding of genuine interreligious dialogue and peacemaking.”
8 Comments. Leave new
Of course there is criticism of the study guide by the apologists for oppression of Palestinians. They do not address the assertions in the study guide and they do not address the disparity of living conditions between Israelis and Palestinians.
AND they do not address the comparisons to apartheid.
In the months leading up to GA, we will see many attacks on the report as anti-Semitic, proof of liberal bias and other accusations. It is de-rigeur for the defenders of oppression.
Seems that the PCUSA is rather transfixed with the Palestinian issue and particularly with the Muslim perspective on the issue. Maybe I have missed it but has the PCUSA ever come out with a bold statement repudiating the violent persecution of Christians by Muslims in Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and other Muslim countries? I couldn’t locate such a definitive statement on the search of the PCUSA’s site. Maybe, as you say, “It is de-rigeur for the defenders of oppression.”
The rancor continues as the denomination tries “discern” what if any role the church has in
international affairs. My estimate is, Not much.
A serious document is even-handed, not slanted. I gather those who compile the white paper
have taken sides. In this case it is with the so-called Palestians, who are not really properly named, but are people who come from surrounding Arab countries.
The folks don’t have it so bad if one looks at the Gaza Strip and also other territoies under
their control. Certainly is not the refugee camps of the early 1950’s.
“Study Guide” is what this despicable piece of propaganda is called? Pathetic…. But we are used to this by now. This screed came to my attention days ago, through the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. This wonderful organization has a website : http://www.ifcj.org which is a good starting point for everyone who knows how important it is for Christians and Jews to work together in the face of a common enemy. The IFCJ publishes a “Holy Land Daily Devotional” which is e-mailed daily to all members. The publication of the PC(USA) “Study Guide” is proof of the denomination’s vast ignorance about enemies and friends, and how to know the difference. Consider joining the IFCJ – as a great antidote to the PC(USA) Follies.
I must humbly and respectfully disagree with this assessment by one claiming to be a “moderate.” My definition of “moderate” differs.
The denomination has repeatedly said “no” to the attempts of the very one sided and biased IPMN to force the denomination to take sides in a problem that has vexed the best and brightest diplomats, scholars and experts on Middle East conflict for decades. A denomination loses its voice and its place at the peacemaking table when it advocates extreme views for one side of a complex cultural, religious and geopolitical issue. There is plenty of blame on both sides, and plenty of decent people on both sides trying to act responsible to resolve issues. It is not helpful when inaccurate partisan venom is injected into the debate and foisted on the unsuspecting as accurate and reasonable. It is neither. And it degrades peace efforts rather than advancing them.
I was the Overture Advocate for the overture on Israeli/Palestinian Peacemaking which was passed at GA in 2006, specifically calling for a balanced approach in peacemaking. Similar overtures have been adopted since then, including one directing the denomination’s investment arm to invest in joint Israeli/Palestinian financial ventures. Although directed, we’re still waiting for that. There are a number of good, responsible companies that would qualify as wise investments.
Similarly, the 2010 GA rejected a biased report of a denominational study committee (stacked with one sided membership) and directed that the report be rewritten to specifically present, unvarnished, accurate narratives of each of the differing sides. To my knowledge, we are still waiting on that.
In the meantime, this “renegade” group (yes, I call them that), IPMN, continues to use its semi-official status to produced diatribes, foist them on the denomination, which contradict the nuanced and balanced position the denomination has consistently taken to further peace. Even the Palestinian Authority eschews the kind of blanket boycott, divestment and sanctions approach to peacemaking called for by IPMN.
At one General Assembly where I was a commissioner (2010) I specifically asked one of the IPMN members, a Palestinian Arab Christian, whether she would acknowledge Israel’s right to exist within safe and secure borders. This was within a large group discussion. She flatly refused to answer my question.
The Zionism Unsettled document cuts to the very core and rips the heart out of the two state solution advocated by PCUSA for decades. Its anti-Zionist position would exclude a homeland for Jews, within safe, secure, internationally recognized borders, a long acknowledged essential piece of the platform for peace heretofore advocated by PCUSA.
The revisionist historical and theological underpinnings of the paper (to the extent that they can claim theology or historical accuracy) are clearly that Israel has no right to exist, that the land belongs to Arabs, that Israel is evil in defending itself from overt and persistent terrorist attacks from its hostile neighbors (which admittedly sometimes result in human mistakes).
The paper seeks to make Israelis and all who would recognize a Jewish homeland international villains and criminals. Protecting Israel’s sovereignty is cast as the entire cause of the difficulties between the two peoples. If Israel would simply eliminate the security wall and withdraw from the disputed territories, IPMN would have us believe that all terrorism would end. Presumably, Hezbollah and Hamas would simply lay down their arms, stop their rocket attacks, stop their efforts to blow up schools, buses, shopping malls and restaurants and cease to exist. Muslim Arab neighbors would stop their efforts to attack and otherwise discriminate against Jews and presumably, Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere. Muslim terrorism, endemic to Israel as a specific target, and to the entire Western society in general, is ignored as a root cause of the difficulties.
Nowhere can one find a critical analysis of the probability of Sharia Law in such a Palestinian State as envisioned by IPMN or the implications of such for not only Jews, but also the very Arab Christians for which IPMN claims to advocate. Can it be so naïve? Should we be?
There is a serious disconnect between the extremism of IPMN and the policy statements of the denomination. It is entitled to its voice. I question its ability to use the platform of the denomination and its website to raise funds, to “push” its messages to the denomination, to promote its agenda, and yet have the denomination claim that it is, somehow “independent,” and merely speaks to the denomination and not for the denomination.
It should come as no surprise that the websites of David Duke and of the Iranian press, extol the virtues of Zionism Unsettled. It may be unfair to characterize IPMN as “birds of a feather” with them, but . . . it is sure looking that way, in the absence of denouncement, clarification and distancing from those entities.
For a balanced and factually accurate example of real Presbyterian peacemaking take a look at the website, Presbyterians For Middle East Peace:
http://pfmep.org/
This group of true moderates is trying to bring people together to solve problems and create constructive dialogue, rather than drive people apart, polarize them and promote a partisan agenda. Let us resist the biased rhetoric of IPMN and join with organizations like Presbyterians for Middle East Peace in being a part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
Maybe it’s time to write an overture to the GA to have the IPMN terminated and disbanded. There is no reason why advisory committees to the GA need to remain indefinitely, specially if the advice they are giving is neither helpful nor useful. And if the advice they are providing goes against the policies and values of the Church, and does not rise above the level of antisemitic propaganda, then they should be sent along their way.
My copy of “Zionism Unsettled” arrived today, and I thank you, Presbyterian Layman, for making me aware of its existence. For the evangelical Zionists among you – namely all of the previous commenters – read chapter 7: “Evangelicals and Christian Zionism,” and wake up from your illusions and listen to your soulmate, the Wheaton College professor Gary Burge, explain the folly of reading the State of Israel into the Revelation prophecies. If you’re unable to read, enjoy the maps, charts and pictures documenting the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians!
Yes you do have to read the document and yes it is damning.