a report by Arch Taylor on a conference sponsored by the Office of the General Assembly, February 10-12, 2005
[3-7-05]

Doug King

In his report on the Presbyterian divestment conference, Mr. Arch Taylor wrote that a leader of the group "Rabbis for Human Rights" spoke via telephone. Mr. Taylor reports that the organization Rabbis for Human Rights is considered by mainstream Jews to be a "fringe group", and that these mainstream Jews "don't want people to hear their voices." So please allow me to help members of the Witherspoon Society hear the fringe voices of Rabbis for Human Rights.

In an article written two weeks ago, the founder of Rabbis for Human Rights called the Presbyterian's divestment decision "a not so subtle form of anti-Semitism that must be condemned." David Forman asked "[w]hy single out Israel? Simply because the Presbyterian Church and the World Council of Churches, in their prejudicial and unbalanced statements of divestment from Israel, believe they are elevating their own moral self-worth."

Rabbis for Human Rights has a website. On its front page it asks readers to "[j]oin us in protesting unequal treatment towards the Jewish People. The Presbyterian Church (USA) 216th General Assembly voted July 2, 2004 on numerous resolutions regarding the Jewish People and the conflict in the Middle East, including starting a process of a phased and selective divestment of its nearly $8 billion portfolio from select Israel-related firms. Rabbis for Human Rights feels that a notable lackof empathy characterizes these resolutions. In our ongoing dialogue with the Presbyterian Church we stress that the human rights of Jews to respectful, equal treatment should be dear to the hearts of all who call upon the Name of the Creator."

Mr. Taylor concludes his review of the conference by stating that "[w]hat got the Jewish attention was money." Not double standards, moral truth, one sidedness or unfair demonization of a tiny state surrounding by enemies - no, it is money that is behind Jewish complaints. It seems that what you call the "progessive perspective" is informed by beliefs that most humane and civilized people abandoned a long time ago. One does not have to be a "Rabbi for Human Rights" to recognize bigotry, ignorance and hatred.

Robert Hardage, New York

Dr. Taylor has sent a reply

Dear Robert Hardage

Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Doug King.

In my report, I stated that because of my hearing impairment and the poor reception, I was not able to hear Rabbi Ascherman's message, which I greatly regret. I respect RHR and their work on behalf of the Palestinians' rights. The term "fringe groups" originated from one of the more mainstream Jewish groups with whom Presbyterians have most recently been in dialogue. It was used to refer to some other Jewish organizations in both Israel and the USA, that take a more critical stance toward Israel's policies. If RHR does not belong in that category, I apologize.

When I was in Israel in October 2001 with the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship Christian Peacemaker Team we met somebody from RHR (sorry, I forget the name). We heard from Jeff Halper. I support TIKKUN and attended their teach-in of Congress last year.

For myself personally, and I believe for the Presbyterian Church as a body, there is a distinction between the political entity Israel on the one hand and Judaism as a religious faith and Jewish people as a whole on the other. I'm sorry of that offends Jews who wish to amalgamate them all, but I can't help making a distinction. Through the prophet Samuel, God acceded to Israel's request for a king, to be "like the nations (goyim)" and have a king to fight their battles. In Samuel's description of what the king would do, first and foremost was organizing an army. As I read the Bible, from that time forward, Israel, as one among the nations (goyim), was involved in war off and on ever since. I don't think God really wants God's people to be like the goyim and fight wars. The rabbis who reconstituted Judaism after the destruction of the second temple rejected from their canon the story of the Maccabee's state with its violent response to Syrian oppression and eventual corruption, and accepted the book of Daniel, with its non-violent stance.

The modern state of Israel is clearly "like other nations" with one of the most powerful military forces in the world (they take not only 'your sons' for the army, but also 'your daughters'). They even have nuclear weapons, as everybody knows, but they won't admit. As such a state, Israel is obligated to follow the laws generally accepted by other nation states and is subject to criticism and condemnation for failure to do so. That has nothing to do with Jewish people as a whole or Judaism as such, except insofar as Israel violates the principles of the Mosaic law and the prophets on which Judaism is based (and also Christianity, in my view).

It is precisely on the basis of our biblical heritage of the law and the prophets supplemented by the life and teaching of Jesus that the Presbyterian church has not hesitated to criticise our own nation state the USA for violations of human rights, though I admit that much more often than I personally would prefer, the General Assembly has fallen in line with nationalism rather than biblical faith.

