Zionists Out of the Peace Movement

To see a leaflet concerning the dispute between the METF and the ICPJ Steering Committee click here (PDF). The leaflet has not been approved by the METF as a body.


I. The Executive Committee's Proposal

Approved by the Middle East Task Force at its regular meeting on April 4, 2006.

The Middle East Task Force (METF) is in receipt of the Executive Committee's (EC) proposal, "Addressing Middle East Task Force," presented to the Steering Committee (SC) at its March meeting. Let us speak frankly, if you dissolve or restructure the METF without our consent then it will be nothing less than a naked exercise of power on your part and a blatant violation of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice's (ICPJ) purported core values of "justice" and "not using power to dominate."

Simple fairness requires that the METF be afforded a list of the specific allegations and evidence against us and that we be afforded a reasonable opportunity to answer those charges before the SC votes to dissolve or change the METF. You have the authority to do what you like to METF—we don't deny that—but please don't fool yourselves into thinking that you are acting rightly when you deny us the opportunity to know specifically what it is we have allegedly done wrong, to face our accusers, and to answer their claims.

It is easy to treat one's favored friends justly but the true test of a commitment to justice is how you treat those who have fallen out of your favor. In what follows we propose to address some of the issues in the EC proposal but no one should think our response here today constitutes any definitive answer on our part. The charges against us are so vague and unsubstantiated that we cannot formulate a comprehensive response to them.

The EC proposal refers to "a year-long process of seeking common ground." We would welcome such a "process;" however, from our perspective nothing resembling that has taken place, so far. There were a couple of METF meetings in late spring 2005 that some SC members attended and there were other brief informal discussions but nothing that could be fairly characterized as a year-long process. Some members of METF have attended many SC meetings but they have done so as individuals and not METF delegates. Some METF members also participated in the Clear Structure and Process Sub-Committee meetings last summer but this was never an METF activity and, as of this writing, the SC has not yet implemented the recommendations of that working group.

The EC proposal further notes, "we have seen many veteran members of the Task Force leave". This is true but the toll has included not only those favored by the EC but also as many, if not more, folks who are, apparently, ill-favored by the EC. In any event, everyone who has quit has left of their own accord and never at the behest of the METF—they are welcome to return when they like. In fact, at our March meeting, there was common agreement that members who have quit in the last year would be invited to join in proposed special group facilitation meetings. However, those meetings were postponed in light of the EC's proposal to eliminate the METF.

The EC proposal also notes, "we have seen … the Task Force refuse to affirm a commitment to nonviolence". Again, this is true but the refusal came because the resolution in question was deliberately designed not to address a problem of violence or its advocacy in the METF but as a divisive measure on the part of its sponsor. We thought it unwise to encourage individual members to press their own personal "litmus tests" on the rest of the group. Furthermore, the resolution's sponsor declined to engage in substantive discussion concerning his proposal and willfully absented himself from the last meeting at which it appeared on the agenda. For the foregoing reasons, we decided not to vote on the resolution. In any case, we state here our commitment to the core values of the ICPJ, which include nonviolence.

Lastly, the EC proposal complains of "numerous hurtful personal attacks on the email list." While there may be some truth to this claim we dispute whether the so-called attacks have been "numerous" and we believe that many of them have been aimed—poorly or not—at criticizing ideas/actions and were not intended to deliberately or personally hurt anyone. This issue was discussed at one of our meetings last fall and former METF Chair Betsy Barlow opined then: "I don't believe that our committee members really want to hurt others … " We agree but if we are assured that the SC is not already committed to exiling us from ICPJ then we will revisit the issue and try "to set up a [list moderation] procedure that the group is happy with," to quote Betsy Barlow once more. In any event, since the EC has not been specific in this matter we cannot respond in more detail but we welcome the opportunity to address any particular examples that the EC would care to present.

At this point, we would like to briefly discuss two of the options mentioned in the EC's proposal. First, it is beneath contempt for the EC to suggest that there is anything "friendly" about the "Spin-Off" option. Friends don't force friends to do things they don't want to do—at least not when those being compelled are in full possession of their mental faculties—and honest people don't spin a naked exercise of power against an unwilling party as a "friendly" act. By our lights, the vulgar pretense of the EC on this point makes a mockery of several of the ICPJ's purported core values and we hope that the other members of the SC—no matter what is decided—will have the simple decency and integrity to refuse to engage in blatant shams of this sort.

Second, we regret that the EC is unable or unwilling to see that METF members are "willing to act in good faith and seek common ground" with the SC. We have acted in good faith all along and we affirm our willingness to continue to do so and also to seek common ground. We are also willing "to sit at the table together" with anyone who shares, as we do, the ICPJ's core values. Thus, we feel that mediation or some form of structured dialogue is the option that the SC should pursue concerning the METF at this time. We remain hopeful of the good faith of the SC, on this point.

In short, we urge you to reject the vague and unsubstantiated complaints made against us by the EC. We appeal to you to give us a fair opportunity to know and to reply to any specific complaints against the METF or its individual members before you take any decision to abolish or alter the METF. We support entering into a formal mediation or other structured dialogue with you in order to air our differences and seek common ground.

II. Concerning Verbal Violence

Approved by the Middle East Task Force at its regular meeting on April 4, 2006.

Lately, it has become popular for some ICPJ leaders to characterize strong or, sometimes, rude speech as violence although it seems to us that this standard is seldom applied to those who enjoy the favor of the SC. Some of us have seen real violence and its effects in Palestine and elsewhere. Frankly, it is insulting to the victims and witnesses of real physical violence to characterize harsh words as violence.

While we do not pretend to be prophets, we take note of the words of Abraham J. Heschel in The Prophets:

The prophet is intent on intensifying responsibility, is impatient of excuse, contemptuous of pretense and self-pity. His [sic] tone [is] rarely sweet or caressing ... his words are often slashing, even horrid—designed to shock rather than edify.

The mouth of the prophets is "a sharp sword." He is a "polished arrow" taken out of the quiver of God (Isa. 49:2).

Is Heschel wrong? Will the propagators of the charge of verbal violence now also condemn the biblical prophets? Certainly, the utterances of the prophets use violent imagery and even sometimes incite to violence but are they a form of violence? We say no and more importantly we ourselves have not used violent imagery nor incited to violence.

As Joan V. Bondurant, in Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, notes: "Violence is the willful application of force in such a way that it is intentionally injurious to the person or group against whom it is applied." If the alleged perpetrators of verbal violence had force or the credible threat of force on their side then there would be no need for strong or rude language but they have no force behind them; likewise, there has been no intent to injure and, in fact, no harm has resulted. We are not so arrogant to think that we have nothing to learn about nonviolence, courtesy, or effective communication but we deny that any of our members have been violent, as the accusers would have you believe.

III. Towards Finding Common Ground

Approved by the Middle East Task Force at its special meeting on April 11, 2006.

We offer these concluding thoughts as an opening—as opposed to final—statement toward finding common ground. We believe that the crux of the dispute between the SC and the METF lies in the apparent fact that a significant segment of the leadership of the ICPJ are adherents of what Jewish theologian Marc Ellis calls "Constantinian Judaism" and/or they want to work in coalition with Constantinian Jewish institutions and individuals.

In Israel and Palestine: Out of the Ashes, Ellis describes Constantinian Judaism as: "militarized Judaism and Jewish life … where Jewish energies, creativity, wealth and political power in Israel and the U.S. are placed in service to the [Israeli] state." He further notes that in it, "certain forms of Judaism and Jewish life are deemed 'authentic' … while those Jews who resist serving the state and power are 'inauthentic' and persecuted by elements of the Jewish establishment." Locally, the "inauthentic" Jews include several who belong to the METF but these exiles from mainstream Judaism, apparently, are not the Jews that some leaders of ICPJ desire to work with.

