In this first part of a three part series on the Presbyterian-Israel policy to be discussed at the Presbyterian General Assembly in July, 2010, a list of players interviewed is introduced. Mainly, through quotes based on telephone, email, and written documentary material they speak their tone and position in this heated and sometimes angry debate.The two subsequent parts will be about the theology of their committee report, and then about the recommendation of the Kairos Document into the policy. We know that Presbyterians like many other Christian denominations have decided in the past to censure or negotiate with  Corporations doing business with Israel. Caterpillar Tractors are one.It is important to note there is no official Presbyterian Church position on any of the Committee's recommended  matters until its General Assembly decides the issues.Further, a reliable source states: (1) Presbyterians have NOT decided in the past to boycott corporations doing business with Israel; and (2) The recommendation from the Presbyterian Mission Responsibility Committee is that the Church denounce Caterpillar, not that it boycott or divest. The writer adds these statements as emphasis and for clarity sake right in the beginning of the article.Anti-Semitism has raised its ugly tone in these discussions, in the classic sense of anti-Semitism, too. Even to the individual Church level. One minister told me: "…(I've been on the receiving end of vitriolic and vicious, hate-filled diatribes…" In specific, her Church was called anti-Semitic and accused of practicing such." This as a result of their hosting psychologist Mark Braverman, Ph.D. who gave a sermon at the minister's Church through the auspices of the Sabeel Conference. He is a Jewish American and he is indicative of the various positions held by Jews on the matter of peace issues. Additionally, in this instance, a reliable source at the San Francisco Bay Area Church said of Sabeel's presence, "Our congregation did not ‘sponsor' or even in any official sense ‘host' the Sabeel Conference." Rabbi Yitzoch Adlerstein of the respected and noteworthy Los Angeles based human rights organization said of Dr. Braverman that discussing his book and his comments was beneath the Rabbi's dignity. In this battle of different human rights groups, which Sabeel calls itself, is the tinge around the edges of the Presbyterian committee's work that it is anti-Semitic. Viola Larson, a Presbyterian blogger whose blog is here / ,claims in a recent posting that elements of the Presbyterian Church are attempting to influence its General Assembly discussion on issues that go beyond the Presbyterian Middle East Study Committee's papers and recommendations. In a different paper written by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network, and attached to an overture from San Francisco there is an accusation that Jewish organizations in the United States sent a bomb to the Presbyterian headquarters and burned down a church. The discussion becomes more than heated in some quarters, it becomes marginal and hard to believe let alone hear about. This writer finds the assertion a wild one, if not an indication of a kind of hysteria that grips a very few Presbyterians. Though not indicative of many lay positions, it is important to recognize that as one source says, "…Individual Presbyterians – some fully support the Committee recommendations, some clearly denounce them…" just as the source remarks, "…there is no unified Jewish voice."  Lay Presbyterian and Blogger Viola Larson goes so far in her claims of anti-Semitism on the part of the Presbyterian committee and some in the Church, that she writes: "Anti-Semitism [1] is ?artid=1603&letter=A&search=anti-semitism" hatred of the Jewish people . It is not the hatred of all Semitic people but is instead a word designated for the Jews alone. With a great amount of fury the San Francisco Presbytery and the Israel/Palestine Mission Network as well as other Presbyterian (U.S.A) organizations, have exposed their great hatred for the Jewish people, not just the ones in Israel but also the ones in the United States. And they have also revealed their great contempt for God's word." Among the people in the pews, she tells me, there are many concerned about the tone and attitudes of the recommending Committee and its members and the Presbyterian leadership in their willingness to entertain this wide range of views on the policy questions.Blogger Larson writes in a very recent emailthat the Kairos document is destructive to the process. She says:On the Kairos document: there are two big problems. It calls for divestment and boycott in all areas. But the biggest problem is the insistence that Israel should not be a Jewish state. This is the place where that is stated. "Trying to make the state a religious state, Jewish or Islamic, suffocates the state, confines it within narrow limits, and transforms it into a state that practices discrimination and exclusion, preferring