As a Christian, without denying the Jews' prior claim to the status, I believe the church also is considered a part of the people of God. In the earliest centuries CE both Jews and Christians were countercultural movements. Both were people, not nations. Since Constantine Christianity became the religion and hence the supporter of the state, and I confess and repent the terrible consequences that often had for Jews. I don't think God wants either of God's people, Jews, Christians, or any others, to behave like states.

Nearly every year for decades at the annual meeting of the General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church has passed resolutions affirming the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to have independent, secure states side by side. It has passed resolutions condemning Palestinian suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism. It has supported UN resolutions condemning Israel's acts that violate international law and human rights. Year after year we passed such resolutions, and I don't think any of those qualify as "one sidedness or unfair demonization of a tiny state surrounding by enemies" to use your terms. Heretofore our Jewish brothers and sisters did not raise any outcry or objection. Only when the question of the possibility of divestment (not even any final decision to divest) arose, did we have such a reaction. Why just now, and not before?

When I personally express criticism for the state of Israel, I try to do so in full conformity with the RHR closing statement:

In our ongoing dialogue with the Presbyterian Church we stress that the human rights of Jews to respectful, equal treatment should be dear to the hearts of all who call upon the Name of the Creator.

Again, thanks for giving me an opportunity to respond. If you wish to continue this dialogue, I welcome it.

For peace,

Arch Taylor

Robert Hardage responds:

Thank you for your honest response. While I too am a follower of Jesus Christ, I have taken the time to understand the feelings of my Jewish friends and neighbors. You state that "[f]or myself personally, and I believe for the Presbyterian Church as a body, there is a distinction between the political entity Israel on the one hand and Judaism as a religious faith and Jewish people as a whole on the other." Of course you are entitled to your beliefs, but to the Jewish people, Israel is and has been at the heart of the Jewish faith - in its prayers, longings and hopes for thousands of years. You may as well walk up to an Italian friend and say "I love Italians but would like to see Italy wiped off the face of the earth". He probably wouldn't consider you a friend after that.

Later you argue that "Israel is obligated to follow the laws generally accepted by other nation states and is subject to criticism and condemnation for failure to do so." Amen. The issue to most of our Jewish brothers and sisters is not criticism of Israeli policy and politicians (the Jewish and Israeli press is replete with it) but double standards and selective indignation. Had your resolution called for divestment against all states which are in violation of international law (including the genocidal Sudanese, the Russian butchers of Chechnya, the Chinese occupiers of Tibet, the woman-oppressing Saudis and the Syrian and Libyan dictatorships) you would have little or no response from the Jewish community. However, when you claim to support universal values but only go after the Jewish state, it is as if a Klansman claims that he condemns all crime, but only wants to talk about crimes committed by blacks. It reeks of bigotry.

Finally, you ask "[o]nly when the question of the possibility of divestment (not even any final decision to divest) arose, did we have such a reaction. Why just now, and not before?" The fact that you have to ask this question means that you understand little of the recent history of the region of the Jewish people. Divestment has been an element of the war against Israel since day 1. The creation of Israel was met almost immediately with the creation by the Arab League of a Central Boycott Office in Damascus, Syria. From there list of companies doing business with Israel were compiled and these companies were given an ultimatum - join our boycott of Israel or you will not be allowed to trade with the far more numerous and populous state of the Arab world. Most major companies joined the Arab boycott. Later the boycott was extended not just to include companies that do business with Israel, but to those companies that do business with companies that do business with Israel - a secondary boycott. The goal of Arab League was clear - to cripple Israel economically and hasten its destruction. The Jewish experience with boycotts goes well beyond the Arab boycott. In the early 1930's, the Nazis often paraded before Jewish-owned stops demanding that Germans no longer do business with Jews. And on a personal level many American Jews still remember times of university and business quotas and other limitations of Jewish participation in the social and economic life of the country.

While you may argue that divestment is not the same as boycott, or that the divestment is just being considered, please understand that these distinctions are meaningless. The actions you took were highly charged with meaning and symbolism - it is as if you waved a noose in front of a black man and said that we are considering lynching you, but we haven't made up our minds yet.

Best wishes,

Robert Hardage, New York