Today, virtually every branch of Judaism is Constantinian and supports the Jewish state. For example, the Union for Reform Judaism has retreated from its historical commitment to non-nationalistic Judaism and now declares in its Constitution that being "supportive of the State of Israel" is one of its "four major goals." Ann Arbor's Conservative Rabbi, Robert Dobrusin, told his congregation in a sermon delivered on the most important day of the Jewish liturgical calendar that "the two most vital places of myth" in Judaism are "the State of Israel and the synagogue." He then described the "State of Israel" as "not only a haven … but a place of inspiration for all of us" and declared that "As Israel faces difficult times, it is essential that we rally behind her to insure her survival as a Jewish state."

Some Constantinian Jews dream of Jewish supremacy extending from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18) but all support Jewish supremacy in the 78% of Mandate Palestine that was violently seized from Palestinians in 1948. However, some Constantinian Jews have concluded that in order to maintain a grip on the territory occupied in 1948 Israel will have to relinquish direct control over much of the territory occupied in 1967, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza. However, most of these 'anti-Occupation' Constantinian Jews support continued direct Israeli control of East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights. Locally, 'anti-Occupation' Constantinian Jews populate the ranks of 'peace' organizations such as Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and the Union of Progressive Zionists.

In contrast to the ICPJ leadership's seeming tacit support, a large majority of the members of the METF—Jewish and non-Jewish—oppose Constantinian Judaism and its project of Jewish supremacy in Palestine. We see Constantinian religion, i.e. "militarized religiosity"—whether Jewish or Christian—as incompatible with the core values of ICPJ.

On this point, we would draw your attention to the words of Uri Davis, an Israeli Jew, in his article "APARTHEID ISRAEL: A Critical Reading of the Draft Permanent Agreement, known as the 'Geneva Accords' ":

During the heyday of the apartheid regime in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church educated its constituents … and their supporters in the West and beyond, that to oppose the political programme of apartheid, to be anti-apartheid, was somehow tantamount to being "anti-Christian", and thus, "pro-Devil", or worse, "pro-Communist".

In a similar way, under the dominance of political Zionist ideology and practice, Zionist and Israeli educational and information establishments educate their constituents … and their supporters in the West and beyond, that to oppose the political programme of Zionism, to be anti-Zionist, is somehow tantamount to being "anti-Jewish", and thus, "anti-Semitic", or worse, "pro-Nazi".

Just as people of good faith opposed Constantinian Christianity in the service of South African apartheid we believe today they must oppose Constantinian Judaism in the service of Israeli Zionism.

In 1993, the Parliament of the World's Religions issued its "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic." The Declaration affirmed, "that a common set of core values is found in the teachings of the [world's] religions, and that these form the basis of a global ethic." It declared, "No person should ever be considered or treated as a second-class citizen, or be exploited in any way whatsoever. ... We must put behind us all forms of domination or abuse. We commit ourselves to a culture of non-violence, respect, justice, and peace."

Mainstream American Judaism is committed to supporting Israel, the Jewish state. Israel is built upon past and ongoing domination, abuse, and violence facilitated by decisive American financial, diplomatic, and military support. The second-class citizenship of non-Jews in Israel, the subjugation of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and the continuing exile of millions of Palestinian refugees are fundamental expressions of Constantinian Judaism and Zionism.

Neither faithfulness, justice, nor peace is to be achieved by sacrificing advocacy and justice for Palestinians on the altar of interfaith unity with Constantinian Judaism. On the contrary, interfaith unity in its truest and best sense is premised upon an ethic that prioritizes justice. As the Declaration advises, "Let no one be deceived: There is no survival for humanity without global peace! ... Let no one be deceived: There is no global peace without global justice!"

With this opening statement of our position, we hope that the METF and SC can move forward in a real process of respectful dialogue and seeking common ground.

IV. Addendum

Approved by the Middle East Task Force at its special meeting on April 11, 2006.

On April 4, 2006, we received another statement from the EC, this one was entitled "The Intractable Nature of the conflict between the ICPJ Steering Committee and the Middle East Task Force (METF): Six Reasons Why We Need to Act Now." In partial support of the earlier claim of "a year-long process of seeking common ground" the EC states there: "We have arranged meetings between the leadership of the ICPJ Steering Committee and the Middle East Task Force." We do not know what leaders the EC has in mind. The METF had only one elected officer during most of the period in question and she was not selected as a delegate to the Steering Committee. Going forward, a more representative and forthright process may achieve better results.

In the "Interfaith" section of this new document the EC claims: "A majority of the remaining members of the METF … have no affiliation with any faith community." In fact, at the April 4th meeting, nine of fifteen members indicated that they are "affiliated with a local faith community, i.e. a church, mosque, or synagogue" or other place of worship. In answer to a follow-up question, three of the unaffiliated Jews indicated that support for Israel is a key impediment to their joining a synagogue or temple.

The EC compounds its error by claiming: "The lack of any religious community affiliation means these members see those who are affiliated with religious communities as pro-Zionist when they articulate what will, or will not, work with their particular religious communities." The EC is mistaken in both its premise and its conclusion; we simply do not view things this way. The EC closes this section by claiming the "attitude" it has erroneously attributed to us "has … worked to drive away practicing Jews, Muslims, and Christians." We have already noted the EC's apparent lack of concern for the "inauthentic" Jews in the METF but it is also hard to view the resolute hostility of the EC to the task force as anything other than an affront to the only "practicing" Muslim member of the SC, who is also a long-time member of the METF and its current Chair.

In the "Action" section, the EC claims, "we have seen ICPJ's ability to lead effective actions on Middle East issues disintegrate." Just what is an "effective action" in the EC's opinion? In its entire forty-year history has the ICPJ ever led an "effective action on Middle East issues"? If so, what was it? We note that last summer the METF voted 13-0 to endorse Palestinian civil society's international call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. The METF recommended SC approval and an action plan but certain SC members worked to block this and fomented a bitter split within the METF over the issue.

The EC claims: "the weekly vigils outside of Beth Israel Congregation" have "so alienated many other members of ICPJ that they are unwilling to participate in actions with vigil members, whether outside of the Synagogue or under the umbrella of the Middle East Task Force." For the sake of argument alone let us assume this is true. Does the obstinacy and hardheartedness of some members of ICPJ justify forcing METF members into exile? Is this fair, compassionate, or loving? We think not.

The EC speaks of its attempt at "bring[ing] together those committed to Palestinian self-determination and those committed to the wellbeing of Israel who recognize the importance of universal human rights." We submit that no such thing is possible. The end result of true Palestinian self-determination will be an end to Israeli occupation of Palestine and the exile of Palestinians from their homeland. The Israeli state was founded on violent occupation and the forced exile of Palestinians. Universal human rights law and UN declarations—although blocked for decades—are very clear: Israel must treat Palestinian Arab citizens equally but it does not; Israel's occupation is illegal but it has not ended; and Israel must let Palestinian refugees return from exile but it does not. Supporters of Israel are committed to Jewish supremacy in Palestine and the EC is, apparently, committed to sacrificing justice for Palestinians on the altar of a faithless interfaith unity.

The EC claims, "we have been careful not to be identified with any actions or statements which seem to foster anti-Semitism." We oppose anti-Jewish hatred and discrimination. "Advocacy for the oppressed" is one of the ICPJ's core values and whenever Jews are oppressed because they are Jews the ICPJ should be a strong advocate against such oppression. However, we think the EC has shamefully surrendered the ICPJ's intellectual and moral standing to those who make the false equation: anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism. On this point, we turn to another Jewish scholar.

In the first part of Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History,—"The Not-So-New 'New Anti-Semitism' "—Norman G. Finkelstein describes how deserved criticism of Israel is periodically stymied by an outbreak of "new anti-Semitism" which just so happens to coincide "with renewed international pressures on Israel .…" Finkelstein demonstrates that, "What's currently called the new anti-Semitism actually incorporates three main components: (1) exaggeration and fabrication, (2) mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, and (3) the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally." Echoing similar remarks from The Holocaust Industry, Finkelstein closes the first part of Beyond Chutzpah with a potent charge that, perhaps, only the son of Holocaust survivors would dare make:

As already noted, Jewish elites in the United States have enjoyed enormous prosperity. … Wrapping themselves in the mantle of The Holocaust, these Jewish elites pretend—and, in their own solipsistic universe, perhaps imagine themselves—to be victims, dismissing any and all criticism as manifestations of "anti-Semitism." And, from this lethal brew of formidable power, chauvinistic arrogance, feigned (or imagined) victimhood, and Holocaust-immunity to criticism has sprung a terrifying recklessness and ruthlessness on the part of American Jewish elites. Alongside Israel, they are the main fomenters of anti-Semitism in the world today.