one citizen over another. We appeal to both religious Jews and Muslims: let the state be a state for all citizens, with a vision constructed on respect for religion but also equality, justice, liberty and respect for pluralism and not on domination by a religion ora numerical majority." (Emphasis mine) (11)Notice the reference to "a numerical majority" that rules out a Jewish State.The Middle East Study Committeeof the Church clearly makes a reasonable statement of intent in their report filed in March, 2010. They say in their introduction their clear intent to be fair, and their Christian desire to talk with their members and the wider community of various faiths and seculars. This longish quotation introducing their study to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church sets a tone for its readers, offering a moderate face in the realities of a religious and secular storm that is the peace process between Israel and Palestinian people--who many in the United States believe are a beleaguered and suffering people. Yes, this is a religious statement. Some critics believe it is a study that offers too much politics. This writer believes it to be a well written and though long well wrought document. In a conversation with the Committee chairman by phone to his office in his North Carolina Church, The Reverend Doctor Ron Shive spoke in depth of the Committees organization, its method of relationship, its dedication to fairness and in depth study. These Presbyterians were not paid for their work. They did their work as members of their Church, and as believers in the Christian faith, Disciples of Christ within their denomination. At times they suffered criticism, but throughout their arduous study these men and women were entrusted "ambassadors of Christ."Our Presbyterian confessions clearly affirm God's reconciling work in Jesus Christ and the church's mission of reconciliation as being the heart of the gospel. Since Christ ?… has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us,?1 we are entrusted as ?ambassadors of Christ? with this ?message of reconciliation.?2 We are called to be those who work to break down these walls that stand in the way of the realization of God's peaceful and just kingdom.The Middle East Study Committee of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which was mandated by our 218th General Assembly (2008) and appointed by our current and two previous Moderators, has taken seriously this gospel mandate of seeking to break through these walls of hostility and to envision appropriate steps that we recommend which our church, our nation, and the other parties involved in this conflict take.Our voice is one, which is priestly, prophetic, and pastoral.The first voice that will be heard in this report is a priestly voice speaking of our theological understanding of justice, Zion, the land, and reconciliation. The next voice is both prophetic and pastoral. Prophets and pastors are called first and foremost to truth telling. From the vast experiences and study of the members of this committee, from numerous meetings with people and leaders of diverse communities throughout the Middle East (including Iraqi and Iranian church leaders), from meetings with political and religious leaders in Washington and New York with a wide spectrum of perspectives, from debating and challenging one another, and from traveling together for two weeks in the Middle East3, we strive in this report to tell the truth as we see it and understand it. Based on this, we are compelled to speak pastorally to ourselves as a denomination and our partners in the region, and prophetically to other powers engaged in this ongoing conflict.One open letter of the Committee speaks to the Jewish Communityand Israelis. The letter tells its readers that the Committee holds the Jewish Community and its Israeli friends with esteem. There is pathos in the statements of the letter, and it intends to have empathy for both Israelis and Palestinians. One could say, the letter covers the bases. All inclusive regarding the Presbyterian stance, it has a whiff of self-justification that is reasonable and true to the Committees study. Is this not a fair thing to remark, and stance to take in an open letter? Let the reader judge the document. This is part of the text of that letter that is a part of the Committee report:Letter to Our Israeli Friends,Much of what we have said to our American Jewish friends we say to you. We are strong advocates for Israel's secure existence. The fact that we are deeply troubled by Israeli policies should not diminish this advocacy in any way, shape, or form. We continue to speak out against anti-Semitism, knowing that it is an evil which our forbears in faith inflicted upon you and your ancestors. We are fervent in our hope that Israel would continue to be a homeland for the Jewish people.We say all this because we believe it. And we stand by it in word and in deed. Our corporate engagement process has been