Here is a story that should be of concern to us in Massachusetts, whatever our faith or lack of faith and whatever our politics. The Rt. Rev. Gayle Harris, the suffragan bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, gave a speech last month at the general convention of the Episcopal Church last month in support of a resolution aimed at Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children. Her speech was emotional and based on her own personal experience:
We do know that there are both sides share a story and there are different sides within each story. But this story is about the power of a state over an oppressed people and while Palestinians may throw rocks and burn tires and have graffiti, the Israeli government has used consistently weapons that are militaristic and are violent.
I was there a couple of years ago on the Temple Mount. A three-year-old little boy, a Palestinian with his mother, was bouncing a rubber ball. The ball happened to sort of roll away from him and go over the side down to the Western Wall otherwise known as the Wailing Wall. And immediately, Israeli soldiers camp up to the Temple Mount and attempted to put handcuffs on a three-year-old little boy—for bouncing a rubber ball.
I have been there when a teenager, I think he was 15, was walking down the street and asked a military vehicle, the Israeli government, a question and because that question was that was not one of the liking of those soldiers, he began to run as they threatened him and they shot him in the back four times he fell on the ground and they shot him another six. Violence on both sides is deplorable, but those who have greater power and technology have a greater responsibility for re-constraint.
As someone who had seen injustice with her own eyes, Bishop Harris had the moral authority to give such a speech. Except, as it turns out, that Bishop Harris was fudging a little bit: she had not seen any of what she described with her own eyes. Although I can’t find the statement itself anywhere online, according to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, last week Bishop Harris:
admitted that she did not personally witness the events she described to her fellow bishops on July 13, 2018 but was passing on what she had heard from others during her trips to Israel.
She does not say who these sources are, nor does she provide any other confirmatory details.
There is no evidence I can find, or that CAMERA could find, to support the claim about the child shot ten times in the back, or even reports of that alleged incident, other than the Bishop’s speech to her colleagues. And the Simon Wiesenthal Center has asserted that the incident of the boy with the ball could not possibly have happened as Bishop Harris described it.
Why am I writing about this? Why is this important? Look, we all have, ah, embellished stories from time to time. If you’re talking to a group of colleagues and you’re bullshitting, most likely you’re embellishing your story in a direction you think they’ll like or that you think they’ll approve. And because we are by nature political animals, we have very good instincts for what is good bullshit and what isn’t. So if I’m a juggler, I might tell my fellow jugglers about the time I saw someone juggle seven knives even if I only really saw seven balls. Or if I am a surgeon, I might tell my fellow surgeons about the time I saw a tumor that was THIS BIG when in fact it was only this big. Or if I’m a fisherman—you get the point. But I would never tell a tall tale like this that I knew would be implausible to my listeners, at least as long as the drinking hadn’t really commenced in earnest. This is a slightly different kind of bullshit, by the way, than the Brian-Williams-in-a-helicopter kind. That kind of BS means to impress listeners by suggesting that the bullshitter was brave in the face of real danger, though I don’t hear that in Bishop Harris’s remarks.
So what the Bishop Harris story tells me is that establishment Episcopalians are predisposed to believe outrageous stories of Israeli or Jewish crimes against Palestinians and that they know each other to be predisposed in that direction. Indeed, this is a clear tendency in much of what we used to call mainline American Protestantism. In the olden days, when telling stories like this might lead to a pogrom, we might call a story like the story of the boy shot ten times a blood libel. Actually, given that Hamas launched 174 rockets into Israel from Gaza just a few days before Bishop Harris’s remarks, perhaps we should take BS like the kind Bishop Harris was dishing out a little more seriously.
Speaking of BS, it is important to note that CAMERA is a long time pro-Israeli, pro-settlement group that has received funds from right wing American sources and has Trump administration defenders like Alan Dershowitz on its board. It is not an objective or reliable source of information either.
Among other groups and individuals it has criticized for perceived “anti-Israel” bias include Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the New York Times, Boston Globe, NPR, and Shoah Foundation founder and director Steven Spielberg for “anti-Israel” bias in his powerful and award winning film Munich. It has been criticized by liberal zionists including Israeli author Gershom Gorenberg who is one of the best regarded authorities on the conflict for his balanced approach.
If Bishop Harris claimed to have seen things with her own eyes she did not see, that is a major credibility problem and one she should clarify to her diocese. Having occasionally attended local Episcopal churches this past year, I have only heard the highest regard for her and her ministry. Though I have not met her or seen her preach. I do know CAMERA has played “gotcha” politics and ambush interviews with its targets in the past.