The EC also asserts that "many members of the METF believe that … any form of Jewish nationalism is innately evil/oppressive and that working for peace with justice means publicly denouncing 'Zionism' as an inherently racist ideology that it is leading to the genocide of the Palestinian people." Once again, the EC would do better to ask us what we believe rather than put words in our mouths. In fact, we do not all agree that "any form of Jewish nationalism is innately evil/oppressive." Nor do we all agree that Zionism is an "inherently racist ideology." What we do believe is that Zionism as manifested in the real world and most notably in the Jewish state is a racist ideology that has resulted in a Jewish led genocide against the Palestinian people, as genocide is defined in the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.* (Israel and the US are both parties to this Convention although the US has allowed itself numerous "reservations" and "understandings" and Israel enjoys the protection of the US veto on the UN Security Council.) In any event, we would welcome an open discussion/debate on these points with the SC.

Finally, the EC asserts that we "see any real attempt to work with supporters of Israel as a betrayal of the Palestinian people." This is mainly correct but we also see such an attempt as a deep betrayal of, and faithlessness to, ICPJ's core values of justice and peace. Israel's independence was declared the same year that South Africa's Nationalist Party implemented apartheid. People of good faith around the world worked to end the two-state solution that white racists sought to impose unjustly in South Africa. We remain distressed that people of seeming good faith want to ally themselves and the ICPJ with those committed to an Israeli apartheid solution in historic Palestine. Having said that, we are open to the possibility of working on 'anti-Occupation' actions with Zionists in strictly informal coalitions that do not compromise ICPJ's core values.

------------
* Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Source: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm; accessed 4/12/06)

See also:

• Second Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee
• Reconciliation Resolution of the METF
• Fourth Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Norman G. Finkelstein, Palestine, Warpehoski, Zionism

I apologize, dear readers, for not reporting on this matter sooner. I have communicated now with several persons who attended the meeting and three weeks ago, a majority of the members of the Board of Directors of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ) of Ann Arbor voted to disband the organization's Middle East Task Force (METF). Led as it was by Joe Summers and Chuck Warpehoski, this heinous betrayal of the very values for which ICPJ purports to stand was not unexpected. It seems that popularity and dollars (see comment of Ian Macgregor at bottom) figure more highly than interfaith, justice, or peace in the ICPJ. Healthy doses of ignorance, dishonesty, and cowardice on the part of other Board members also contributed to the decision. In any case, now that the 'liberal' Zionists have been assuaged the cash and cooperation can flow more freely.

In May, the ICPJ Board, then called the Steering Committee, decided "to suspend the work of our Middle East Task Force while we pursue mediation." No mediation ever occurred and after a couple of preliminary meetings all pretense of a 'pursuit' was abandoned and the METF terminated. With the apparent exception of ICPJ staff member Jason Crosby, all of the attendees (of which I was one) of the pre-mediation meetings found them to be positive and productive. Two mediators were selected and a mediation proposal put forward but despite solid member support for it, mediation was nixed before it ever got started.

Below are the meeting notes of Henry Herskovitz of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends.

Former METF'ers:

At approximately 1:05pm, Tuesday Oct. 10, 2006

Proposal: To disband the current Middle East Task Force and commit
ourselves to reconstitute a new group as soon as possible
By Lisa Dugdale
Second by Arlene Huff

Votes FOR:

1. Lynn Meadows
2. Joe Summers
3. Jan Wright
4. Lisa Dugdale
5. Tim Ziegler
6. Russ Fuller
7. Barbara Fuller
8. Irvin Green
9. Jason Crosby
10. Laura Spencer
11. Arlene Huff
12. Amy Rosenberg
13. Ruth Kraut
14. Chuck Warpehoski
15. Art Bublitz

Votes AGAINST:

1. Bob McMurray
2. Susan Jacobsen

Votes to ABSTAIN:

1. Odile Haber

These votes were recorded by Henry, and may not be the official tally. Irvin Green was asked his vote and confirmed his 'yea' vote.

Stream of consciousness note taking during the Go Around, prior to the vote:

Chuck: Describes Imagine group...lessons that didn't work before...Religious and ethnic diversity needed in new group. Quoted Wadad Abed: "Right people"... "don't fall into the same traps we've fallen into in the past"

Russ: We confess our failure... the time spent on this has been excessive ... there's no more time ... we should thank them and send them on their way [them = us - hh]

Irvin: If the new body is to be selected by the Board, then all Task Forces should be chosen like that ... groups should not be "hijacked"

Tim: new group needs to be truly interfaith... needs of the community - what are they? ... he "leans towards" Imagine

Laura: Way too much energy and time have been spent... likes Imagine ... should include other task forces in our decisions

Bob: favors mediation "very deeply"... ICPJ is a teaching organization ... tall order to be patient ... "faith" is what we can do together with God in the process ... METF is "OUR" name and ICPJ is identified with it

Arlene: Agrees with Russ' "failure" ... we should cut our losses ... Move on ... wants to terminate METF ... perhaps ICPJ is "not obligated" to deal with Israel/Palestine at this time

Amy: ...suspend (sic) METF

Ruth: End the METF ... to Russ: it's OK to fail ... if we mediate, who's on the 'other side'? ... people have "maligned me" ... "clean slate club" ... need breathing space

Odile: Reads from the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism [I had distributed that doc to all ...hh] ... I was maligned also, but still think we should mediate... the times now suggest that Divestment is an ok topic ... phyllis bennis says it is ... Gaza is desperate ... be practitioners of what we preach

Chuck: Mediation is driving people away ... it inhibits ICPJ ability to work on ME issues ... ad nauseum, let's refocus

Susan: My sister warned me to run away from ICPJ ... let's keep things clear

Jason: part of the mediation team "however"... practitioners of what we preach can also mean creating the space where people don't get hurt

Joe: Knew of the METF conflict before he joined ICPJ ... thought it would be an easy fix [laughter] ... I/P is core for me personally ... End METF and Reconstitute with "appointed members " on all task forces. I'm in favor of appointing members

Lynn: If we can't create peace here, how can we ever try to create peace in the world ... on the fence ... we need mediation ... but I like the Imagine Group

Lisa: need people to support each other ... METF can go out and do their own thing

Jan: "It's time to lay down the METF" ... don't have unlimited time and energy ... in favor of appointed members

Barbara: personal story of inital foray into Palestine issue way back when it wasn't on the burner

Art: We have a structure problem ... end mediation ... support appointing members

Henry: The issue has been framed thus: there's a problem dealing with ME issues, and people in the METF are the problem. The issue could have as easily been framed thus: Israel, the Jewish State, is supported by the local Jewish community. The Jewish community is part of the Interfaith community. I'm not arguing to throw them out - I identify strongly as a Jew - but instead use Bob's words to "own" the Jewish community, to recognize that they are acting badly in supporting Israel, and attempt to change that behavior. Shift the paradigm.

Bill: There has never been any communication between ICPJ and METF

Ian [Macgregor, the fund rasing expert]: The conflict with METF is affecting fundraising abilities. People are concerned about the conflict ... they ask what is the rift all about?

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Wadad Abed, Warpehoski, Zionism

To see a leaflet concerning the dispute between the METF and the ICPJ Steering Committee click here (PDF). The leaflet has not been approved by the METF as a body.

