Lori Price Abrams, director of the UJC MetroWest NJ Community Relations Committee, said she hopes to “counter this demonization of Israel until we can reverse the narrative.”
Sidebar
‘Completely unbalanced’June 19, 2008
The Presbyterian Church is preparing to debate several measures on Israel and anti-Semitism that Jewish leaders consider “very troubling.”
Preparing to open its biennial General Assembly on Friday, June 20, the church plans to debate resolutions on divesting in several companies that do business in Israel and urging the United States to suspend military aid to Israel.
But what especially disturbed Jews involved in interfaith affairs were changes in a statement titled “Vigilance Against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias,” drafted in May and amended on June 12.
Critics say the revised document is biased in its treatment of Israel.
“Recent revisions to that statement removed critical sentiments and added numerous, often inflammatory comments that significantly weaken this document,” wrote Allyson Gall, executive director of the American Jewish Committee’s Metro New Jersey Area, in a letter being circulated to conference delegates.
“The revised statement is infused with the very bias that the original statement condemned,” Gall told NJ Jewish News. “We are disappointed that after taking steps toward better relations, the church has rescinded many of the positive statements it made about rooting out anti-Jewish invective.”
More than a dozen Jewish organizations — including the AJC, the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith International, and the Conservative and Reform movements — issued or signed statements objecting to the proposed resolutions.
The Community Relations Committee of United Jewish Communities of MetroWest NJ is partnering with the AJC in reaching out to Presbyterian convention delegates.
“We would hope that the tone of the Presbyterian conference will be impacted by the results of the recent Methodist convention, which did heed our call for greater balance in policy-making,” said CRC director Lori Price Abrams. “But we will continue to be called upon to counter this demonization of Israel until we can reverse the narrative that seems to drive some element in these denominations.”
In an e-mail statement, CRC chair Merle Kalishman of Livingston said, “The CRC is committing itself to enhancing our proactive efforts in interfaith outreach in the coming year. Several of our initiatives, including our Israel Speakers Bureau, are designed to bring us closer to members of other faith communities.”
Ethan Felson, associate executive director of the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, is scheduled to attend the assembly in San Jose, Calif., as an observer.
“There is a very grounded reason to be deeply concerned about sentiments in the church, more so than in the past,” said Felson.
One proposed resolution calls for divestment from the Caterpillar and Motorola corporations “for profiting from the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories.” Another calls for “the U.S. government to temporarily suspend military aid to the State of Israel until the Israeli government ends “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
The eight-page resolution on “Anti-Jewish Bias” speaks of the church’s “calling as peacemakers” and attacks “anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish ideas.” The same document condemns Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Israel’s alleged violations of human rights.
Among the deletions of statements that Gall and others found disturbing was one expressing “close ties between our two faith traditions” and another attacking the “demonization of Israel and the Jewish people and its echoes of ancient Chrsitian anti-Judaism.”
Gall noted that the revised document supports a policy of targeting corporations doing business in Israel for “engagement” — a veiled reference to divestment, she and others said.
“In contrast, the church has yet to take any action to ‘engage’ corporations that foster anti-Israel terrorism through investment in state sponsors of terror, including Iran and Syria,” said Gall. “This demonstrates a continued one-sided and distressing approach to Israel.”
Jerry Van Marter, coordinator of the Presbyterian News Service, suggested Jewish critics were overreacting.
“The Jewish groups go nuts every time we make any statement they interpret as favorable to Palestine or the Palestinians,” Van Marter told NJJN.
Van Marter said church leaders amended their first statement “to make it more balanced, and apparently it still doesn’t satisfy our Jewish friends. It is tough for Presbyterians because there is a Christian population in the occupied territories. The Christians are a very small minority, and they are shrinking because they are caught in the crossfires. The Presbyterian Church understands precisely why Jewish groups are upset, because we refuse to be one-sided. We’ve been on record for a two-state solution for 60 years now.”
Still, said Van Marter, Presbyterians are not of one mind about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Rev. Jeffrey Vamos of the Presbyterian Church in Lawrenceville told NJJN he believes in “the absolute importance of the State of Israel for the Jewish people and its need to exist in safe and secure borders.
“But I think the occupation weakens Israel,” he said, “and because I am a strong supporter of Israel, I think that the occupation is probably the worst thing for it.”
‘Completely unbalanced’
Leaders of the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements were among the Jewish groups protesting a “revised” version of a Presbyterian Church (USA) statement on “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias.” Here, in a letter to church leader Rev. Cliff Kirkpatrick, they summarized their objections:
The initial statement contained many important elements that are now absent, including: an acknowledgement of complicity in existing anti-Jewish attitudes, a deep and thorough analysis of Palestinian liberation theology and the adverse characterization it often projects on the Jewish community, and most importantly a tone that is conciliatory and reflecting the spirit of true dialogue and respect. Now we have a statement that is completely unbalanced in its appraisal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which contains veiled threats of “divestment,” and which completely undoes much of the positive language and progress that were presented in the initial draft. Indeed, this document reads as a blueprint for how to engage in anti-Israel activity without being accused of anti-Semitism.
--TOP--
- Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com