handled carefully so as to focus our attention on companies who profit from practices we do not support. We have also encouraged positive investment in the region, including companies whose policies and practices of coexistence within Israeli society's diverse tapestry and between Israelis and Palestinians are ones we can wholeheartedly support.We grieve when anyone is a victim of violence, but especially civilians, be they Palestinian or Israeli. The number of casualties may give evidence to the imbalance in the conflict; however, each person is created in the image of God. We know that God's heart must be the first to break. Trauma is trauma, no matter who experiences it. They cannot compete with one another; instead, our hope is that trauma may lead to healing across divides, bound by a common humanity.There is an honesty to the letter, which also says to the Israeli people and its friends:Your government cannot credibly claim that the incumbent violence against and dehumanization of Palestinians are happening without their knowledge; indeed, your government is aiding and abetting these basic violations of human rights.Many Jewish media reports on the Study document,statements by Jewish Community Groups remark on the efforts of the Presbyterian Church in these matters of peace in the Middle East have found disfavor with their proposed policy and efforts; the reports generally read like this one from Spring, 2010 that appeared inJewish Telegraphic Agency:A report released … by the (Presbyterian) church titled "Breaking Down the Walls" was condemned by the Anti-Defamation League as "a toxic mix of bad history, politically motivated distortions and offensive attacks on Judaism and Israel."Other Jewish groups have lashed out at the Middle East Study Committee, which prepared the report, for failing to reach out to a broad range of Jewish leaders.The Presbyterian Church USA has had a long and contentious history of treating Israel in a way most American Jewish leaders deem hostile and biased.For this writer, the significant news coming out of the debateand investigation of various aspects of the questions by the Committee, is made in a prophetic manner by The Simon Wiesenthal Center's Associate Director Rabbi Abraham Cooper in the speech given in Israel titled, "Goldstone Report and Lawfare's Anti-Israel Theological Twin."Rabbi Cooper said in so many words, the Presbyterian Church and others wish to open the margins of the peace dialogue, and the Israel-Palestinian arguments wider. So this writer interprets. Rabbi Cooper said in part:Palestinians and their supporters have launched new campaigns to delegitimize the Jewish State. As Palestinians know they cannot defeat Israel militarily, neither in conventional battle nor even in asymmetrical terrorist warfare, they have unleashed a multi-pronged campaign to wound and weaken, and cause irrecoverable damage, politically, morally and economically.Today the state of Israel and her supporters are understandably focused on the diplomatic front and the Lawfare campaign against the Jewish State, with the so-called Goldstone Report the "legal" tipping point against Israel. Fast-tracked through the United Nations with the help of the 57- member OIC, it will, by hook or by crook, make its way to The Hague, where "respected" jurists will muse and reflect over whether even Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and other prominent Israeli officials are indeed guilty of crimes against humanity the crime of defending fellow citizens against terrorist wannabe genociders. So palpable is the smell of blood in the geo-political waters, that a peer in the House of Lords can urge an investigation of Israeli behavior in Haiti—no not for the Red Cross and NGOs to learn how to deploy a 21st century hospital amidst total devastation but to check if those clever Jews were really there to steal Haitians' body parts. No telling what these Israelis are capable of.Academic's elite loathing of the Jewish state is well documented, where the jury long ago decided the neo-Nazi Goliath that is Israel was all a mistake—brought on by European guilt for the Holocaust, a mistake that must go the way of its late, spiritual antecedent—apartheid South Africa.As a response to some of the chargesof marginalized and anti-Semitic testimony that has grown in many quarters, an important Presbyterian leader (Victor E. Makari, Office for the Middle East, General Assembly Mission Council, Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.]) said in an email to this writer:Thank you for your message and your interest in finding out about the work of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s General Assembly-appointed Committee to prepare a study on the Middle East (Middle East Study Committee -- MESC)…From your subject line, your inquiry appears to try to find out the relationship between myself, the Israel/Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) and the MESC. I am happy to respond.