What cannot be denied is that 50+ civilian protesters of all ages and genders were killed this past summer in cold blood by IDF troops at the Gaza border crossing. What cannot be denied is that the Israeli government is presently targeting Druze, Palestinian Christians, and Israeli Arab minorities for second class citizenship through its nation state bill. A bill Netenyahu claims was inspired by the “good example” of hard right and arguably anti-Semitic governments in Budapest and Moscow. A bill that has led to thousands of non-Ashkenazi IDF veterans to protest in the streets that their country has sold out their citizenship and disgraced their sacrifice. What cannot be denied is that the Likud government is no longer committed to a two state solution and seeks to annex Area A and Area C of the West Bank while continuing to do nothing to advance the Peace Process with moderate Palestinian Authority leadership.
What cannot be denied is that Israel, aided and abetted by the Trump administration, has illegally and unilaterally moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem in occcupied territory not internationally recognized as Israel’s. What cannot be denied is that Netenyahu has twice interfered with American elections by appearing at partisan fundraisers and offering partisan endorsements. His government engaged in illegal lobbying to scuttle the five party Iran deal that was America’s and Israel’s best hope for peacefully denuclearizing Iran and maintaining Israel’s nuclear supremacy in the region.
I am a proud liberal Zionist. I oppose BDS, I despise Hamas and oppose Palestinian terrorism directed to Israel in all its forms. I opposed the flotilla and supported the IDF in its previous three anti-terror campaigns in Gaza. I opposed the pro-BDS resolutions in the MA legislature. Being a good friend of Israel also means opposing its policies when it hurts long term American interests in the region and sets the cause of peace backwards.
Palestinian wrongs do not excuse Israeli wrongs or make them right. Israel massacred protestors in Gaza earlier this year. Israel and its present government is increasingly turning its back on liberal democracy and embracing far right nationalism. Israel is increasingly isolating itself and in danger of becoming an apartheid state. A fear expressed not just by long time critics but increasingly by prominent Israeli officials from former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, Israeli President Rivlin, and Zionist Union Party Leader Tzini Livni. True friends don’t let friends drive drunk. A truly pro-Israel administration would confront Netenyahu and stop him from driving his country off a ditch.
JConway, I would like if possible to keep the discussion fused on my point about BS. Of course you are right to suggest that CAMERA could be misreporting the facts here, although its quotation of a statement from the Diocese suggests that that’s not so. If in fact Bishop Harris did misspeak, do you think the conclusions I have drawn from the incident make sense? We are not going to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in this thread, and even someone who agrees with nearly everything you’ve written might still well be concerned with what this kind of BS says about the implicit biases of the Church here.
You cite a subjective source that has been repeatedly criticized in the past for exaggerating claims of anti-Israel bias, you used loaded terms like pogroms and blood libel, and widely disparage liberal American Protestants for being gullible in believing this incident and implied that their gullibility somehow gives aide and comfort to Hamas. I do not see this thread as coming from a place of genuine curiosity or objectivity.
When the apolitical Druze are marching by the thousands to demand the restoration of their citizenship, an ethnic and religious minority that has fought side by side with Israeli Jews since the founding of the state, than we have a bigger credibility problem than a local clergywoman misreporting, misremembering, or even inventing facts. Israel is increasingly losing sight of the values it was founded upon. As David Ben Gurion predicted, the occupation has increasingly corroded the democraric fabric and character of the Jewish state.
There was a time, even in my short lifetime, when Israel credibly held itself to a higher standard than an eye for an eye and might makes right. When being democratic and holding itself to the legacy of the Shoah generation that founded it mattered more than occupying land. It concerns me you expand so much space to remove the speck in Bishop Harris’ eye while ignoring the log in Israel’s.
I don’t think the answer to my post can be, “the Nation-State Bill is bad, and the occupation of the West Bank is bad, and the Israeli government is bad.” As I tried to say in my last comment, one can believe all of those things and still be concerned about the readiness in some quarters to believe atrocity stories aimed at Israel. Look, I am not a fan of the nation-state bill, though I have argued that criticism of the bill is overwrought. If I were an Israeli voter I would not be voting Likud. But if the response to a critique of an apparently false account of an atrocity is to point out all the ways that Israel’s policies and government are bad—well, I think that is another symptom of the problem I am describing.
Nor do I think the answer can be “CAMERA is bad.” I am no partisan for CAMERA, and if what it has reported is untrue then so be it. But while I hear you claiming CAMERA is biased, etc., I don’t hear you saying that its reporting in this instance untrue.
Now, in a sense I do not think the phrase “blood libel” is out of place here (“I saw the Jews killing an innocent gentile youth!”), but of course Bishop Harris was not trying to instigate violence, and so I ought not to have used such strong language in the post. On the other hand, there is no question my mind that in recent years some of the mainline Protestant churches, or at least the governing bodies of those churches, have been unfair and unjust when it comes to Israel. Since you are a proud liberal Zionist, I assume Haaretz will be sufficiently trustworthy to you for me to cite on the Presbyterian Church’s assembly:
Or the UCC’s partial promotion of BDS, which you say you oppose.
