Mainline Christian Anti-Semitism (Why Presbyterian, WCC and Lutheran churches side with terrorists)

The leadership of the Presbyterian Church recently decided to encourage its governing body to promote divestment from companies that do business with Israel. Shortly thereafter, the Anglican church, the Lutheran church and the World Council of Churches (WCC, with 347 member denominations world-wide) followed suit with the explanation that divestment "(is) a new way to work for peace, by looking at ways to not participate economically in illegal activities related to the Israeli occupation." (1) These churches are among those often referred to as "mainline" churches.

The most problematic issue of this new “mainline” posture is that it is clearly intended to support the Arab terror war against Israel; and to justify that support, church spokespersons make use of false information about the conflict.

A review of factual information about the conflict and the nature of divestment reveals that the mainline churches have stood up in favor of a process that is illegal, irrational, immoral, biased against Israel and in favor of Israel’s enemies, and consciously oblivious to the transparent lies of divestment proponents. Moreover, by supporting divestment, they ignore the real threats of global terrorism which seeks, among other things, the destruction of all other forms of religion in the world, including Christianity. The mainline churches' stand, therefore, is quite literally self-destructive.

In September, 2004, a bi-partisan group of thirteen members of Congress sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, urging the shutdown of anti-Israel divestment campaigns, because they violate U.S. laws regarding the Arab boycott of Israel. The letter was initiated by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).

The bi-partisan group was led by U.S. Representatives Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and Rob Andrews (D-NJ), and the letter was also signed by eleven other members of the Congress. The signers pointed out that by urging Americans to divest their holdings in companies doing business with Israel, the divestment proponents were illegally furnishing information about U.S. companies that have business relationships in or with Israel, and specifically advocating that these companies be boycotted. Such actions are "expressly prohibited by the anti-boycott provisions of the Export Administration Act, which were enacted in response to congressional concerns about the Arab boycott of Israel." (2)

So, by suddenly taking up the banner of divestment, the leaders of America’s mainline churches are actually in violation of U.S. law.

There are no comparable petitions seeking action against other countries that really do enslave minorities, imprison dissidents, murder political opponents, torture suspected activists, and generally maintain totalitarian repressive governments that deny human rights to their citizenry.

--Syria’s 30-year occupation of Lebanon, with its consequent casualties numbering more than 100,000 (a significant number of whom are Christians) with c. 500,000 homeless.

--Numerous violations of human rights, oppression of women and minorities, persecution of homosexuals, abuse of children, and general absence of even-handed justice in their courts whose penalties include beheading, stoning, hanging and shooting in Arab and Muslim states. Arab repression of tens of millions of religious and ethnic minorities including Maronite, Assyrian, Chaldean and Coptic Christians, Berbers, Sudanese, Kurds, Bahá'ís, Druse, Jews. Even their own Muslim citizenry who subscribe to variant Muslim sects or are deemed by the authorities to be insufficiently Muslim.

--Saudi Arabia’s brutal gender apartheid with its extreme repression of women.

In sharp contrast, Israel's record on human rights is among the best in the world, and certainly the best in the region. Israel is a vibrant and participatory democracy, which has a completely free press that is often highly critical of the Israeli government. No Arab country has a free press, nor does the Palestinian Authority. Israel has a completely independent judiciary, the only one in the entire area. Its Supreme Court, one of the best in the world, is the only court in which an Arab in the Middle East can expect to get justice in lawsuits brought against any government. Palestinians have won lawsuits against the Israeli government and the Israeli military. The rights of women, gays and others are far more fully recognized, protected and implemented in Israel than anywhere in the Arab world or in much of the rest of the world. The Israeli army does not discriminate against gays, as even the American army does, and the Israeli Knesset now includes an openly gay member. Israeli Arabs sit in the Knesset, serve on the Israeli Supreme Court and have their own newspapers. (3) Israeli Arabs have choices of five different Arab political parties, which is four more than are currently available to any citizen of any Totalitarian Arab country in the world.

