Simon Wiesenthal was an inspiration to me as a Jewish kid growing up in America. Who in my place wouldn't have been inspired by him? My large European-based family lost something on the order of fifty members during the Holocaust, and Wiesenthal hunted their killers -- or at least those who had gotten away.
When I learned about the center that bears his name, I was equally impressed. How couldn't I support an organization "that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity, stands with Israel, defends the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaches the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations"? It brought together the hard-nosed fight for justice with a love for teaching and an investment in the future of Judaism.
I still profoundly admire Wiesenthal and the Wiesenthal Center. But I worry that a recent op-ed written by two of its leaders, Rabbi Marvin Hier and Rabbi Abraham Cooper, goes against the very pursuit of justice that the center so firmly embraces. Entitled "Presbyterians Against Israel: Liberal Protestants are engaging in historical revisionism concerning Jews and the Holy Land," its strong suit is certainly not understatement. But by labeling an entire Christian denomination "anti-Israel," it may prove far more damaging.
The Presbyterian Church has over 2.3 million members in the United States. Its members are diverse, as are its leaders. To claim that "Presbyterians" -- and all the more so "liberal Protestants" more broadly -- are "against Israel" is provocative, unconvincing, and even ironic.
One of the worst dichotomies propagated by Israel's critics (and an unfortunate number of its supporters) is the very idea that you can be "anti-Israel." Besides undermining any hope for nuanced discussion, it suggests that you can be against the very existence of a country, rewrite history, and should devote time to counterfactuals rather than peace-building.
If there is a lesson to be derived from problematic and disproportionate criticism of Israel, it is not to oversimplify. It is appropriate to criticize the policies of a given country and support alternatives; it is unacceptable to tarnish the image of an entire country based on policies that only some support.
Something similar may be said of denominational bodies and their policies, as well.
Most tragically, we find that Israel's staunchest supporters within the Presbyterian Church are those most hurt by Hier and Cooper's piece. They are now seen as being in bed with true opponents of the Presbyterian Church -- rather than simply holding different aspirations for its internal policies. By contrast, those most critical of Israel in the Presbyterian Church -- some of whom may even venture into the self-defeating ether of counterfactual history -- will gain momentum and political stature from their article.
Just last summer, the Wiesenthal Center and its representatives witnessed the Presbyterian Church vigorously reaffirm its historic commitment to Israel's right to exist, turn down divestment proposals and amend many other proposed Middle East policies. By criticizing an entire denomination, Rabbis Hier and Cooper can expect more, not less, criticism of Israel.
Israel stands to lose from a lack of nuance on all sides. So does the future of Presbyterian-Jewish relations in America.
(Full Disclosure: While I am primarily a rabbinical student at Hebrew Union College, I also serve as Program Director of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue at Auburn Theological Seminary, an institution affiliated with the Presbyterian Church -- notably one whose leaders have opposed divestment.)
Follow Joshua Stanton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dialogueeditor
Kelly Figueroa-Ray: Read My Sacred Texts as if They Were Your Own
'Report demonizing Israel risks Presbyterian-Jewish ties'
Jewish-Presbyterian Ties at 'New Low' – Forward.com
Presbyterian Church USA that blames Israel for the “Palestinian ...
Facing confrontation on Israel, Presbyterian Church manages a ...
Joint Statement from Jewish Organizations on Presbyterian Church ...
You didn't really address the concerns expressed in the op-ed. Primarily the failure to support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.
If that country claims to be a democracy then, unfortunately, with that designation comes the responsibility for decisions your fellow men and leaders make. Whether you or I voted for G.W. Bush or not, we are responsible for the murder of thousands of Iraqis and the displacement of millions that was done in our name. If a country is run by a dictator, then the countrymen would be innocent of the dictator's decision. Israel claims to be a democracy. Israelis have to be responsible for the leaders they choose and the decisions those leaders make.
We need to have grace to show grace and if we do not have grace ourselves, there is nothing that we can show, correct or teach other people. People can only respect grace. They cannot respect extremism and desperation that shows a lack of faith in our Maker.
The article's title should have more failry read:
'Presb. Chruch Leaders Moving Against Israel'.
You are correct that the entire membership should not have been glued together.
That said, their leadership's actions are objectionable enough . . . plenty.
The solution to every dispute in this world is NOT to 'split the difference'. Such a strategy rewards the recasting of historical facts becase the more insane the story, the more unfair the 1/2-way compromise. This has been a customary strategy of the Presb. divestment movement. Essentially, to demand the sun and settle for the moon--as a 'fair compromise'.
It is an extra-biblÂical teaching that condemns extra-biblÂical teachings and it is not even true. It is an absolute contradictÂion to its own self. It is a lie.
What exactly are you talking about, and why is your comment here after this article in which the author is trying to soften the message of the outrageous op-ed piece that he refers to?
I hope you do understand that God most certainly is communicating with us in a different way than he did before Jesus' life. That method -- sending prophets -- is over. After Jesus, God's not going to be sending much more. After all, Jesus kind of laid it all out -- his was not some kind of partial or imperfect message. Or such is what Christians understand to be true.
Common sense, and well said. Thank you, Mr.Stanton.
You clearly have this "evidence" so post it.
Otherwise one can safely assume your post contains lies.
Thanks in advance!
And why are the "people in the pews" no less responsible for not knowing what is being voted on at their conventions? Are you no less responsible for everything passed at your city council meeting even if you have no idea what went on there? Your local PTA at the public schools your taxes support, even if you don't have children attending and so don't got to their meetings?
(I used liberal in the theological sense I should have used a capital L. The PCUSA is decidedly and admittedly theologically Liberal in the proper german 18th-19th century theologiasn sense of the word.)
Here in the USA we have religious minorities that establish their own communities and practice in complete safety from government interference.
Thank you for that explanation for why the Church deemed this particular border dipute to chime in on out of the dozens in the world, and certainly the far more egregious actions that have taken place in Africa ( Darfur ).
You have been a Mount Everest of support on this Israel topic and have counter-weighted (as I see it) dozens of anti-Israeli bloggers herein. The truth, having its own intrinsic source of power can outweigh much more voluminous quantities of fables.
The Sudan story is actually worse then you recount. The Christian community of Southern Sudan is one of the oldest Christian communities in the entire world, predating the Presb. Church by something like 1,500 years.
The Christians of Southern Sudan are also some of the sweetest people on this planet. They have been savagely slaughtered and raped for decades already. Very few people/groups/nations gave this wide-spread genocide any attention and as you correctly state, even the more recent Darfour massacres (of mainly black Muslims) has been marginalized in favor of the more politically popular condemnation of Israel.