The Mission Network (IPMN) is an informal, autonomous grassroots organization made up of Presbyterians who are interested in and committed to peace and justice in Israel and Palestine.  It has its own officers and steering committee, etc.  Its activities involve advocacy and support of our church's partnership with Christian churches in the Holy Land. My relationship to the Network is also informal, as an advisory staff person. They consult with me from time to time on General Assembly policies, and on our church's relations in the Middle East, but they run their own programs and activities.

The Middle East Study Committee (MESC), on the other hand, is a Committee of nine, representing a broad diversity of Presbyterian perspectives, experiences and expertise. They were appointed by the church's current Moderator and his two predecessors in response to a 2008 action by our church's General Assembly to prepare a comprehensive study on the Middle East, with a special focus on Israel and Palestine, and a concern for the status of Christian presence in the region.

I serve as Coordinator for the Office of the Middle East of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), with a primary responsibility of maintaining and supporting our church's relations with churches and related organizations in the Middle East. As part of the PC(USA) staff, I serve as a resource to our constituency and as liaison with partner churches and organizations.

My role relative to the MESC has been that of "staff resource person," providing information about our partnership relations, background of our church's mission history and ongoing relations, policies of our church's General Assembly, etc.  In the process of the MESC's work over the past year-plus, I have been exactly that - an ex-officio "staff resource person" who has attended their meetings, provided information, responded to questions, facilitated encounters with interlocutors in the region, and participated in the Committee's deliberations, without vote.

In response to your specific questions, I offer the following:

1. The Israel/Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) has had no involvement whatever in the work of the Middle East Study Committee (MESC). There are two members of the Study Committee who had attended a meeting or two of the Network in the past, but there has been no connection between the work of the Network and the Study Committee.

2. The Middle East Study Committee has not at any point discussed, or even been aware of as a Committee, the film "I am Israel." Nor have I, for that matter. There is no plan to show or discuss the film in the course of the proceedings of the upcoming General Assembly, as there is no mention of it anywhere in the formal part of the Committee's report that will be presented for adoption by the Assembly.

3. So neither the film, nor "similar material" will be submitted to the Assembly for consideration.  The only thing that will be furnished to the Assembly will be the Committee's report itself. As is normal, the General Assembly will consider, discuss and debate the report, then it will decide whatever it wants to do with it.

4. Regarding my role, I have given you a summary of my function within the staff of the denomination, and the nature of my involvement in the work of the Committee. As staff, I could submit to the Committee - or to any part of our constituency, for that matter - possible concerns our partners may have regarding actions our church might take, and, conversely, I also interpret our church's actions to our partners in the region.