If their purpose were indeed to right a wrong, impede oppression and save lives, then it would be logical for the proponents of divestment to start with the most egregious governments perpetrating these evils upon their citizenry. And if one made a list of such governments with the worst violators at the top, Israel would be very near the bottom of the list. Most if not all Arab countries and many Moslem ones would be at or near the top.

One good definition of anti-Semitism is taking a trait that is universal and singling out only the Jews for criticism in relation to that trait. That is why university professors and presidents across the country have spoken out publicly against divestment, and linked it unequivocally to the presence of anti-Semitism on campuses.

Moreover, by asking their universities and churches to join the Arab boycott that has the destruction of the state of Israel and the genocide of its Jews as its larger goal, the proponents of divestment are supportive of genocide.

Much of anti-Israel divestment rhetoric rests upon the identification of the Palestinian people as victims of Israeli oppression. If this were true, there might be some substance to the accusations of oppression, violations of civil and human rights, and “brutal occupation.” However, even the most superficial review of the history of the conflict reveals that the truth is quite the opposite of what the apologists for Arab terrorism and the proponents of divestment contend.

The PLO was formed in 1964, with the express purpose of redeeming “Palestine” from its “occupiers.” The “occupation” they were talking about then was Israel in its pre-1967 borders. There were no Israelis living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip at that time.

Just days before the 6-day war, Israel’s President begged the Arab nations at the UN to stand down from their militarization and war mongering. There were no contested issues, he said, that could not be resolved in negotiation. Israel did not want war. There was no need for war. The Arab response was more rhetoric of annihilation and threats of genocide.

After its stunning victory in the 6-day war, Israel offered to return the captured territories to Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, but only in exchange for three requirements: recognition, negotiations, and peace. Abba Eban, in his speech to the Arab nations at the UN immediately after the war, urged them to consider that negotiations would bring a just peace that would be honorable and beneficial for all sides. Israel accepted UN resolution #242 requiring the return of some territory in the context of peace negotiations. The Arab response was the unequivocal rejection of #242 and the Khartoum Conference (August-September, 1967) with its now infamous “no recognition, no negotiation, no peace.”

The proof of Israel’s sincerity in its offers to return territory and abide by #242 lies in the obvious fact that it did just that, when it had an honest peace partner in Egypt (1979, return of all of Sinai) and Jordan (1994, return of thousands of acres of land east of the Jordan river). Israel has kept its word and is still at peace with Egypt and Jordan.

In short, Israel’s control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip would never have occurred, or would have ended promptly, but for the uncompromising, pathological commitment of Arab leadership to Israel’s destruction, a commitment which began long before Israel’s sovereignty over captured territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

It is also important to note that during the first 27 years of its sovereignty over the captured territories, Israel affected what some call its “mini-Marshall plan.” Israel invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the West Bank and Gaza Strip between 1967 and late 1970s in order to modernize the infrastructure of those areas. Electricity, sewerage, sewage treatment, roads, water treatment, telephone, radio, television technology, and medical services all underwent massive improvement and expansion at Israel’s expense. Israel maintained an ‘open bridges’ policy with Jordan, despite the fact that Jordan was still legally at war with Israel, so that Arab refugees could return freely to their homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As a result, the economy took off, tourism skyrocketed, seven universities sprouted up where none existed before, infant mortality plummeted, longevity increased, and employment rose to almost 100 percent. The population tripled from c. 950,000 in 1967 to 3,100,000 in 1994, and about 200 new Arab villages or suburbs were created in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At one point, almost 300,000 West Bank and Gaza Strip Arabs worked in the Israeli economy, earning more than their counterparts anywhere else in the Arab world. (4)

During these halcyon days of Israel’s sovereignty, the West Bank and Gaza were open areas. There were no roadblocks, no curfews, no lock-downs, no stopping of ambulances and no fence. Israelis shopped in Arab town markets, Arabs shopped in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Arab youth came to the University of Haifa to take part in Arab Studies classes (many taught in Arabic), and Israeli tourists traversed the West Bank and were greeted hospitably in cafes and hotels. And, perhaps most important of all, there was almost no terrorism from these territories.

