Let’s Be Fair Concerning the Middle East

A briefing paper on ISRAEL-PALESTINE by Presbyterian Action

The Issue:
Presbyterians deep down want to be fair. We want to do the right thing. We also realize how desperately peace is needed in the crucible of the Middle East, particularly in the state of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. There, of all places, we search for ways to hasten a just and lasting shalom.

But in a quest that apparently is rooted in identifying with Palestinian Christians, many Presbyterian leaders and key groups have become partisan factions in a complex situation. General Assembly in 2006 wisely pulled back from “phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel” in order to invest in “only peaceful pursuits” and “reflect commitment to positive outcomes.” But yet, institutional momentum keeps turning back toward open hostility toward Israel and blind support of Palestinians, to the point of great unfairness and even the subtle untruthfulness that stems from an incomplete and misleading narrative.

So how best should Presbyterians use our moral persuasion and political influence to help bring about true shalom? How do we not become merely additional antagonists?

No harm.The classic medical precept to “first, do no harm” makes a good starting place for Christian diplomacy. We seek, as an initial discipline, not to add to the sectarianism, personal bias, harsh words, strong emotions, and hurtful actions that trouble the Holy Land, not to become a co-belligerent, not to make things worse. No one needs amplified conflict.

Objectivity. In addition, as Christians, we must insist on simple fairness. There is no reason to add to the untruths and injustice. True facts, the whole truth, well-rounded analysis, lack of bias, refusal to play on emotions with demagoguery, multiple sources from many perspectives, no spin—such elements should infuse our communications and proposals.

Not all General Assembly items concerning Israel-Palestine are equally commendable. Not all items would pass the test of fairness. An overview of the proposals indicates the problems.

Options: Suggested for Approval

• Item 11-06, National Capital overture: Here is an overture with humble wisdom and an impartial spirit. It calls on the Assembly to “avoid taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality.” ACSWP’s comment would replace this overture with further partisan rhetoric, demonstrating vividly the ACSWP’s core bias.
• Items 11-25 and 11-26, Santa Barbara overtures: Item 11-25 is simpler, and item 11-26 appears to be a more fleshed-out version of a plea for Presbyterian evenhandedness, fairness, and humility as we address the ever-changing situation in the Middle East. Item 11-26 also calls upon heretofore partisan PCUSA entities to abide by the resolution’s spirit, thus subjecting the misplaced passion of activists to the goodwill of the Assembly.

Options: Suggested for Disapproval

• Item 11-01, Atlanta overture: While dressed in language that may appear reasonable, at the heart is a set of requested actions guaranteed to favor the Palestinian Authority over Israel. For instance, seeking opinions from the Israeli “human-rights community” but not Israelis as a whole gives a small, unrepresentative group of protesters uncommon voice.
• Item 11-02, Chicago overture: This overture begins with equitable human rights. By point #4, however, it applies pressure on Israel specifically, yet omits censure of Palestinian terrorism, corruption, and incessantly violent aggression. It tries to equate planned Palestinian terrorism aimed at civilians with Israeli defensive military countermeasures aimed at terrorists, simply calling both “violence.”
• Item 11-03, Susquehanna Valley overture: The PCUSA is asked to adopt as policy a flawed World Council of Churches statement that is filled with pro-Palestinian bias: Calling Palestinians “imprisoned,” demanding “church advocacy for peace, aimed at ending the illegal [Israeli, of course] occupation,” and assuming a “right of return,” which, for many Palestinians, means pushing Israel out of existence. Partisan favoritism infuses such rhetoric as a call to “Risk the curses and abuse that will be aimed at you and stand in solidarity with us and with our Palestinian brothers and sisters….”
• Item 11-04, East Iowa overture: This call to travel in Israel and Palestine at first appears simple: Go meet the people. But it would serve in effect to train further zealots for Palestinian advocacy. The overture sets up the Israel-Palestine Mission Network and PCUSA staff personnel in Israel as the tour contacts, and, sadly, these groups have proven nearly incapable of exercising fairness toward Israel’s intentions and actions.
• Item 11-07, Newark overture: While “deploring” terrorism, this overture would do nothing about it, but it would attempt to strip from Israel any U.S. military support for self-defense.Since the U.S. is Israel’s primary ally, such unilateral action would add precipitously to Israel’s isolation and vulnerability. The idea is thus both treacherous as well as futile.
• Item 11-23, San Francisco overture: This is an impatient overture, seeking, in essence, to hurry along the actual implementation of punitive divestment from two corporations trading with Israel. It subtly chastises the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) for dragging its feet and then empowers the General Assembly Council (rather than GA) to approve divestment. The purpose, to punish Israel, is exactly what General Assembly in 2006 elected to discard.
• Item 11-27, GAC/MRTI report: While parts of the report are good, such as delaying precipitous divestment, section #2 reverts to reflexive condemnation of Israel’s activities, while overlooking major Palestinian transgressions. Also, the report selectively omits instructions from GA in 2006 that require far more positive attitudes.
• Item 11-28, GAC report: The recommended $42,500 study disregards a 2006 GA order. The entire Middle East was supposed to be the topic, ACSWP was intentionally not included, and the report is due now. This request focuses on Israel alone, brings in ACSWP’s bias, and delays the report two more years. Fairness demands a better plan.

Presbyterian Action advises giving serious consideration to approval of item 11-26 or 11-06 only, to maintain basic fairness.