Our church's policies are formulated only by the church's General Assembly, the most inclusive governing body of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  My role, like that of all of the church's national staff, is to abide by and programmatically attend to the implementation of those policies.It is to this writer a way of opening up the dialogueon Israel and its relationship and actions towards Palestine and its people that is the prophetic part of Rabbi Cooper's speech. Certainly, Victor E. Makari's email letter tells of the limits, the parameters, to the activities and investigation of the Committee. The Committee, and the Presbyterian Church are not anti-Semitic, so the Church and the study group replies in earnest. The email from Victor E. Makari, responding to various charges, rumors of anti-Semitic testimony and marginal testimony is refuted, and the email letter hopes to let the reader know that the Committee and the Presbyterian Church are decent and fair in their study of the issues and problems. This writer was convinced of this in his various and many conversations and emails, including the one cited sent by Victor E. Makari. After a press release sent out by Religion News Service by The Wiesenthal Center claiming Presbyterians are trying to destroy Israel, and this was a believable and mainline statement by a respected and even famous Human Rights organization, Presbyterians made an apology similar to the one quoted below from 2006. They made their statement in an effort to alleviate the pain and concern of the Jewish Community nationally, pain and even protest of concern represented in the Wiesenthal press statement.We acknowledge that the actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004) caused hurt and misunderstanding among many members of the Jewish community and within our Presbyterian communion. We are grieved by the pain that this has caused, accept responsibility for the flaws in our process, and ask for a new season of mutual understanding and dialogue.The reader can see that the concern of the Jewish Community regarding Presbyterian policy was not soothed, let alone abated in 2009, or 2010. Even so, despite attempts at fairness, the Jewish Community continued to believe and has expressed even recently before the General Assembly meeting coming up in July that Presbyterians are anti-Israel at best. This is no small matter in the national Jewish Community and in Christian-Jewish relations and inter-faith dialogue. It is the opinion of The Wiesenthal Center as expressed in their press statement that Presbyterian Committee work, and the previous policies of that Church terribly harm Christian-Jewish relationships and inter-faith dialogue in serious ways. Put in plain language, the Jewish Community thinks that Presbyterians don't like Jews, nor do they like Israel. That it is not solely Israeli policy that is criticized, but even the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Presbyterians have publically stated in an apologetic manner, even, that they support the right of Israel to exist. The American Jewish Community is also very concerned with the place of the Kairos Document, which makes many claims against the State of Israel, including that Israel is an apartheid State. This upsets the Jewish Community, and is considered a lie and an unfair use of tactics to destroy Israel. The document is the result of Christian theologians from the Middle East.One California Presbyterian Church which hosted a "community" meeting on Israel issues, favored the Kairos document and demonstrates how popular its acceptance is by a significant portion of Church members. Emeritus Professor of New Testament studies at San Francisco Theological Seminary, wrote this writer in answer to questions. The Reverend Doctor Herman Waetjen says in his kind-of short-hand response these answers regarding Presbyterians in the pews and the Church itself:

• Endorses the recent Kairos Palestine document, called "A Moment of Truth" which excuses Palestinian terrorism and fully blames Israel for any and all  Palestinian violence;

Yes, the document and all of us endorse the Kairos Document.  They ought to read it because they lie about it.  It does not endorse the terrorism of the Palestinians.  In fact, it calls for reconciliation between the Israelis and the Palestinians (and it should be noted that the Israelis refuse to use the word Palestinians; they call all of them "Arabs.")  The Kairos Document acknowledges two kinds of terrorism, and focuses on the terrorism from the top, that which the Israeli government and military perpetrate against the Palestinians.  As always, the Israelis are the victims, and that is how they continue to propagandize themselves.  But they have all the power and their ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians continues.

• Calls on the U.S. government to repent of its "sinful behavior" vis-à-vis the Middle East;

I don't think that this is the term that is used, "sinful behavior."  As long as the American government gives absolute support to Israel, Israel does what it pleases in colonizing the West Bank and continues to destroy Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.

• Misrepresents both the history of Israel and Jewish religious faith, in particular by attacking fundamental aspects of Jewish religious identity, such as God's  covenant with the Jewish people and the promise of the land;

This is totally false.  It recognizes God's covenant with Israel, but it does not acknowledge that that automatically includes the land.  The right to possess all the land that Israel claimed in the Old Testament period should not justify taking away the land of the Palestinians and driving them out.  The land was promised on the basis of doing justice.  Read the book of Deuteronomy.  "If you don't do justice, God will regurgitate you from the land."  That's the message of Deuteronomy.

• Argues that Iranian and Israeli nuclear weapons would pose a similar threat to the region.

I don't remember anything being said about this.  But the point would be that if Israel did justice to the Palestinians and worked for a 2 state solution, Iran would be no threat.