All of this came to a grinding halt with the return of Arafat in June, 1994, after the Oslo Accords (September, 1993). De facto, Israeli sovereignty over most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip ended in 1994. In phased withdrawals, Israel left Gaza and Jericho first. The last Israeli tank left Ramallah on September 29, 1996. At that point, more than 96 percent of the Arabs in those territories were now under the sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority. Arafat could build his new state of Palestine.

But instead of building “Palestine” per his Oslo commitments, Arafat took the billions that he received for that purpose from the USA, UN, UK, EU and Arab states, and redistributed them to himself (c. 20% = c. $1,000,000,000 between 1994 and 2000) and to his terror minions (c. 80% = $4,000,000,000). With that money, and with the freedom granted him by the withdrawal of Israeli forces from most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, he launched the first phase of his terror war - the Intifada. In the six years after Oslo, there were more terror attacks from the West Bank and Gaza Strip than in the previous 20 years. Arafat, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the El-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, Tanzim, Force 17, Fatah, the PFLP, the DFLP, the PFLP-GC, Sayyif Allah (Sword of Allah), Jayyish el-Jihad (the Army of Jihad), and even Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, all worked in partnership.

But even during these years of bus bombings and drive-by shootings, Israel did not re-occupy the territories. Rather, it turned to Arafat and his newly formed Palestinian Authority, demanding that they fulfill the commitments to curb terrorism and create a state run by law and order. They did not.

Finally, in April of 2002, after 19 months of “the Second Intifada,” in which hundreds of Israeli were killed and thousands injured or maimed for life, and after the horrific Park Hotel Passover Seder massacre of March 27, 2002, Israel launched operation “Defensive Shield,” and re-occupied the West Bank. Only then did Palestinian life under occupation take on the tragic and oppressive characteristics that spark such empathy in the West.

But what the West in general, and the Church proponents of divestment in particular, seem to ignore, is that none of these measures were in effect prior to Arafat’s terror war; and that all of these measures are nothing other than Israel’s restrained defensive responses to that terror war.

What they also ignore, or are ignorant of, is the history of Israel’s attempts to make peace with Palestinian leaders. From 1937 to today, there have been 19 offers of statehood made to Palestinian leaders by the UK, UN, USA, Israel or some combination thereof. (5) In every case, the response has been rejection, war, terrorism, violence, murder, and the continual call for the total destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews.

In sum, the Palestinian people could have had their state, their freedom, their national self-determination, many times over -- had they been willing to build their state alongside of Israel. But their leadership insisted on “Palestine” instead of Israel.

The fact is that this war is not about the “oppression” of Palestinians. The purpose of this war is now, as it has been since its inception, the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its nearly 6,000,000 Jews.

The Palestinian national movement is unique in all of history and across the entire world in that its sole defining paradigm has always been terrorism, and its one uncompromising goal the destruction of a sovereign state. Nowhere is this better summed up than the words of the deceased Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi at a Gaza City rally in August, 2001: "I want to tell the Zionists: There is no place for you here and there is no difference between one place in Palestine and the other…our warriors have the right to launch their strikes anywhere they wish….All of Israel, Tel Aviv included, is occupied Palestine."

A divestment conference organizer at the University of Michigan, Amer Zahr, explained openly on local radio talk shows the real goals of divestment (6): “What we want is not actual economic divestment from Israel. Everyone knows that the US will never pull investments out of Israel like that. Instead, we are looking to shift the dialogue to whether or not to divest from Israel, without extraneous discussion of the basics. We hope that in 10, 20 years the public will just take for granted the premise that Israel is an apartheid state, and then we can move from there.”

This revealing statement is indicative of the un-vocalized fact that divestment’s long term goals have nothing to do with peace, dialogue, or education; nor with the real, factual, nature of the state of Israel, its society, and its conflict with Arab terrorists. The divestment campaign is meant to gradually alter the US society’s perception of Israel over a long period of time so that later, 20 years from now, the anti-Israel forces can lobby for divestment in an atmosphere in which it is “taken for granted…that Israel is an apartheid state.”

