There is a PCUSA web site, Ecumenical & InterfaithNetwork - PCUSA which includes a very helpful section. This is under:
Middle East peace and American interfaith relationships
"The Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 requires the State Department to document and combat acts of anti-Semitism. Its report to Congress, Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism, describes as a new form of anti-Semitism the "criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that -- whether intentionally or unintentionally -- has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel's perceived faults to its Jewish character." The American Jewish Committee prepared a paper for the Obama transition team, Confronting International Anti-Semitism: An Agenda for the New Administration. As part of its efforts to avoid repetition of the identification of Zionism as racism, such as occurred at the 2001 UN conference against racism in Durban, the AJC has released The Durban Diaries."
The first link, Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism, is a pdf document prepared by The United States Department of State which explores contemporary anti-Semitism. That includes anti-Zionism. I am very thankful that a PCUSA site is linked to this document and hope it is used more widely.
It documents anti-Semitism in all countries including various Arab nations. The authors not only look at classic anti-Semitism but at several new forms of anti semitism. The newer forms include anti-Zionism and a way of demeaning Israel that also demeans all of the Jewish people.
This is the statement:
"Anti-Semitism has proven to be an adaptive phenomenon. New forms of anti-Semitism have evolved. They often incorporate elements of traditional anti-Semitism. However, the distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that—whether intentionally or unintentionally—has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character."
Beneath this is a helpful list:
- "Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews • worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.…
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. "
Reading this document would help members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) understand why the booklet, Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest for Just Peace, produced by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network is anti-Semitic.
Although this booklet, Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism, is eighty pages long I highly recommend down loading and reading it. It gives a complete picture of world-wide anti-Semitism, including some awful cartoons drawn by radical Islamic cartoonist. The Ecumenical & InterfaithNetwork - PCUSA should be thanked for placing this document on their site.
If you are trying to find the page I have linked to first go to the home of the Ecumenical & InterFaithNetwork-PCUSA. then click on InterFaith Relations on the side. On that page there is a box toward the bottom where you can see Middle East Peace under specific issues. Click on that and scroll down.
12 comments:
This is a hugely helpful posting, worthy of denomination-wide distribution. Excellent work.
Viola,
You have suggested that one read the statement "Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the United States Congress" provided by the Department of State. I have done so and I concur that it is a helpful document. However, once again, I must object. I object to your use of this document to support your continued allegation that Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest for Just Peace produced by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network is anti-semitic. To quote President Clinton, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." In your argument, "could" equals "is." Not in my world, nor in the world of just about anyone else who uses the English language to communicate.
If we are to have a rational debate within the Presbyterian Church (USA) we should do so without the name calling toward toward the IPMN that characterizes your end of the discussion. Let us recognize that any support for Palestinians in their quest for a just peace "could" be construed as anti-semitic. But if because of that "could" we close our eyes and ears, our minds and our mouths, to the plight of Palestinians we have done a disservice not only to Palestinians but also to Israelis.
Further, Steadfast Hope is a piece that helps open discussion. Case in point: The conversation that you and I have had over the past couple of weeks.
Neil,
Thank you for acknowledging the document, Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the United States Congress,” is helpful.
But you did misquote me. I did not say ‘could’ I said ‘would’. I was being much more assertive than you thought. I wrote:
“Reading this document would help members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) understand why the booklet, Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest for Just Peace, produced by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network is anti-Semitic.”
And it will. For several reasons:
First off very clearly the document states that one of the defining characteristics of anti-Semitism is: “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.” Steadfast Hope very clearly accuses Jewish people of controlling the media. (See page 15)
Another statement by Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.…” Certainly trying to explain away the heritage of the Jewish people by denying that most European Jews and those who were exiled from all the Arab countries are not connected to ancient Israel is an attempt by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network to deny the Jewish people self-determination.
And this qualifier for anti-Semitism, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” is what the authors of Steadfast Hope are doing when they accuse the Israelis of ethnic cleansing.
I could go on but I think this gives you the idea of what I meant by my ‘would.’
I should also state that to attempt to talk about how the Palestinians can be helped using such anti-Semitism as exits in Steadfast hope is unhelpful. As I have said before it legitimizes the anti-Semitic sections to do so. And there are so many half truths in the booklet that one cannot be certain of what is true.