One theory regarding the conversation and its various debatesby Presbyterians and many Christian denominations is that their anti-Israel and anti-Semitic outlook spreads to many parts of society, including Universities and Colleges. In the United States, reputable sources have told this writer that anti-Semitism is a serious problem at major universities, Columbia for one. This statement for the press from the Human Rights organization, The Wiesenthal Center, was sent to this writer, and it appears that anti-Semitism on California campuses, and the growing criticism of Israel is rampant. The press statement:The Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced today's 16-4  vote by the Student Senate of UC Berkeley calling on the UC Regents and Student Government to divest from two companies, General Electric and United Technologies, that do business with the State of Israel. This vote was in response to what the Student Senate says, "Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories" and "Israel's siege and bombardment of the Gaza Strip.""Ironically, today's vote comes on a day when the 300th rocket in the last fourteen months from Hamas-controlled Gaza that continue to  target Israeli civilian, this time murdering a farm worker in Netev Haasara,"said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Wiesenthal Center."Human rights icon Natan Sharansky has identified what he calls the "Three Ds" when anti-Israel rhetoric falls into the category of anti-Semitism: Demonization, Delegitimization, and Double Standard,"Cooper continued."In a world filled with human rights abuses across Africa, Asia and the Americas, the UC Berkeley students vote to single out Israel for censure is hypocritical and a classic example of Double Standard,"he said."This resolution will not help the quality of life for a single Palestinian, but is intended to render Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, helpless to defend its citizens from attack by Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists,"Rabbi Cooper said, adding,"What the resolution of course omits is that Israel voluntarily evacuated the Gaza Strip, along with 9,000 Jewish citizens in the hopes that this unilateral gesture of peace would help pave the way to a two-state solution. All Israel got in return is suicide bombers, thousands of Kassam rockets targeting civilian centers, not in the so-called ‘occupied territories, but in Israel proper,"Cooper added.Rabbi Aron Hier, who headsiAct, the Wiesenthal Center's campus outreach program, expressed disappointment, saying, "The timing and thrust of this outrageous initiative is especially troubling since it comes at a time when the UC system is struggling to deal with a rash of anti-Semitic and racist manifestations from Davis to Irvine to San Diego."This three part series on the Presbyterian-Israel policy that will be decided at their General Assembly in 2010 has two more parts. The next, the second part in the series deals with the Committee's paper on Theological Reflection, an excellent paper on a Christian Church's approach to public policy decision making. The third part will discuss the Kairos Document.            A recent front page story inThe New York Timesnotes that President Obama wants to open the dialogue about Israel and its relationship to Palestine. It is the President's position to encourage and even work towards peace through ending the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Pundits believe a major public relations effort on the part of the Jewish Community in America and specifically on the part of Israel is currently at work. The writer says in analysis:Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Israeli analyst Efraim Inbar candidly warns that "wars are won, not only in the battlefield, but also with words. A small country such as Israel cannot afford to lose the support of the West." 0) Inbar's parallel assertion that "so far, Israel is losing the war for the heart of Western public opinion" will be met with incredulity by many Americans familiar with the realities of reportage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many would agree, however, withInbar's other assertion, that "winning [the war for public opinion] is vital…for easing the outside pressures on Israeli society…." (0)Israel's attempts to win the war of public opinion—and, consequently, to maintain its freedom to implement violent, repressive policies toward the Palestinians without negative repercussions from the world community—obscure the obvious: the problem is not about Israel's image, but Israel's policies themselves. Nevertheless, Israel continues to expend vast resources on simultaneous militarization and public relations campaigns. Recognizing the negative perception of Israel in the wake of the December 2008-January 2009 Gaza offensive, the Israeli Foreign Ministry has been granted an extra $2 million to improve Israel's image through cultural and information diplomacy. (14)Perhaps you reader recall the highly publicized and tragic incident of a Catipillar Tractor running over a young woman peace worker trying to stop it when in action. One result of the tragedy, which was called willful by the Israelis, was continued requests by Christian and other peace groups that Catipillar no longer do business with the Israelis or operate in the Jewish State. In fact, the Presbyterian Church strongly asks they stop and negotiate with the corporation, among oth