This goal endangers the perceptions of a whole generation of young people who will be the decision makers and policy makers 20 years from now. Amer Zahr is a long-term thinker. And he learned his thinking from Josef Goebbels.

Arab terrorists are responsible for Israel’s defensive actions against the Palestinians. Arafat’s Intifada got Sharon elected. Terrorism built the fence. The IDF stops ambulances because the terrorists use them (in clear violation of international law and the 4th Geneva Convention) to transport terror operatives and explosives. And the Arab commitment to their terror war forces Israel to affect both pre-emptive and retaliatory strikes and to take preventative measures to stop the slaughter of innocents.

By ignoring the history of the conflict, and by accepting uncritically (perhaps even enthusiastically) the Arab revisionism and propagandized version of the conflict, the churches supporting divestment are in reality supporting the terrorist forces in Palestinian. Divestment, then, does not advance the cause of peace, or ending the ‘occupation’. It advances the cause of totalitarian terrorist rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and supports the terrorists in their end-game goal of destroying Israel.

The Center for Security Policy released a report last year on investments held by American public retirement funds in corporations that do business with terrorist-sponsoring nations. They found that America's 100 largest and most prominent public pension systems hold in their portfolios some $200 billion worth of stock in public companies that do business in terrorist-sponsoring states. The report makes clear that this investment translates conservatively into $73 billion worth of business with - and financial life-support for - the regimes in question, and vital resources for the terrorists that these regimes aid and abet.

"We cannot hope to prevail in this war unless and until we cut off the billions of dollars flowing to terrorist-sponsoring regimes from America's state pension funds via investments in companies doing business with such regimes," said Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy. (7)

* On average, America's leading pension systems invest between 15 and 23 percent of their portfolios in companies that do business in terrorist-sponsoring states. The 100 pension systems analyzed invest in 101 companies that have business activities in terrorist sponsoring states. Some 39 had invested in more than 100 companies with corporate ties to terrorist-sponsoring states.

* These included companies doing business in Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and North Korea.

* The $73 billion in projects being undertaken in terror-friendly states by companies that America's pension systems hold in portfolio is almost certainly but a fraction of the actual total business being done there. Due to the fact that financial data is available for relatively few companies operating in terrorist-sponsoring states, the role being played by public companies in the viability of governments that sponsor terrorism is probably, if anything, even greater than indicated by this number.

So here we have the most incredible conundrum in the Church campaign for divestment. Israel is the one country with the best human rights record in the region, the country that is fighting for its very existence against a relentless terrorist enemy, and the country that has been one of the USA’s few stalwart and steadfast allies in the war against global terrorism. Yet that is the country that the church targets, while ignoring the urgent, screaming need to divest from the countries that sponsor the terrorists who want to destroy us. The Church should be preaching divestment from terrorists, not from Israel.

Christian suffering at the hands of Moslems has a long and bitter history. Today, the attitude of Arab Moslem terrorists is quite open and unabashedly frank. Christians are a target.(8) Christians throughout the Muslim world suffer lethal repression: hand-grenade fraggings in Pakistan, murder of Christian ministers and proselytizers in various Arab countries, the brutal genocide of 2,000,000 black African Christians and Animists in Sudan, to name a few. The civil war and Syrian occupation in Lebanon claimed close to 100,000 Lebanese Christians since 1975. In most Arab states, the punishment for a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is death.

And the situation is no less dangerous for Christians in Palestinian-controlled territories. Arab terrorism in Israel, by its own pronouncements, is a specific territorial phenomenon in partnership with, and reflecting the same goals as, the broader global assault by Islamofascists against all non-Moslems. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Ansar-al-Islam, and Jama'a al-Islamiyah, inter alia, are partners. Moslem Palestinian terrorists chant in the streets of Bethlehem: "Al-Yaum es-Sabbat, bas ghanem el-Ahad" (today is Saturday, but tomorrow is Sunday), in order to intimidate Palestinian Christians and apprise them of the Moslem terrorists' intent to start on the Christians once they have finished with the Jews. Thanks to that intimidation, Bethlehem has seen the flight of almost 80 percent of its Christians to the USA, the UK, the EU, and even to Israel proper (especially to the Christian quarters of Nazareth), since Arafat took over in 1994.