For instance the statement that “On June 5, 1967, Israel initiated a preemptive strike by bombing and then invading Egypt, Jordan, and Syria with the goal of expanding the boundaries of the state,” has an iota of truth in it and that is all. One could write a huge paper just correcting that statement.
Finally, Neil, you and I are not having a discussion about the conflict in the Middle East or the needs of the Palestinians. We are having a discussion about the anti-Semitism in the book published by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network.
Viola Larson
Sacramento,Ca
First, page 15 does not say "control." It does say that coverage is "skewed." It uses the word "bias. It says that media is "relatively deaf to the voices of Palestinians." Such words and phrases do not rise to the level of "control." In biblical studies we would call your use of the word eisegesis.
Second, quoting of a scholarly source, Shlomo Sand, of the University of Tel Aviv, is not evidence of anti-semitism, nor does it deny Israel's right to exist.
The accusation of ethnic cleansing has been made by another Jewish source, Ilan Pappe, based not on the Nazi experience but on comparisons with more recent events in the former Yugoslavia.
The "could" I was referring to was the "could include" part of the paper which you have turned into "is."
Last week I listened once again to Abba Eban's address of June 1967 before the United Nations. (I had heard it live at the time and wanted to see if a 42 year long memory was accurate.) It fits the definition of a "preemptive strike." Namely, we will attack you before you attack us. Eban's argument, in defending Israel, was that an attack was imminent. Troops and tanks were massed in the Sinai. The Straits of Eilat had been closed, etc. Therefore a preemptive strike was justified. Listening to it confirmed my memory of his eloquent address. The word "preemptive" is descriptive, not pejorative. I think that counts for more than an iota.
I too could go on.
Neil,
I am amazed. Did you read the whole page. You did not even quote the whole of that sentence. Instead of just “that media is ‘relatively deaf to the voices of Palestinians,” the article says “”If the US media is over dependent on official Israeli spokespersons, they are relatively deaf to the voices of Palestinians.”
They write of Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and their publication “The Israel Lobby” and quote them, “A key part of preserving positive public attitudes toward Israel is to ensure that the mainstream media’s coverage of Israel and the Middle East consistently favors Israel and does not call support into question in any way …’”
They go on to say, speaking of and quoting from the book, “The chapter on ‘Dominating Public Discourse’ describes the ‘objectionable tactics’ used to create bias in the media, to promote one-sided analyses by think tanks, and to police the academic community.”
On top of this, you seem to have missed what I quoted in an earlier posting. From the same page, ““Skewed coverage is no accident, writes Walter Rodgers, Jerusalem bureau chief for CNN from 1995 to 2000. ‘At the height of the second Palestinian intifada, Richard Griffiths, the editorial director of CNN, admonished me, ‘You have to remember, Walt, there are two standards of reporting at CNN, one for Israel, and the other for the rest of the world.’ Like many in US news organizations responsible for the Middle East coverage at that time, Griffiths had just taken a terrible beating from Jewish-American pressure groups as well as from his own avowedly pro-Israel management.”
“taking a terrible beating by Jewish American pressure groups as well as from his own avowedly pro-Israel management.” Come on Neil-you have to believe that including that bit on that page is insisting that Jewish people control the media.
And Neil I did not say that it was untrue that Israel made a preemptive strike, I said it was untrue that they did so to gain more territory. Why are you only reading parts of what I and others write?
Neil,
I have to apologize for that last part, I guess it was in a different posting that I pointed out that the last half of the statement about a preemptive strike was the untruth. But the last half is untrue.
And all that I staid about the Media is true.
Yes I read this whole sentence, ”If the US media is over dependent on official Israeli spokespersons, they are relatively deaf to the voices of Palestinians.” To allege that "the US media is over dependent" is not to say that AIPAC or any other Jewish source controls the media, it is to say that the US media is lazy and deaf.
Yes, I read all that you quote. I read the whole page, I read all of the Mearsheimer and Walt article.
You keep saying that Steadfast Hope is anti-semitic--which is an allegation directed against the authors thereof. You have not proved your case nor even presented a preponderance of evidence that the allegation is true.