Approved by the Middle East Task Force at its regular meeting on May 2, 2006. We wish to express our appreciation to the Steering Committee for choosing dialogue and the search for common ground instead of disbanding the METF. We recognize that in some respects disbanding the task force might have seemed the easier choice and there was, indeed, pressure to do just that. We are grateful for your gesture of good faith in rejecting that choice. We would also take this opportunity to ask the SC to commit to at least six months of structured dialogue with us concerning the substantive issues raised below, in the statement we presented for consideration at your April 25, 2006, meeting, and in the statements issued by the EC. To be clear, individual METF members (and non-members) who attend SC meetings have not been delegated to represent the task force and such encounters are not the dialogue we envision. The vigils of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends (JWPF) have repeatedly been raised as an issue in favor of disbanding the METF. For example, in its statement of April 4, 2006, the Executive Committee asserted, "This weekly protest at a house of worship has so alienated many other members of ICPJ that they are unwilling to participate in actions with vigil members, whether outside of the Synagogue or under the umbrella of the Middle East Task Force." Given the lack of formal organizational ties this really ought to be a non-issue but others have chosen to make it an issue and, so, we feel compelled to briefly address the matter. We first note that the presence of vigil participants in METF and on the SC has not prevented Ruth Kraut, a Beth Israel congregant, from serving in ICPJ as both an SC member and an officer nor has it hindered Ernest Fontheim, another Beth Israel congregant, from serving on the METF. Thus, we see no reason for the ICPJ to capitulate to the anonymous "other members of ICPJ that … are unwilling to participate in actions with vigil members … " To disband the METF on their account is to engage in a form of collective punishment that seems inconsistent with the ICPJ's core values. Why must JWPF members and other members of the task force be cast off simply to please those who have conditioned their own participation in the ICPJ on the rejection of others? While few would object to protests outside government or corporate offices, some deem protests outside places of worship inappropriate. Although we are not all members of JWPF, we all reject this notion. Arguably, institutions and individuals who deal in values and ethics deserve to be held to a higher standard of conduct. Scripture tells us that Jeremiah stood "in the gate of the LORD'S house" and rebuked Israel. As Abraham Heschel explains:

The prophet knew that religion could distort what the Lord demanded … To the people, religion was Temple, priesthood, incense: "This is the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord" (Jer. 7:4). Such piety Jeremiah brands as fraud and illusion. "Behold you trust in deceptive words to no avail," he calls (Jer. 7:8). Worship preceded or followed by evil acts becomes an absurdity. The holy place is doomed when people indulge in unholy deeds.

Also, in the Christian tradition, Jesus chased the money changers out of the Temple and Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg. We make no claims concerning the prophetic nature of the JWPF vigil, we merely wish to point out that such protests are consistent with religious tradition. On the question of the "effectiveness" of the vigils, we observe that, by tradition and according to scripture, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all had rather inauspicious beginnings. Right after his covenant with Abraham, God's next act is to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus is crucified after a ministry of, at most, three years. Mohammed is threatened with death and driven from Mecca years before Islam becomes widely accepted. The vigils are, obviously, not an undertaking of comparable magnitude but our point is that without the benefit of hindsight it is hard to know the ultimate outcome of one's efforts. Humility and reason argue against harsh judgments based upon the criterion of effectiveness. In closing we, again, ask the SC to commit to at least six months of structured dialogue with us concerning the substantive issues raised below, in the statement we presented for consideration at your April 25, 2006, meeting, and in the statements issued by the EC. See also:

• First Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee
• Reconciliation Resolution of the METF
• Fourth Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Palestine, Warpehoski, Zionism

To see a leaflet concerning the dispute between the METF and the ICPJ Steering Committee click here (PDF). The leaflet has not been approved by the METF as a body.


Approved by consensus of the Middle East Task Force at its regular meeting on June 6, 2006.

RESOLVED, consistent with the stated core values of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, the Middle East Task Force (METF):

1. Regrets our own collective and/or individual failures of listening, love, generosity, respect, and other core values; and,
2. Reminds the Steering Committee (SC) that individual members of the METF who attended SC meetings did not represent us and their comments represented their own views and not necessarily those of the METF; and,
3. In the spirit of the core values of "love, compassion, and understanding" and "non-judgmental listening," reaffirms its appeal to the SC to enter into mediation or substantive dialogue with us; and,
4. Reminds the SC, that according to the ICPJ's Executive Director, you decided in May to pursue a " a 2-track process … Track one is a mediation process with the Middle East Task Force"; and,
5. Asks the SC to reflect upon the ICPJ core value of "not using power to dominate"; and,
6. In the spirit of the core values of justice and respect and as a step toward reconciliation, calls upon the SC to lift all of the restrictions imposed upon us during the last year; and,
7. Implores the SC to seek reconciliation with our friend and brother, Farouq Shafie, and to re-elect him to the SC from which he resigned in protest of your "suspension" of the METF; and,
8. Calls upon the SC to remember the first principle of interfaith unity—adherence to an ethic that shuns violence and demands justice; and,
9. Reminds the SC of the ICPJ core value of "advocacy for the oppressed"; and,
10. Once again, urges the SC to endorse Palestinian civil society's call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel and to use ICPJ's resources to organize a vibrant campaign of divestment and broad boycotts on the streets and in our community's houses of worship and halls of power; and
11. Urges the SC to honor its May 13, 2003, pledge to "develop a campaign ... to encourage the [US] government to end its complicity in ... violations of human rights by suspending its military aid and arms sales to Israel, and to divest ... from all companies that manufacture or sell arms and other military hardware to Israel;" and,
12. Designates Phyllis Ponvert and Sol Metz as its representatives to the SC for the purpose of facilitating mediation.
    

See also:

• First Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee
• Second Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee
• Fourth Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Palestine, Warpehoski, Zionism

You read it here first (probably ... because it's not in Chuck's 10/5 e-mail "Update" or on the ICPJ blog yet). Despite months of open hostility by some leaders of Ann Arbor's Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ) it turns out that a solid majority (17-9) of ICPJ members responding to a recent survey favor mediation between the ICPJ Board of Directors (formerly known as the "Steering Committee") and the ICPJ's Middle East Task Force (METF).

The METF was ordered suspended by the Board in May of this year and the Board later empowered a Muslim-free group that came up with a proposal--the "Olive Branch Alliance"--that would eliminate the METF. A smaller plurality (12-9; with 5 neither agreeing nor disagreeing) supported "moving forward" with the Olive Branch Alliance proposal. The issues were discussed at a special ICPJ membership meeting on September 28. At that time, members were asked to complete a short survey on the future of the ICPJ's Middle East work--the quantitative results appear in the table below.

ICPJ's Middle East Program 9/28/06 Membership Meeting Survey Results
	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neither Agree nor Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
I support ICPJ moving forward with [the Imagine Program/"Olive Branch Alliance"] (check one)	7	2	5	5	7
I think [the Imagine Program/"Olive Branch Alliance"] is likely to succeed (check one)	7	2	7	5	4
I support ICPJ moving forward with [mediation] (check one)	7	2	0	3	14
I think [mediation] is likely to succeed (check one)	9	0	5	9	3

In written comments to the survey, local Zionists were solidly opposed to mediation--no surprise there. One of them, Rebecca Kanner, openly played the guilt-by-association and collective punishment cards:

As for the discussion on the middle east, I believe more strongly than ever (and I had believed pretty strongly before!) that ICPJ needs to make a break with [the] current group of people who constitute the METF in exile. Now. Not later, not another chance for mediation to drain even more time and energy from the board members and others. I can no longer separate the METF members from the picketers or the blog "Zionists out of the peace movement" [glad you're reading it but this is not an METF-controlled blog] ... And I'm sure if these groups/individuals merge in my mind/feelings then they also do for others. I may be especially sensitive as a member of Beth Israel, but I believe as an active member of ICPJ, a former steering committee member and president, and as someone who believes that the "I" in Interfaith is key to the organization, my views should be considered with other views. If the organization can't make a parting with the METFers, [then] I will have to re-evaluate my relationship with ICPJ. ...

What our friend is really concerned about is the "Z-is-for-Zionists" in "Interfaith" but these racists don't belong in an interfaith group that also includes justice and peace in its name and mission. Then again, I don't think Christian Identity folks belong, either.

Addendum: The issue of "the 'I' in Interfaith" is a red herring. When ICPJ leaders suspended the METF in 2006 they occasioned the resignation of the only Muslim on their steering committee or in any position of leadership in ICPJ. Furthermore, in April 2006, the METF informed the steering committee, in writing, that at its "April 4th meeting, nine of fifteen members indicated that they are 'affiliated with a local faith community, i.e. a church, mosque, or synagogue' or other place of worship. In answer to a follow-up question, three of the unaffiliated Jews indicated that support for Israel is a key impediment to their joining a synagogue or temple." In any case, formal affiliation has, apparently, never been a requirement to join or participate in ICPJ.

See also: "ICPJ Staff Suppress Embarassing Results"

Revised 10/10/06 (thanks to A.R. for pointing out an interpretative error in the text)
Revised 3/20/ 10 to name previously unidentified comment author, expand quote, add addendum concerning people of faith on METF, add link to follow-up post

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Palestine, Warpehoski, Zionism

The following statement with minor changes was read to the audience at the recent annual meeting of Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice:

My name is [redacted], I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Ann Arbor and I have been asked by the Middle East Task Force to read the following statement:

Dear Friends,

Last October, the Steering Committee dissolved the ICPJ's Middle East Task Force. Nevertheless, the task force has continued to meet, primarily to pursue mediation with the ICPJ. Over the last many months, the Steering Committee and ICPJ staff have used the ICPJ's website and newsletter to tell their side of the story, we are grateful for the few moments granted to us tonight to tell our side.

In last month's newsletter, ICPJ members were told that the decision to disband the METF came "After two and half years of trying to resolve conflicts." Yet, last March an Executive Committee proposal referred only to "a year-long process of seeking common ground." Where the extra year came from we do not know. However, as we stated in April of last year: "We would welcome such a 'process;' however, from our perspective nothing resembling that has taken place, so far." In that same written statement we said:

We have acted in good faith all along and we affirm our willingness to continue to do so and also to seek common ground. We are also willing "to sit at the table together" with anyone who shares, as we do, the ICPJ's core values. Thus, we feel that mediation or some form of structured dialogue is the option that the SC should pursue concerning the METF at this time. We remain hopeful of the good faith of the SC, on this point.

In May 2006, the Steering Committee voted "to suspend the work of our Middle East Task Force while we pursue mediation." No mediation ever occurred and after a couple of preliminary meetings the METF was terminated. With the apparent exception of ICPJ staff member Jason Crosby, all of the attendees of the pre-mediation meetings found them to be positive and productive. Two mediators were selected and a mediation proposal put forward. At a special ICPJ membership meeting held on September 28th a solid majority (17-to-9) of ICPJ members polled by the ICPJ staff favored mediation. However, despite real progress and solid member support mediation was nixed before it ever got started.

Also in last month's newsletter it was asserted that the METF was disbanded because its members "did not share a number of ICPJ's core values including honoring diversity, taking an Interfaith approach to our work, and being committed to non-violence." These claims are all patently false. When they first emerged last year we responded to the SC immediately in writing noting that, for example, at our April 4, 2006 meeting, nine of fifteen members in attendance were "affiliated with a local faith community, i.e. a church, mosque, or synagogue." In answer to a follow-up question, three of the unaffiliated Jews indicated that they would be affiliated with a synagogue or temple if they could find one that was not Zionist.

Also, at that time, the METF was headed by the only Muslim member of the ICPJ Steering Committee--a man who resigned in protest after the METF was suspended. The truth is that before it was disbanded by the Steering Committee, the METF was probably one of the most diverse ICPJ task forces in terms of religion, ethnicity, and gender. Concerning non-violence, in our first response to this charge last year we affirmed, in writing, "our commitment to the core values of the ICPJ, which include nonviolence." The METF has never endorsed or condoned violence and only supported nonviolent efforts for justice and peace. We leave it to you to ponder why some ICPJ leaders continue to traffic in falsehoods.

Finally, we are committed to honoring and working with difference but we part paths with those who would compromise or abandon the ICPJ's core values of justice, advocacy for the oppressed, and honesty out of racism, greed, or cowardice. In his book Israel and Palestine: Out of the Ashes, Jewish theologian Marc Ellis describes Constantinian Judaism as: "militarized Judaism and Jewish life ... where Jewish energies, creativity, wealth and political power in Israel and the U.S. are placed in service to the [Israeli] state." The members of the METF--Jewish and non-Jewish--support justice and peace for all Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others in the Middle East and we, therefore, oppose Constantinian Judaism and its project of Jewish supremacy in Palestine. We see Constantinian religion, i.e. "militarized religiosity" in any form as incompatible with the core values of ICPJ.

This is the crux of the matter, this is why the METF was disbanded and we urge all ICPJ members to take steps to see that the ICPJ becomes faithful to its mission and core values. Just as people of good faith opposed Constantinian Christianity in the service of South African apartheid we believe today they must oppose Constantinian Judaism in the service of Israeli Zionism. Neither faithfulness nor justice nor peace is to be achieved by sacrificing advocacy and justice for Palestinians on the altar of interfaith unity with Constantinian Judaism.

We leave you with the words of Elie Wiesel and William Sloane Coffin. First, Elie Wiesel: "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere." This is from his 1986 Nobel Prize acceptance speech. In his book Credo William Sloane Coffin wrote: "Hope criticizes what is, hopelessness rationalizes it. Hope resists, hopelessness adapts." Thank you for your attention.

Labels: anti-Zionism, Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice

Ann Arbor News
LETTERS
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Interfaith Council has its own calling
[My comments appear in bold below]

I have read with respect Michelle Kinnucan's letter of July 19. I know her urgency to salvage the human and economic lifeline of Palestine, as I respect the unceasing effort of single-minded advocates such as Blaine Coleman and Henry Herskovitz.

As a former member of the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice steering committee and Mideast task force, I have heard determined presentations on these issues. Michelle states that the ICPJ sacrifices justice for interfaith unity. The ICPJ has its own calling: to lead nonviolent action which unites people of faith and others who subscribe to the peaceful resolution of conflict. Its guiding principles include freedom of worship and respect for persons holding opposing viewpoints.

In the last two years, Pat Schock has attended only one to three of the monthly meetings of the Middle East Task Force (METF). Actually, what Michelle said was: "... the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice sacrifices justice, peace, and its purported core value of 'Advocacy for the oppressed' on the altar of an expedient but immoral interfaith unity with supporters of Israel and 'suspends' its own Middle East Task Force."

The dissidents within the METF have no quarrel with the ICPJ's "calling," as Schock describes it, but just because you respect a person holding an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean that person belongs in the organization. For instance, would proponents of Christian Identity be welcome in ICPJ? Why are proponents of Zionism welcome? Is it because of misguided Christian guilt? Fear? If the "Interfaith" part of the ICPJ's name and mission trumps all else then for the sake of honesty "Peace and Justice" should be dropped from the group's name.

Picketing, even after sincere attempts at dialogue, aims to activate guilt and blame as tools. It disrupts the right of a person and a congregation to examine their soul and digest legitimate challenges, and so is incongruent with ICPJ principles.

This is an obvious reference to the Saturday morning protests of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends (JWPF) although it is unclear why Schock brings it up here as the matter and letter in question had little or nothing to do with JWPF or the synagogue protests. One implication is that Schock is asserting that the METF was suspended because of the actions of JWPF but what sense does it make to punish a separate body for the actions of another group; unless, of course, you're into collective punishment and guilt-by-association, as Schock and the leaders of the ICPJ apparently are.

In any case, just how does JWPF's once-per-week protest outside the Beth Israel Congregation disrupt "the right of a person and a congregation to examine their soul and digest legitimate challenges." It is ludicrous to suggest BIC are somehow deprived of this "right" on Saturday morning or that they cannot engage in the described activities at any other time of the week. In fact, BIC has a Sabbath evening service every Friday.

Furthermore, I challenge Schock to show why "guilt" and "blame" should not be part of the ICPJ's tool box; those who are incapable of feeling guilt are known as psychopaths. Why is guilt verboten in the ICPJ? Merriam-Webster defines the word as follows:

Main Entry: guilt
Pronunciation: 'gilt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, delinquency, guilt, from Old English gylt delinquency
1 : the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty; broadly : guilty conduct
2 a : the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously b : feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : SELF-REPROACH
3 : a feeling of culpability for offenses

Supporters of Israel have every reason to feel guilty and those who are guilty should make amends and cease the actions or omissions from which their guilt stems. It seems likely that Schock is an exemplar of what William Sloane Coffin was referring to when he said, "I think the bright flames of Christianity are now down to smoldering embers, if not ashes, of feeling comfortable. The church is pretty much down to therapy and management." Doggone it, guilt and blame just don't make people feel good.