Their timing could not be more peculiar. Now that we seem to stand on the threshold of an opportunity for peace, one might have expected that the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the WCC and the Lutherans, true to their roles as healers and reconcilers, would encourage this process.

Instead, they complain of "occupation” just when Israel's parliament approved the next stage of plans for withdrawal from Gaza. They complain of housing demolitions just a few days after the IDF announced such operations would end. They use the incendiary language of a "dividing wall", yet 95 percent of the defensive barrier is a chain-link fence that can be removed once peace is established. They never mention that the wall was built to prevent Palestinian terror, and that it has proven extremely effective. The WCC even goes so far as to set the borders of Israel as those of the 1949 armistice (9) -- knowing full well that UN resolution #242 intentionally left the borders to be determined by peace negotiations between the belligerents.

In its press release of February 21, 2005, the WCC expressed support for the unlimited right of return of “Palestinian refuges,” fully cognizant of the fact that if any substantial part of that multi-million population, whose identity as ‘refugees’ is highly questionable, is repatriated to Israel within the 1948 boundaries, then the Jewish state will be no more. (10)

The only explanation for this contrarian posture and counter-productive timing is that the main line churches are quite literally panicking in the face of the real prospect of a diplomatic solution to the Mid-east conflict. (11) They do not want peace between Israel and the Arab world. They want the terrorists to win. And to help the terrorists, they support divestment.

We are sad witness to the ugly phenomenon of Christian leaders who hate Israel so passionately that their hatred blinds them to the evil of their own deeds. They hate Israel far more than they love their church, more than they love their country, even more than they love their Savior.

Mr. Meir-Levi lectures and teaches in English, Hebrew, and Spanish. He can be reached at David_meirlevi@hotmail.com

1. Israpundit.com, March 4, 2005, The Norwegian Israel Center against anti-Semitism, “Open letter to the WCC”.

2. The economic boycott that was part of the Arab war against Israel for the past 50 years was reactivated at the Arab League meeting in Damascus in 2002. Saudi Arabia then blacklisted about 200 European, American, and other companies for importing Israeli products or product parts under other labels; and its Chamber of Commerce and Industry called on citizens to report the presence of any Israeli product exported through a third country. (Wall Street Journal, 12/13/02, “Israel on Campus,” Ruth R. Wisse).

3. For more detailed treatment of these themes, see Dershowitz, “Treatment of Israel strikes an alien note”, National Post, Canada 11/04/2002, and Idem, Divesting from Morality.

4. For analysis of the economies of the captured territories, see: Mardsen, Keith, « The Viability of Palestine », Wall Street Journal/Europe, 4/28/02 ; Doron, Daniel, « The way forward for the Palestinians » Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress, 7/1/02 ; Karsch, Ephraim, « What Occupation ? », Commentary Magazine, July/August 2002 ; Golan, Dov Theo, « The Big Why ? », MANCHESTER ZIONIST CENTRAL COUNCIL MEDIA RESPONSE NETWORK, 9/19/04; Pipes, Daniel, “Anti-Israel Terror Backfires”, New York Sun, 4/20/04; and Eidelberg, Paul, "Occupied Territory", in Foundation 1, 7/18/03.

6. CAMERA: On Campus, Vol. 13, #1: spring 2003, “Directing Campus Discussion: A Case Study”, Rachel Roth.

8. Cf. inter alia: Farah, Joseph, World Net Daily, 2001, “Ensuring a terrorist future”; Trifkovic, Serge, “Islam’s other victims: Wars against Christians”, Front Page Magazine, 12.23.02; Spencer, Robert, “Persecution of Christians”, Front Page Magazine, 12.10.04; Tyrell, Bob, “Uprooting Christianity in the Holy Land”, Jewish World Review, 12/24/02; Pipes, Daniel, “Militant Islam keeps on killing”, New York Post, 10/1/02; Farah, Joseph, “Mideast: Christian-free Zone?”, World Net Daily, 12/31/03; Reuters (no author listed, did not appear in mainstream media), “Cardinal: Christians second-class in Muslim lands” no date; Raab, David, “The beleaguered Christians on the Palestinian-controlled areas”, Jerusalem Viewpoint, #490, January 15, 2003; no author, “New Muslim militant group born to fight Christians”, Asia News, 2/4/04 (Jakarta, Indonesia)

9. Frankfurter, David, “World Council of Churches preaches anti-Israel divestment”, Israel Insider (email publication), 2/23/05.

10. Interview with Prof. (ret.) Paul Charles Merkley concerning the WCC divestment decision, Israpundit.com, 3/4/05.

"The leadership of the Presbyterian Church recently decided to encourage its governing body to promote divestment from companies that do business with Israel."

Just for information - this is the Presbyterian Church USA not the PCA or free reformed presbyterian churches. PCA is more conservative and upholds the Bible's teaching and gospel message.

So, by suddenly taking up the banner of divestment, the leaders of America’s mainline churches are actually in violation of U.S. law.

Other than the part above that I've quoted, I do believe that this church action against Israel is anti-semitic.

My exception for the above line is a constitutional issue. "Congress shall make no law....denying the free exercise (of religion.)"

That law cannot apply to churches because Congress can make NO LAW regarding someone's exercise of religion.

What part of NO LAW don't they understand????!!

Most of these "mainline denominations" quit being Christian years ago.

For the record, Christian anti-Semitism is heresy.

I Love my M-I-L but she is a Liberal from hell and Lutheran. She takes my kids to church w/her every time the doors open. When the Pastor asked if we had any questions before he Baptized them. I asked him what he thought of the problems with terrorism and the Palestianians and he said he was not choosing sides.

There is a huge Church right down the road from their's and I am seriously going drag my hubby there by his beard and/or make him sleep on the couch till he goes. The pastors name is Maury Davis and his church keeps getting bigger and bigger and he is pretty popular in the Nashville area.

I knew that there was something wicked about my mom in law. Methinks it would take holy water to kill her. lol

You got that right. It was that liberal branch of the Lutheran church. By the way, do you know where that branch came from?

A law that itself violates Free Speech. A bad law.

"I Love my M-I-L but she is a Liberal from hell and Lutheran. She takes my kids to church w/her every time the doors open."

Ooooo... I never would have let my MIL decide which church my girls went to, muchless where they would be baptized.

good luck!

The article is headlined "Why they do it". It never really answers that. It talks a lot about why such policy is obviously perverted, yet never really answers why.

The following paragraph tagged on at the end ...

The only explanation for this contrarian posture and counter-productive timing is that the main line churches are quite literally panicking in the face of the real prospect of a diplomatic solution to the Mid-east conflict. (11) They do not want peace between Israel and the Arab world. They want the terrorists to win. And to help the terrorists, they support divestment.

... is a rabbit-out-of-the-hat guess in comparison to the finely done mountain of detail about "why divestment in Israel is perverted" that precededs it.

Thank you for the article, but please be advised the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod should not be grouped with the ELCA on this issue.

She is a control freak. She bought our house for us because we didn't qualify because my hubby is self employed and we fight all the time because she is always bashing our wonderful President. She is in the Clinton Kerry camp.

IT WOULD TAKE A BIG BUCKET of holy water to kill her.

Not a day goes by that she reminds us we owe her and we pay the house note on time every month and she calls it her house. We have done enough work on the home the value is at least $10,000 over the purchase price.

I love her anyway, I have to for our kids sake. The holidays are a hoot. Everyone fighting etc. This last New Years I played sick and stayed home and watched the history channel and at 2 am my hubby walked all the way home because they all got into it. 10 miles he walked. I was very curt with her for a month.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.