If you had once said something like this: Steadfast Hope might be construed as anti-semitic, or could possibly be construed, or any such more modest statement, I would have left this alone.
Neil,
The exact word ‘control’ does not have to be used in order for the sentences to mean the same thing. (I didn’t realize you were such a literalist.) “Screwed coverage is no accident,” means control.
“Objectionable tactics” means control. “Taken a terrible beating from Jewish pressure groups” and news “management” means control. “Attempts to slant media coverage and other forms of bias,” means control.
Steadfast Hope is anti-Semitic
I wonder if the determination of what is antisemitic is the difference between historical and other mistakes and lies.
An example: The assertion that Israel conducted a preemptive strike on Syria, Egypt and Jordan in 1967 seeking to expand its territory.
Israel did indeed conduct a preemptive strike on Syria and Jordan. Whether this preemptive strike was justified is part of the debate.
There are however two problems with this statement in the publication. First, Israel did not attack Jordan on the first day of the war in 1967. Israel didn't attack Jordan at all. Jordan stayed out of the war at first and later joined in. Israel only fought Jordan when Jordan attacked. This could be sloppy historical research or it could be a lie. Even if it is sloppy research I expect PCUSA organizations to do better. If it was a lie then does it goes over the border into antisemitism?
The second is the assertion that Israel started the 1967 war in order to gain territory. I do not know of any sources that provide definitive proof that the Israeli government planned to gain territory through the war. This comment is at the very least speculation.
One could speculate that Israel hoped to gain the Golan Heights in the 1967 war as Syria had a terrible habit of shooting artillery shells into Galilee whenever it felt like it.
As to the Sinai and the West Bank Israel ultimately gave the Sinai back to Egypt for peace and diplomatic recognition. Egypt didn't want Gaza back. Israel would not have gained the West Bank and East Jerusalem if Jordan had not attacked. Jordon doesn't want the West Bank back.
So it seems to me that this claim stands on shaky ground. At the very least the claim that Israel attacked Jordan is historically inaccurate. So is the claim that Israel conducted a preemptive attack on Egypt and Jordan for territorial gain.
The question is: is sloppy historical research or a lie about Israel anti-Semitic?
Bob
When I listed the historical lies (or sloppy historical research) as a part of the anti-Semitism-I think I did that in another posting- I made it a part of what the two big problems are in this booklet. Disconnecting the Jews of today from their ancient history and claiming that the United States media is controlled by Jewish groups.
Because the history is a part of these two blatant anti-Semitic ideas I feel it needs to be included in the term anti-Semitic. And actually I have no doubt that the author's of this booklet believe the things they have written. The problem is it just isn't true. I think if they were just sloppy they were sloppy because they were biased.
I also want to add that I always appreciate your clear thinking when you approach a subject like this. You add so much to the discussion, and you make me stop and think about things. That is so important.
Presenting false information as if it were fact is a product of bias or sloppy research.
But a pattern (and that is clearly exhibited in PC(USA) treatment of the subject) of such errors - all going in the same direction do indicate a strong anti-Israel biase. If it were random, and merely irresponsible treatment of the topic, it would seem that the likelihood of error could go in either direction. It demonstrably does not. Whether one is speaking of this document, other materials from the IPMN, the PNS, the backgroup materials in the 03 and 04 resolutions, or the statements of denominational officials - even about GA actions, in all cases, all such errors are to Israel's harm.
Like it or not, that is a broad pattern.
Bias by itself is also not inherently antisemitic. But when the treatment of Israel is unique in the annals of PC(USA) - and other mainline denominations - history, it raises a question. When Israel is uniquely attacked as the only Jewish state - when it is held to a verifiably different standard of behavior from all other nations - there may well be an undercurrent of antisemitism.
In addition to anti-Israel bias, this IPMN document also contains items that have been very strongly associated with antisemitism.
These items are used in the exact same manner. Their function is the same as it is when it is used by radically antisemitic groups. Most of these - more typically antisemitic groups, by the way, also have learned to use slightly more circumspect language. They often include words like may, could be, skewed - but they also usually narrow down these terms in exactly the way Viola is detailing in the IPMN document.
It walks like an antisemite; it quacks like an antisemite. Observers would be not be unreasonable to conclude that it is most likely an antisemite.
Post a Comment