You probably recall the furious criticisms on the Presbyterian Church (USA) after the 2004 General Assembly approved a call for studying the possibility of the church’s divesting itself of stocks in companies currently doing business in or with the State of Israel in ways that support the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territory. We reported and commented on those attacks at the time, and have continued to link to many discussions of Israel, Palestine, and charges of anti-Semitism.

But now a number of Jewish groups in the US are talking about a "new anti-Semitism," which some observers see as the familiar fear-mongering that has been practiced so effectively by President Bush and his administration, using "terrorists" (and of course Arabs and/or Muslims) as the focus of the fear.

The fierce criticisms of Jimmy Carter’s recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, seem to be one current example of what these members of the "Israel lobby" are calling the new anti-Semitism.

To gain some understanding of what’s happening among our Jewish sisters and brothers, Geoff Browning, an active participant in the Israel-Palestine Network attended a conference on "the new anti-Semitism" in the Bay Area, and shared a report with the group.

He has kindly agreed to let us share it here, as well.

The New Anti-Semitism Conference was put on by a long list of Bay Area Jewish organizations including the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Community Relations Council. I wanted to attend the conference because I have been participating in a Jewish/Presbyterian dialogue group for more than an year and yet I felt, as a Presbyterian, that I still didn’t understand the strong connection Jews feel with the state of Israel and the fear Jews feel around the issue of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is still a very real problem in the world and we all know its ugliness in the form of vandalism of synagogues, slurs against Jews as greedy, miserly, etc. But what does the "new" anti-Semitism mean? That is what I was hoping to learn.

Lesson 1: Perhaps it was the police cars parked in front of the locked and gated facility or the searching of our bags and backpacks or the guards at the entrances and on every floor, but there was no mistaking the sense of fear that was the subtext of this conference on the "New anti-Semitism." Yet, for all the heightened security, the security seemed like a pretense. As a flock of us early birders were gathering outside the gate before the conference, someone took the initiative and pressed the green button that might unlock the gate. A disembodied voice spoke from a speaker that reminded me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz, "What do you want?" Our undesignated initiator replied, "We want to come in," sounding a little puzzled that such an explanation was necessary. We heard the buzzing sound that unlocked the gate and we all filed through to register our presence without anyone verifying who we were or what we were there to do. When they did get around to searching our bags and backpacks after registration, it was little more than a perfunctory effort. Gratefully, they didn’t search the deep body cavities of my person, but if security was a concern, why wouldn’t they thoroughly search my backpack? On the other hand, I guess it would seem odd to have a conference about the hatred of Jews without at least some security. I just wonder whether the purpose of the security was to insure safety or to underscore that Jews ought to be fearful. Perhaps the topic itself warrants an orange alert.

Lesson 2: The new anti-Semitism, as described by the speakers at the conference, including the keynote speaker, Anthony Julius from Britain, has two distinguishing characteristics: it is expressed by those that are on the political left and it includes criticism of Israel. These characteristics seem so general as to be meaningless unless their intent is to claim that a substantial portion of the State of Israel is also guilty of the new anti-Semitism. Oddly enough these characteristics seem to contradict the stated principles of the conference which included the phrases, "Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism" and "We will support a safe and supportive environment where a diversity of views can be expressed." Nevertheless, every workshop and plenary session we attended linked criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism without any corresponding counterpoint or nuancing explanation.

This linkage between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism is dangerous because it associates Israel with worldwide Jewry. Once we go down that road, logic will allow Israel’s critics to claim not just that Israel is invading Lebanon, but the "Jews are invading Lebanon" or the "Jews are invading Gaza." This is the logical consequence of associating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. And doing so perpetuates and propagates anti-Semitism. There must be a careful examination and explanation of what it means for Israel to be a Jewish state without it also being representative of all Jews. This discussion was entirely lacking from the conference.

Lesson 3: At least two leaders of workshops had expressed the view that the Presbyterian Church (USA) and/or all its members are anti-Semitic. In one session, it was so blatant that the leader of the workshop announced that all Presbyterians are anti-Semites, "…they just don’t realize it yet." As a Presbyterian, I consider this to be a form of hate speech. There is no other way to put it. The categorizing of an entire denomination and/or its members is just as bad as the anti-Semitism they claim to be fighting against. It incites animosity between our communities and that does nothing to further understanding and mutual support. In both of these cases, the speakers were Christian ministers and yet there is no doubt that the organizers of the conference knew their biases and they were asked to participate because of their biases. This is particularly troubling and ironic since the Anti-Defamation League was among the sponsors and organizers of this conference.

Lesson 4: In another session, two Jewish activists got in an argument. Women in Black, a peace group that protests the effects of war and violence around the world, claimed that another group, Voice for Israel led by one of the workshop leaders, was using hateful tactics against them. They claimed that the Jews from the other organization called them cruel and hateful names, used bullhorns in their faces, etc. The Voice for Israel activist responded with counter claims of his own.

First of all, there is nothing new in rival religious groups experiencing this animosity. Rival Christian organizations have done as much and worse to one another. What did strike me was the tragic irony that if a non-Jew did the things that the Women in Black claims were done, it would be a blatant example of anti-Semitism. Yet in the mind of this activist, he did not see his actions as in any way hateful even though his actions were full of anti-Jewish slurs and just as well rationalized. And finally, his response of counter claims of misdeeds done by the other party struck me as astonishing. Here, in this small room of about 30 people, we could see the same dynamic being played out between Palestine and Israel, claim and counter claim and vice versa. The best defense is a good offence.

Lesson 5: The final lesson from the conference was for me the most disturbing one of all. The session on how to respond to hurtful language turned into a session on how to respond to criticism of Israel. The message of this session was clear; criticism of Israel is hurtful. The session leader, David Hirsh, was role playing the critic of Israel and asking the audience to come up with impromptu responses. One criticism that was offered was that the "occupation is a violation of Jewish values." Since no one in the audience volunteered a response, Mr. Hirsh offered his own analysis that the term is so subjective that we can’t be sure what it means. I found this confounding since as a non-Jew, I have found the Jewish values of justice and human rights and care for the poor and oppressed to be a beacon of hope for our world. Long before there were Christians standing up for justice and for the poor, there were Jews speaking out on behalf of the widows and orphans and the oppressed. The prophet Isaiah says it well:

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke.

Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

These are the values that allow Jews, Christians and many others to stand together against bigotry and racism, against the scapegoating of immigrants, to be advocates on behalf of food and shelter for the poor and homeless. These are the values that my Jewish friends and teachers and heroes have taught me. I’m sorry they were not among the lessons I learned at The New Anti-Semitism Conference.

The author: Geoff Browning says of himself, "I am the Peacemaking Advocate for the Presbytery of San Jose. I have been involved in the local Jewish/Presbyterian dialogue up to the 2006 GA. I have been to Israel/Palestine twice. My local congregation, First Presbyterian of Palo Alto, has always been a strong supporter of the Jewish community. We have been the incubator for at least two Jewish synagogues. When the Palo Alto City Council attempted to evict the Jewish Community Center from city property, we protested that eviction to make sure they found a new home. We often work together with our Jewish colleagues on other social issues such as immigration rights and speaking out against the war."

Browning also wrote on the criticisms of the PC(USA) in Presbyterian Outlook, in January, 2006, under the title, "Is the Presbyterian Church (USA) Anti-Semitic?"