I also encouraged the dissolution of the Mideast task force because I observed that over the years this task force changed, recently accepting only statements representing Palestine's side.

Secular activists can work with the U.S. Committee to End the Occupation and groups advocating divestment of institutional cash from military investments. The ICPJ is not a secular group. Our limitations are like self-imposed gauze handcuffs. We believe that God sees our opponent as a person of value, and we hope to treat the opponent as God does. Our methods intend to reach to the hearts of those who now withhold justice.

Pat H. Schock, Ann Arbor

Who ever suggested ICPJ was "a secular group" and what has that to do with anything? Schock knows or should know that this is red herring. Some of the METF's opponents have tried to bludgeon the group with the assertion that its members are not "people of faith." This has never been a formal requirement of working with the ICPJ and, in fact, a majority of METF members are "people of faith." As the METF indicated in April:

In fact, at the April 4th meeting, nine of fifteen members indicated that they are "affiliated with a local faith community, i.e. a church, mosque, or synagogue" or other place of worship. In answer to a follow-up question, three of the unaffiliated Jews indicated that support for Israel is a key impediment to their joining a synagogue or temple.

At the July meeting, two-thirds of the members in attendance were part of some faith community and the remaining third consisted of Jews who had indicated in April "that support for Israel is a key impediment to their joining a synagogue or temple."

So, Schock is willing to tell "secular activists" to take a hike but proponents of the violence and injustice that is Zionism are welcome as long as they are "people of faith." Oy gevalt!

See also:

• First Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee
• Second Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee
• Reconciliation Resolution of the METF
• Fourth Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Palestine, Warpehoski, Zionism

Approved by consensus of the Middle East Task Force at its regular meeting on October 3, 2006.

We wish to share our thoughts with you as you ponder the future of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice's (ICPJ) Middle East work. Although the mediation process that the Steering Committee committed itself to has barely begun, it nonetheless has begun. And, by all accounts—including the Dispute Resolution Center representatives, it is off to a promising start. Paul Versluis and Sheri Wander have agreed to serve as mediators and we are confident that they will be fair and honest.

We agree with Sheri Wander's statement in her proposal (PDF): "Unless ICPJ deals with both the presenting and underlying conflicts and issues of the current situation they can not truly move forward. The issues will continue to surface in the work of ICPJ, the relationships of members, and the relationship of ICPJ to the larger community." We also agree with the remarks of "Imagine Event" participant Arnold Stieber, who recently wrote to mediation committee members: "I agree with the 9/27/06 'Report from the Mediation/Conflict Resolution Committee' [PDF]. If the people from the METF are dismissed, and/or if the Olive Branch Alliance is a replacement for the METF, then nothing has been accomplished."

Also, as "Imagine Event" facilitator David Yamamoto notes (PDF):

It is my experience that good intentions often translate to premature implementation. I would caution against rushing into implementation. Careful planning and thoughtful action will-in the long run-increase the chances of a successfully [sic] implementation.

The challenge for ICPJ to initiate this new model rests, in my view, on two critical factors: The first, I have discussed in recruiting individuals who will carry out the spirit that founded The Olive Branch Alliance. The second, the engagement in a healing process that will allow everyone to move forward in a positive and supportive fashion in making the Alliance work successfully. [p. 17]

Thus, we urge you to support the mediation process and to postpone any action on the "Olive Branch Alliance" (OBA) proposal until after the mediation process has run its course.

We would also like to point out that the OBA is inconsistent with the traditions and core values of the ICPJ. The OBA proposal would shift the ICPJ's Middle East work from an open committee to one open only to those "appointed by the Steering Committee." We know of no precedent for such exclusivity in ICPJ history and note that this also conflicts with ICPJ core values of hospitality, generosity, peace, love, compassion, diversity, not using power to dominate, bringing people together, and finding common ground.

Furthermore, we note that the OBA proposal of a closed committee also violates the "Principles for Middle East Work (as adopted by [sic] board in August, 2005)." To wit, "ICPJ will work to create a framework for working for Peace and Justice in the Middle East that is welcoming to all wanting to work to end the occupation within our framework of respect and care for all" (emphasis added). The Middle East Task Force (METF) has always worked within a "framework of respect and care for all."

Some people seem to believe that because the METF, collectively and/or individually, has taken a stance against Zionism that this means we do not "respect or care for all." Respect does not mean only to hold one in high esteem, it can also mean to give one his or her due regard and consideration. We take the ideas, feeling, and actions of all people seriously and we can honestly say that we care deeply for the spiritual and physical wellbeing of all parties to the conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere—it is this concern that impels us to do this work. Justice and compassion—even for an oppressor—are not mutually exclusive values.

In closing, we note that members of the "Imagine Event" reportedly found fault with us for, among other things, making "polarizing, value judgments of 'good' and 'bad' " and for "Moral absolutism." We plead guilty and happen to think that values and morals are of vital significance to "people of faith and people of conscience"—the ICPJ's self-defined constituency. Some things are good and some are bad. We leave you with these quotes to reflect upon:

Ah, you that turn justice to wormwood, and bring righteousness to the ground! … They hate the one who reproves in the gate, and they abhor the one who speaks the truth. … Hate evil and love good, and establish justice in the gate … let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

… let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety:

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

We feel that love means inoffensiveness at all costs. …We may forget, in judging our own angers, that the love demonstrated by St. Paul and Jesus and Gandhi and Martin Luther King was a tough, firm, outspoken honesty that demanded the best from people, a love more accurately described by the Quaker injunction "speak truth to power" than by the passive acquiescence of "never make anyone unhappy."

We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.

Let no one be deceived: There is no survival for humanity without global peace! ... Let no one be deceived: There is no global peace without global justice!

… we have mediocre politicians, and the clergy is pretty mediocre also. But what’s honored in a country will be cultivated there. The greatest recession in this country is not economic; it’s spiritual. And so the great biblical mandates of pursuing justice and seeking peace are shortchanged.

See also:

• First Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee
• Second Statement of the METF to the ICPJ Steering Committee
• Reconciliation Resolution of the METF

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Palestine, Warpehoski, Zionism

Under the leadership of its President, Joe Summers, and its Director, Chuck Warpehoski, Ann Arbor's Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ) has racked up a stunning record of disrespect to the local Muslim community this year. In May, despite repeated pleas for dialogue and mediation the ICPJ Steering Committee (SC) suspended the ICPJ's Middle East Task Force (METF), an action which resulted in the resignation of Farouq Shafie, the SC's only Muslim and only Arab member--he was also the chairperson of the METF.

On August 16th, Warpehoski sent a mass e-mail message concerning the "Stop the War in Lebanon Rally" that the ICPJ co-sponsored with the Muslim Community Association. He complained that many people at a rally "... have friends or family in Lebanon who have been displaced or even killed, and their message targeted Israel for its military actions, which is a message different from ICPJ's." Heaven (and the local Israel Lobby) forbid the ICPJ should criticize Israel for its military actions! Warpehoski then mused "... in the future we will be much more careful in choosing what events we co-sponsor." (See "ICPJ Shuns Muslims for 'target[ting] Israel for its military actions' " and "Juxtaposition").

Earlier this month, according to Warpehoski's September 25th blog entry (screenshot here), the ICPJ "convened a group of Jews, Palestinians, and others to 'imagine' how we could organize an effective, interfaith program for Middle East Peace." The plural "Jews" was right but there was only one Palestinian, Wadad Abed--a Christian--who took part in the "Imagine Process" and when Joe Summers discussed the process at a special meeting Thursday night he incorrectly said there was a Muslim member of the group. In fact, there weren't any! The ICPJ failed to find even one Muslim to participate.

While the Jewish community was very well--disproportionately so--represented, no Muslims and only one Arab attended Thursday's meeting, which ICPJ scheduled to begin about half-an-hour before sundown, thus, making it untimely for Muslims who had been fasting since sunrise in observance of Ramadan. So much for interfaith respect and sensitivity.

Muslims traditionally break their day-long Ramadan fast together with family and friends. And this writer knows of at least one local Muslim who did not attend the meeting because it conflicted with Ramadan. Although the ICPJ's long track record of kowtowing to local Zionists is undoubtedly an even greater impediment to Muslim and Arab participation in ICPJ.

In 1975-6, under the leadership of Barbara Fuller, the ICPJ joined the campaign against UN General Assembly Resolution 3379--"Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination" wherein the UN "Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." According to a statement prepared by Robert Hauert, eschewing any substantive analysis, the ICPJ found "this resolution to be offensive" and "condemn[ed] the General Assembly action."

They declared: "The U.N. resolution ... is hypocritical because all peoples are not free from that attitude." By such bankrupt logic, it would be hypocritical to identify the ideologies of South African apartheid and Adolf Hitler as racist. Indeed, after a concerted, if not exhaustive, search of the 11-linear feet of ICPJ archives in the Bentley Historical Library, this writer could find no evidence that the group ever took a public stand against apartheid.

The current dispute between the SC and the METF stems in large part from the SC's refusal to engage in any substantive discourse about Zionism, let alone stand for justice and peace. More than a year ago by a vote of 13-0-0, the METF endorsed the July 2005 Palestinian call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel and the objectives of that call:

1. Ending [Israel's] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

The METF also recommended the SC's endorsement of the call and the preparation of an action plan to support the call. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that these objectives are incompatible with a Jewish majority or Jewish supremacy anywhere in Palestine and, consequently, certain SC members worked to block endorsement and fomented a bitter split within the METF over the issue.

Continued Jewish supremacy in the 78% of Palestine (Cisjordan) violently seized in 1948 is a sacrosanct principle for some ICPJ leaders and the more than four million Palestinian refugees (according to the UN) from the 1948 Nakba alone are of significantly less concern. Perhaps, this is one reason why Wadad Abed was hand-picked to participate in the "Imagine Process."

Abed is part of an Arab and Jewish women's dialogue group called Zeitouna. According to a July 2003 article ("Refusing To Be Enemies;" links at bottom) in the Detroit Jewish News, Zeitouna's "ground rules to allow them to tackle tough topics like Israel's defensive actions in the West Bank, anti-Semitism and Israel's right to exist" and their "hard work yielded impressive results." For instance, Wadad Abed has embraced the Zionist narrative of Jewish "fear and concerns" and, consequently, "She now accepts Israel's right to exist, she says." Meanwhile:

The Jewish women, in turn, learned about Abed's emotional pain when they talked about going to Israel.

"American women talk about moving or living in Israel for a while and that upsets me," Abed says. "All Jews -- from the United States, Russia and Europe -- can have automatic citizenship in Israel, and I can't. Yet my family goes back for several generations there."

One of Abed's partners in the ICPJ's "Imagine Process" was Benita Kaimowitz, also a Zeitouna member. Another was Aaron Ahuvia and as one "Imagine Process" participant told this writer, Ahuvia declared to the group that he is a proud Zionist. In fact, Ahuvia is the national secretary of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, which is affiliated with the Zionist, Israeli Meretz Party. As Jonathan Tilove writes, "Hadar Susskind, Washington director for the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which represents many of the nation's largest Jewish organizations, ... counts Brit Tzedek members as good Zionists" ("Some Liberal Jews Break Ranks on Israel." Newhouse News Service. Aug. 3, 2006).

Brit Tzedek's task is to convince people that justice is served and peace will be achieved by maintaining a Jewish supremacist state in the 78% of Palestine violently seized by Jews in 1948 while creating a "viable" Palestinian state in some portion of the 22% of Palestine violently seized by Israel in 1967--just 19 years later. They don't want democracy and equality for everyone from the Jordan to the Mediterranean and they surely don't want millions of Palestinian refugees returning to what is now called Israel. They believe that in order to preserve the current Jewish supremacist state, Israel must jettison most of the territories occupied in 1967 and the Palestinians living in them.

Finally, as of this writing, of nineteen "approved international hunger-fighting agencies" eligible to receive funds from the ICPJ's upcoming annual Washtenaw County CROP Hunger Walk, two are Jewish (MAZON and the unabashedly Zionist American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee) and none are Islamic. I'll let you know when the ICPJ changes its name to the Judeo-Christian Council for Peace and Just Us.

Ramadan mubarak to all of my Muslim sisters and brothers!

See also Detroit Jewish News, "Refusing To Be Enemies" here or here.

Last revised: 10/4/06

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Islam bashing, Wadad Abed, Warpehoski

Several people who attended yesterday's Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ) Steering Committee (SC) meeting have reported that ICPJ Director Chuck Warpehoski was upset that I identified SC member Ruth Kraut as a racist and one "who shills for apartheid Israel" in an August post to this blog. Here's a bit of doggerel for Chuck:

Stick and stones
may break your bones
But vehicular assault
can kill you.

I have seen what Chuck sent to SC members in their agenda packet in advance of the meeting. Chuck conveniently left out any reference to the main subject of the post--the vehicular assault by a member of the Beth Israel Congregation.

This is typical and ICPJ has consistently been silent about physical assaults against local anti-Zionist dissidents by Zionists and so-called peace activists. This writer witnessed some of these assaults. So far, none of them have resulted in serious injury but if things continue as they have then it may eventually come to that and without ICPJ or Michigan Peaceworks ever having uttered a peep against it.

For instance, in 2005, then-President of Peaceworks Eric Van De Vort physically assaulted a fellow peace activist at the September 24th Peaceworks march because he didn't like the sign the man was holding.¹ According to the victim, who asked that his name not be disclosed, Van De Vort repeatedly shoved him, "slammed his body" into him, and physically impeded his attempts to evade Van De Vort. The victim said he repeatedly asked Van De Vort to stop but he continued his attack until Peaceworks Board member Nazih Hassan intervened. An eyewitness to the assault, Dr. Thomas Kaeding, has confirmed details of the incident. Responding to a September 28th e-mail message sent to Van De Vort, Peaceworks staff, and the rest of the Board members, Hassan confirmed his knowledge of the incident and of the victim's identity. His only other response was: "If he has a complaint he can send it directly to the Board." Van De Vort and other Board members did not respond to another inquiry sent on October 8th. Neither Van De Vort nor Peaceworks has ever publicly acknowledged, nor apologized to the victim for, the incident. This writer spoke directly with the victim, Dr. Kaeding, and authored the above-mentioned e-mails to the Peaceworks Board of Directors; ICPJ has also been silent about this incident.

Hint to self-styled peace activists: You don't have to wait for direct, personal knowledge of the facts to speak out against violence. Here, I'll even give you an example of what you could say if you cared to:

I don't know if the allegations are true but I am concerned that a pattern of actual, physical violence may be emerging from the division in our community concerning Israel and Zionism. As an advocate of peace and nonviolence I urge all responsible parties to take this issue of violence seriously and to take steps to stop it now, before anyone is seriously injured.

But no, Chuck and others seem far more concerned about "verbal violence" than they are about actual physical violence. It has even been communicated to me that entries on this blog are considered a hindrance to the ongoing mediation between the ICPJ SC and the ICPJ's Middle East Task Force (METF). This is absurd.

This blog will be a hindrance only if SC members choose to make it a hindrance. The SC has suspended the METF and Chuck has used the ICPJ newsletter and blog to present a one-sided view of the dispute. Yet, the METF has not let any of that be a hindrance to mediation--two METF members attended a mediation meeting just last night with three ICPJ SC/staff members. Furthermore, this blog is completely independent of the METF and does not purport to represent the views of that organization.

The frequent tut-tutting over strong language and "verbal violence" is, in part, a "strategem of power" (see "On Propriety, Power, and Social Protest"). And I doubt that Isaiah could pass muster with the ICPJ SC. Here's part of what the prophet said--his words still ring true today:

The prophecies of Isaiah son of Amoz, who prophesied concerning Judah and Jerusalem ...

Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth,
For the LORD has spoken:
"I reared children and brought them up--
And they have rebelled against Me!
An ox knows its owner,
An ass its master's crib:
Israel does not know,
My people takes no thought."

Ah, sinful nation!
People laden with iniquity!
Brood of evildoers!
Depraved children!
They have forsaken the LORD,
Spurned the Holy One of Israel,
Turned their backs [on Him].

... Trample My courts no more;
Bringing oblations is futile,
Incense is offensive to Me.
New moon and sabbath,
Proclaiming of solemnities,
Assemblies with iniquity,
I cannot abide.
Your new moons and fixed seasons
Fill Me with loathing;
They are become a burden to Me,
I cannot endure them.
And when you lift up your hands,
I will turn My eyes from you;
Though you pray at length,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood

Source: Isaiah 1:1a, 1:2-4, 1:12b-15.²

Finally, in the text that Chuck lifted from this blog and sent to SC members the word "racists" was underlined. However, Chuck, I'm told, did not explain to anyone that this underline was not for emphasis but indicated the presence of a hyperlink in the original blog post. The hyperlink takes one to the text of UN General Assembly Resolution 3379--"Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination" wherein the UN "Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."

I called Ruth Kraut and others racists because they are Zionists--supporters of the Jewish supremacist state of Israel--and Zionism is racism. Nevertheless, if Kraut can demonstrate to me that she is not a Zionist or that Zionism--in its real world manifestation, not some ethereal, pie-in-the-sky Zionism--is not racism then I will give Kraut a full apology here on this blog.

Notes

1. Information on this incident comes from the Huron Valley Greens' May 8, 2006, "Resolution on Michigan Peaceworks."

2. The last phrase in the last verse (verse 15) is from the 1917 Jewish Publication Society (JPS) Tanakh translation. The rest of text is from the 1985 JPS translation. Bizarrely, the 1985 JPS translation changes "your hands are full of blood" to "Your hands are stained with crime"--a mixed metaphor, to say the least. The 1917 translation accords better with most other English language translations of the phrase (see table below). For example, the 1917 JPS translation is identical to the King James Version and the New Revised Standard Version renderings (the JPS, KJV, and NRSV all rely upon the Masoretic text of Isaiah).

The Hebrew word ךָּמִים (transliterated "dâm") is translated as "blood" in verse 11 in both the 1917 and 1985 translations but the 1985 translators change it to "crime" in verse 15. The 1985 translation of the Hebrew מָלָא (transliterated "mâlê'") as "stained" instead of "full," as in the 1917 translation, also seems contrived.

Perhaps, the 1985 translators felt uncomfortable with the contemporary resonance of this biblical excoriation of Israel. After killing thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians, including its role in the infamous Sabra and Shatilla massacres, in the 1982 Lebanon War, Israeli troops completed their withdrawal to a self-proclaimed "security zone" in southern Lebanon in 1985. There, they settled in for a brutal 15-year-long illegal occupation until they were driven out by Hizbullah in 2000.

Comparison of Four Translations of Isaiah 1:15
King James Version	New Revised Standard Version	Douay-Rheims	Apostle's Bible
And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.	When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.	And when you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my eyes from you: and when you multiply prayer, I will not hear: for your hands are full of blood.	When you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away My eyes from you; and though you make many supplications, I will not hearken to you; for your hands are full of blood.
Sources: KJV, NRSV, and Douay-Rheims--The Unbound Bible; AB--The Sword Project

The Douay-Rheims version relies upon the Latin Vulgate version of Isaiah. The Hebrew dâm is rendered there in Latin as "sanguine." The Apostle's Bible relies upon the Septuagint. The Hebrew dâm is there rendered in Greek as αἵματος (transliterated "haimatos").

Last revised: 04/25/07

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Jewish violence, Michigan Peaceworks, violence, Warpehoski, Zionism

It is a testimony to how seriously Israelis take the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against their apartheid country that one of the Jewish state's leading media outlets would cover the story of a protest in Ann Arbor, MI, USA that hasn't even happened yet. On Saturday, Ynet, the online version of the Yedioth Ahronoth, which has the largest circulation of any Israeli newspaper, published "Pro-Palestinian group: Cancel Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra's Michigan concert" (see below).

Critics of the BDS movement like to downplay its significance and "effectiveness" but the growing significance and effectiveness of this nonviolent movement is exactly what most terrifies Zionists and their lackeys and also explains why efforts such as the one in Ann Arbor tomorrow cannot be completely ignored by the Israeli media or American Zionists. Be sure to also check out the revealing comments on the Ynet article page.

Pro-Palestinian group: Cancel Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra's Michigan concert

Middle East Task Force of Ann Arbor says any attempt by University Musical Society to develop ties with Israeli orchestra amounts to 'condoning Israeli apartheid', urges condemnation of Israel's 'racist and discriminatory practices'

Merav Yudilovitch
Published: 11.15.08, 09:03 / Israel Culture

A Pro-Palestinian group has called on the University of Michigan to cancel a scheduled performance by the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra (JSO), saying it would constitute a "violation of the calls for broad boycotts against Israel until it recognizes the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with international law."

In a letter to University Musical Society President Ken Fischer, the Middle East Task Force (METF) of Ann Arbor said "since the JSO is one of the primary promoters and exporters of Israeli cultural life, one of its functions is to boost Israel's image on the world stage. In this way, the truth about the Israeli occupation of Palestine becomes suppressed, and its institutionalized attacks on Palestinian cultural heritage are ignored. Any attempt by the US hosts of the tour to develop ties with this Orchestra, therefore, amounts to condoning Israeli apartheid.

"As such, we call upon the JSO's scheduled hosts to be mindful of the appeal issued in 2006 by Palestinian filmmakers, artists and cultural workers … to end all cooperation with Israeli art, film and cultural organizations and institutions sponsored by the Israeli government," the letter read.

"We urge the hosts to condemn Israel for its racist and discriminatory practices, rather than condoning them. Finally, we call upon all American citizens of conscience to support the call by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee and to boycott all cultural institutions supported by the apartheid Israeli state."

METF said it would hold a non-violent protest outside the Hill Auditorium on the night of the performance, scheduled for November 16.

The group quoted JSO Conductor Leon Botstein as saying that the orchestra was "very international, with a very wide age range and a very wide political span - from extreme left to extreme right - and I admire the civility with which it handles itself", and added that "oddly enough for an orchestra that hails from Jerusalem, a city where Palestinians make up about one-third of the population, there are, apparently, no Palestinians in the orchestra."

In the letter METF also mentioned the Batsheva Dance Company, which is scheduled to perform in the US in February, 2009, calling it "an Israeli apartheid institution."

METF cited an article published by the London-based Independent, which said "Batsheva is hardly a political entity, but it's funded by Israel's government, its performers include none of Arab extraction, and it is proud to be considered Israel's leading ambassador."

JSO said in response that its management had met with Palestinian dignitaries from east Jerusalem about a year ago to discuss new ways to cooperate.

Labels: anti-Zionism, BDS, resistance, University of Michigan

The Middle East Task Force (METF) of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ) of Ann Arbor, MI, met at its regular time and place last Tuesday. There were twelve members in attendance. The Task Force adopted its fourth statement to the ICPJ Steering Committee and reaffirmed its September endorsement of the "The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism"--a statement by the Patriarch and local heads of churches in Jerusalem--with the recommendation that the Steering Committee (SC) of the ICPJ do likewise and publicize the statement among its members, the local faith community, and the media.

The METF also reaffirmed its September endorsement of the following resolution proposed for adoption by the SC:

Taking note of the Israeli government's recent decision to further expand its illegal settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, the Steering Committee of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice reaffirms its March 14, 2006, "Resolution On Withdrawal Of All Settlers From Israel’s Illegal Ma’ale Adumim Colony" and directs ICPJ staff to publicize the resolution among ICPJ members, the local faith community, and the media and to transmit copies of it to our local, state, and federal elected officials.

The METF decided to reaffirm its September actions because the matters were not brought to the SC at it September meeting as was requested by the METF.

Labels: Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Palestine