The Presbyterian Outlook, a PCUSA denominational publication, has a story this morning about the uproar that the transformation of the “Vigilance Against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias” document has caused. It quotes some from the critical letters that I reprinted here, as well as quoting John Wimberly of Presbyterians Concerned For Jewish and Christian Relations, who was also greatly distressed at the changes:
“To release publicly a document on PCUSA-Jewish relations, have it widely praised by the Jewish community, and then re-issue a new, radically different document from the original is more than poor process. It is a betrayal of trust.”
In response, there are no quotes from anyone in the PCUSA Office of Interfaith Relations, or anyone else who might have had anything to do with the revision. Instead, the Outlook goes to Sydney Levy of Jewish Voice for Peace, who says:
“The current statement strikes a good balance between the two concerns of the church on this issue.”
Levy expressed both surprise and disappointment regarding the letter to Kirkpatrick. “Here you have the church giving thoughtful guidance to its members about how to be vigilant against anti-Jewish bias in the pursuit of Israeli/Palestinian peace and instead of getting support they get the exact opposite,” expressed Levy.
So against the combined weight of most of the major Jewish organizations in the United States, we get one voice of support, and one that comes from a far left source. Jewish Voice for Peace supports divestment from Israel, and last week issued a letter urging the PCUSA General Assembly to support efforts by the Presbytery of Chicago to proceed with it. It supports the inclusion of Hamas in peace negotiations, their Web site giving no indication that they think the terrorist group should be required to recognize Israel’s right to exist or abandon violence against civilians before doing so. They have referred to Israel as an “apartheid state,” in agreement with people like Desmond Tutu and organizations like Sabeel. JVP, in short, is a left-wing organization that happens to be made up of Jews, but which is really no different in advocacy from something like the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship (which no doubt supports the “Vigilance” document revisions whole-heartedly). That, apparently, is the best the PCUSA leadership can come up with to defend the indefensible.
June 16, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Will Spotts called this one long before it happened.
Like the works of Melitto of Sardis, the PCUSA will find a compromised Jew to attack his own people.
June 16, 2008 at 3:00 pm
As an active member of Jewish Voice for Peace, I’m a bit taken aback at our organization’s dismissal as a “left-wing organization”. Or the writer above, who seems to be calling us “compromised Jews”. Compromised by what? The truth? Common humanity – as opposed to tribalism? Here’s some news for anyone interested: JVP says nothing that is not being said much more emphatically by the Israeli peace movement. If you’d like to educate yourselves, which I highly recommend, visit our website – jvp.org, and try Googling any of the many groups of the Israeli peace movement: Rabbis for Human Rights; B’tselem; Physicians for Human Rights-Israel; the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions; Gush Shalom; Combatants for Peace; Yesh Gvul; Courage to Refuse; and others. You are correct that most major Jewish organizations support the Israeli right wing (to a far greater degree than the U.S. Jewish population) – so we have leaders who support Israeli militarism and colonialsim, just like our current political leadership – therefore it’s right? It is also correct that the debate is far more open within Israel than it is within organized Judasim in the USA. PCUSA has to decide whether it will stand on political considerations, or those of justice and humanity.
June 16, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Compromised by an inability to look beyond your own ideological blinders at what is actually going on. Your use of terms like “tribalism,” “colonialism,” and “militarism” is the give-away, of course–you sound like International ANSWER or United for Peace and Justice. I have looked over the JVP Web site, which is how I came to the conclusion I did. You can call yourself anything you want–left, moderate, centrist, I don’t care–but when you line up with Jimmy Carter, and call Israel an “apartheid state,” you are ripe for dismissal.
June 16, 2008 at 3:56 pm
It is not surprising the Presbyterian Outlook would go to Jewish Voice for Peace. While the Presbyterian Outlook claims to be an independent source, their track record of defending the Louisville status quo is well known.
Keep in mind the principal subscribers to Presbyterian Outlook are the PCUSA ministers. Presbyterian Outlook gives the ministers the talking points to refute tough questions from their congregants.
Medea Benjamin at Jewish Voice for Peace can yip and yap all she wants, but what matters is that she is nothing more than a small group of fringe Jewish maniacs. Like Norman Finkelstein no one who matters listens to them. Just because some fringe maniacs in Louisville listen to them should not be considered a pat on the back.
The major Jewish organizations know all too well the antisemitism that pervades the PCUSA leadership.
In a list of stupid actions by the Lousiville bureaucrats, the revision is pretty near the top.
June 16, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I don’t think Medea Benjamin is associated in anything except sympathies with JVP. She’s a co-founder of Code Pink and Global Exchange, but not JVP, near as I can tell. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly.
June 16, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Thanks
My error.
June 17, 2008 at 10:17 pm
The sad fact about some groups, the Jewish Voice for Peace included, is that they offer a story in which perfect behavior on the part of Israeli Jews will lead to peace in the Middle East. Sadly, Israeli peace offers and withdrawals have not led to peace. Christians take terrible advantage of groups like this.
The mention of Rabbis for Human Rights is interesting. RHR condemned forcefully the 2004 divestment resolution passed by the GA in 2004. And Rabbi Arik Asherman, one of the leaders of the group affirmed the necessity, but not the location of the security barrier.
It should also be noted that Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a prominent peace activists in the Jewish community has challenged Sabeel’s use of deicide imagery, and has condemned the organization’s support for the right of return and a one state solution.
The upshot is this: Christians who embrace a distorted narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and then use Jewish groups like JVP to justify the distorted narrative they offer are not fooling anyone.