Or the Episcopal Church’s own resolution, just adopted at the meeting where Bishop Harris made her speech.
Of course, it is possible to paint with too broad a brush, and not all of these resolutions are equally bad. The Presbyterian resolutions are probably the worst. They included the following:
But I don’t think anyone can claim not to see the trend. If anything I would say that this critique of Israel has only strengthened, not weakened, since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.
Why do I get worked up about this stuff? Who cares (with all due respect to the Episcopal Church) what its bishops think, or how they invest their pension fund? I think it is important to the longstanding identification of most American Jews with the Democratic Party that the left not become reflexively anti-Israel. It’s the reflexive piece of this that my post was attempting to call out. And the continued identification of most American Jews as Democrats is important, I think, to the long-term security of Israel itself and (as a Zionist you will understand this) therefore to the long-term security of the Jews in America.
For the record, the TEC ended up backing a moderate alternative to the resolution Bishop Harris was supporting. Two other points I think are important to make.
The first is that the settlement project is the biggest threat to Israeli security today, that is not an assessment from a peacenik but the consensus of Shin Bet. Netenyahu and his corrupt settler backed government are the biggest obstacles to the peace process today and are actively undermining Israeli democracy and democratic institutions. I think boycotting and divesting from the settlements is quite different from boycotting or divesting from Israel proper. This is the stance liberal Zionists like Peter Beinart are taking. This is the stance the bulk of these churches are taking, divesting from Caterpillar and other corporations that profit from perpetuating the settlements.
The second is that we do not need Bishop Harris to invent Israeli partisans setting a Palestinian boy on fire. We do not need Bishop Harris to invent laws stripping citizenship from minorities passing by this government. We do not need Bishop Harris to invent the wanton free fire zone aimed at civilian protestors in Gaza. We do not need Bishop Harris to invent the massacre at Hebron.
These are just some of the documented atrocities that demonstrate a society that is increasingly radicalized and racialized. After all, Rabin was not killed by Palestinians but by his own people egged on by the inflammatory and racist rhetoric of a young Netenyahu. To deny this is to deny reality, and to criticize this is to act as a true patriot or friend of Israel. Just as much as it is for Americans to reconcile themselves to Abu Gharib or My Lai. Such soul searching may even be a requirement for a state created in the shadow of the Shoah.
I think there is a tendency by partisans to view this conflict through either/or prisms that distort the reality on the ground. In my judgment, some mainline leaders have gone further to the left than I would like and equate Zionism with racism or back a broader boycott of the entire nation state. I would not go that far. I also reject the notion that in order to support Israel one has to do so uncritically or has to knee jerk oppose Palestinian human rights claims to prove those bona fides. This seems to be the position you are taking. It is not a position Democrats or progressives should take.
I’d have thought this would be a layup: “Yes, I’m a fierce critic of the Israeli government and Israeli policy, but of course no one, and especially no one in a position of responsibility, should make speeches falsely claiming to have witnessed Israeli soldiers committing atrocities.” Nope! It’s not possible to say something like that without giving a detailed account of what Israel has done wrong.
Your the one comparing her remarks to a blood libel and accusing mainline Protestants of endorsing a modern day pogrom. Either this is a big deal or it isn’t. I think your critics are contending that the bigger deal is the lack of progress and humiliating behavior of the present government. A government you insist you are not a fan of while softly endorsing its behavior and repeatedly accusing it’s critics of anti semitism.
Not all its critics, and to the extent I’m accusing Bishop Harris in this post, it’s not an accusation of virulent anti-semitism, but rather a claim that she shares the prejudices and predispositions of many well-intentioned people.
You’re a lotta bit all over the map here. Your original diary seemed to imply that you believe that A) the Bishop claimed to personally witness atrocities and that 2) because she, in fact, did not, no atrocities occured and iii) this is because protestants are pre-disposed to believe false things about Israelis. And, because of A, 2 and iii the Bishop is shovelling B.S….
2 does not follow from A and where iii was once widely true, it is much less so, nowadays. So, can we separate them out? The Bishop can be mistaken in the details without indulging in “the fine art of BS”…. and, to be perfectly frank, the more you push this the more it seems you’re viewing sympathy as a zero-sum game in which any sympathy held for the Palestinians is that which is deducted from the Israelis.
I think it’s clear the the Bishop neither personally witnessed nor definitively stated that she personally witnessed atrocities, although her statements follow a pattern, (‘I was there. Something happened.” ) that could easily be mistaken for witness. (a very Catholic relative, long ago, was wont to describe Episcopalians as ‘sloppy Catholics.”)
