In actuality, the resolutions were passed, based on testimonials from a few carefully selected Palestinian Christians, without hearing at all from either Jewish leaders or other Christian leaders knowledgeable about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The General Assembly was set up to hear well-rehearsed, well-placed, one-sided testimony from those who supported the divestment decision. Anyone who might have arrived at General Assembly with a different perspective had no assured platform from which to present his or her thinking. Proponents had the benefit of the PCUSA organization and staff working on their behalf at every step of the way. It was an inherently unlevel playing field.
Two non-Presbyterians had the extraordinary opportunity to communicate directly with the assembly: Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, and Rt. Rev. Riah Abu el-Assal. (5) The insights of Israeli settlers, Israeli Christians, Israelis who opposed divestment, and American Jewish groups who opposed divestment were not allowed to be considered.
Rev. Dr. Raheb is the pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Christian Church in Bethlehem. In his writings, Dr. Raheb states: “Israel, once miraculously delivered from Pharaoh's bondage, has now assumed the role of Pharaoh.” (6) He describes the “arrogance” of the Israeli occupation, playing on tensions between Christians and Jews: “How else can we explain the arrogance of the Israeli occupation, which reoccupied Bethlehem shortly before Advent and the Christmas Season, demonstrating that they do not care for the whole Christian World? If they wish they can smash the ‘little town of Bethlehem.’ It is too ‘little,’ compared with the might of their tanks.” (7)
Rev. Raheb does not mention that Christians in Israel are enjoying far greater freedom from religious persecution than their brothers in the Palestinian-administered territories.
The Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, the Rt. Rev. Abu El-Assal, is well-known for his contacts previously with Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization, dating back thirty years. An argument can be made, however tortured, for these contacts to be seen as peacemaking gestures, but Abu El-Assal's public statements are less defensible. He asserts that the land of Jesus' birth has been under foreign control for the last hundred years, apparently unaware of the Ottomans, the Crusaders, the Byzantines, and the Romans. Abu El-Assal compares Jews to Roman soldiers and describes divisions among them in unflattering, stereotypical terms: “The Orthodox, with their ringlets, stove hats, and black suits, stoning their unorthodox brothers and sisters, who form the majority, if they attempt to drive their cars on the Sabbath.” He complains of “Zionist propaganda.” He talks of the Jewish forfeiture of Israeli identity by rejecting Christ. Abu El-Assal also claims that Islam served Christ. (8)
In an interview with Robbie Low, Rt. Rev. Abu El-Assal offers a perspective on the “consistent threats to annihilate Israel and sweep them into the sea” that can only be described as unique: “That is like when a mother is angry with her children and says, ‘I will kill you!’ We speak in an Eastern way; they think in Western terms. In 1923, when there were 56,000 Jews, if we had wanted to, we could have killed them then.” (9)
In 2003, Abu El-Assal reportedly made the extraordinary claim that Palestinian martyrs “live in the kingdom of heaven.” He seems to have quoted from the Koran to support this viewpoint: “Do not consider those that were killed for the sake of Allah as dead, but alive with their lord.” (10)
Victor Makari, PCUSA coordinator for the Office of the Middle East and Europe, was asked to explain why no Jewish representatives were invited to speak before the General Assembly to provide another viewpoint. He answered, “We have an interfaith office.... They know our positions and we know their positions and their attitudes.” (11) Applying this kind of logic, we do not need any more interfaith dialogue, and we only need to hear from the people we agree with when we are about to make important decisions in a complex region of the world.
_______________________
Continue reading by clicking on one of the links below:
4.1. The resolution relies upon flawed sources of historical background information
4.2. The resolutions are premised upon flawed theological grounds
4.3. Speakers were carefully chosen with no balance
4.4. The error of calling for immediate and unconditional removal of the security barrier
4.5. Divestment is the wrong pathway to peace in the region and guarantees that our church will play no constructive role as a mediator
4.6. The error of trying to legislate a foreign policy by biennial resolutions in a fluid and constantly changing Middle East
4.7. The strong probability that the resolutions do not reflect the views of a majority of Presbyterians
4.8. The perception that the resolutions reflect a broader and troubling institutional bias against Israel within PCUSA offices and committees
4.8.1. The Presbyterian News Service (PNS)
4.8.2. PCUSA - Washington Offices
4.8.3. The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP)