But I think it’s equally sloppy of you to consider that the Bishops lack of direct witness to atrocity automatically means the atrocities did not occur. The Bishop may be relaying stories, without nefarious intent, that are true even if the Bishop got the details wrong. I know this because ordinary everyday humans, Israeli and Palestinian included, under pressure often make bad, even atrocious, mistakes… And we report things incorrectly, often: maybe the boy was 7 years old and not 3? Maybe it was marble and not a rubber ball? Maybe it happened somewhere other than the Temple Mount…? And two separate stories about mistreatment of 3 years olds got conflated.??
But atrocities occur and the context in which they can so readily occur is, I think, the very definition of “not being at peace.” We Americans committed atrocities at My Lai, for example, and elsewhere. War and struggle often bring out the worst in even the best people and the more prolonged the struggle and the more drawn=out the tension the higher the likelihood of atrocity. In the TWENTY-THREE years since the assassination of Rabin, the tension has only increased by several orders of magnitude. The truly amazing thing is that there are not MORE atrocities…
It has nothing to do with Jew or Arab. It is a human thing. And the only way to stop atrocities from happening is to have peace.
It is especially problematic to generalize about a whole religion because you think one Bishop is wrong about two incidents. Was there other testimony at this conference? I have heard reports about upwards of a 100 Gazans shot by snipers, seen videos of a summary execution, and read about a ship of protesters being boarded in international waters.. Maybe it is this which “predisposes” “Episcopalians” and “main line protestants” to take Bishop Harris seriously.
Or maybe Alex–I mean Ted — is right. It could just be a lot of crisis actors over there.
Is “Alex” Alex Jones? Never change, bob-gardner.
The ‘stories’ are about outrageous behavior and are not, themselves, outrageous. They are, in the main all too plausible… more’s the pity… Yeah, someone once told outrageous lies about the Jews. That doesn’t mean that everything bad said about the Jews is an outrageous lie.
Yitzhak Rabin was killed by an Israeli who would not accept peace. That is a terrible crime against both Israel and Palestine that has allowed BOTH sides to commit other crimes since that time. It was a real crime, that everybody saw, of which the details are not in the least subject to dispute: it was premeditated; it was ruthless; and it remains un-repented. In its moral depravity the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin dwarfs the crimes depicted by Bishop Harris, and is MET with the acquiescence of those feckless politicians who’ve allowed the process to die in tacit approval of Yagil Amirs crime.
So, yeah, how could anybody, not just “establishment Episcopalians”, escape the clear connotation that some Israelis just want the Palestinians to burn? The Israel that Yitzak Rabin fought and died for is gone. It has been replaced by a world made by Yagil Amir. And you are surprised that those of us who would stand with Rabin are disgusted with Amir and the people who act like Amir? Or are you fooling yourself with the notion that Amir was merely an outlier??
Sigh. Read my other comments, please. And for the record I and everyone I know would also “stand with Rabin” and are “disgusted with Amir and the people who act like Amir.”
Like I said above, speck in Harris’ eye and the log in Israel’s. You’re focused on the speck and insisting it is worse than the log (phrases like blood libel and pogrom seem to indicate that anyway). The real scandal isn’t the exaggeration or misrepresentation, it’s how sadly plausible the made up story is in the present Israeli milieu.
You remind me of the Republican congressmen feigning outrage that Peter Strozk cheated on his wife to deflect attention from the devastating intelligence his investigation collected on Trump. Cheating on a spouse is bad behavior, collusion with the nation’s great power rival is far worse. Deliberately misrepresenting or inventing an incident of Israeli cruelty is bad, having a decade or more of international condemnation for incidents worse than that is far worse for Israel’s future.
Having taken the temperature of the room, I see that I made no headway with this post and am not going to continue the debate, though I have left some threads hanging and some points unanswered. But I did think folks might be interested in the sincere and appropriate apologies offered by Bishop Harris and Bishop Gates.
Here is an excerpt from Bishop Harris’s:
And from Bishop Gates’s:
I think both bishops should be applauded for their statements.
And here is a comment from the director of the AJC in New England, Robert Leikind :
I think both Bishops acted appropriately and I applaud the AJC for accepting this apology and it’s measured words in response to that apology that you posted. I think the broader issue your post exposed is that it is difficult to have the kinds of conversations we need to be having on this issue without resorting to biased langauhe, exaggeration, or inflammatory rhetoric. It is a useful lesson in avoiding those excesses in order to make real engagement possible.
I say that again upon my own self reflection. Were we addressing one another in a manner that was persuasive and engaging or inflammatory and divisive? I am becoming more conscious of how to model discussions for my students and this hopefully can spill over into blogging and online argumentation. Our current model of public discourse is two talking points being spat past each other rather than the kind of critical engagement we want to model. So to me, the moral of this entire thread, is that we can all do a better job being constructive in our criticism and engaging in our dialogue.
And the JCRC statement: