Tuesday, June 28, 2005
I believe after reading the exchange below that he is. Reverend Kirkpatrick is the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) -- the guy in charge at the PC(USA).
According to Will Spotts at the Truth in Love Network in a post entitled Curiouser and Curiouser, a group of Houston Presbyterians, concerned over the anti-Israel Divestment plans of their church organization, sent a letter to Rev. Kirkpatrick and several other high-ranking PC(USA) directors, outlining a series of issues following a tour in Israel to view things for themselves.
You can read the letter (Warning: PDF File!) Here. As Will says, "The writers make a sound argument."
They received a fairly detailed response from Rev. Kirkpatrick, which you can read here:
A Letter from the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly
Among other things, Rev. Kirkpatrick's letter displays an utter contempt for Israel's legitimate concerns concerning their construction of the Security Fence. For instance, he fails to acknowledge that the wall is concrete to prevent people shooting through it or cutting it -- the latter an act performed by what the Reverend refers to as "enterprising youth" -- and defends the characterization of the fence as "electrified" by stating is "[has], at times, been charged with enough electricity to harm or even kill those who try to breach or climb them." Well, of course if you cut an electric cord, you may be shocked by it. If that makes a fence "electrified," then I am surrounded by electrified fence even as I type this. (Send help!)
This is all the usual and the expected -- Israel's security concerns are not real (a mere product of "fear" as the Reverend characterizes it -- with an irrational overtone), and in any case are a product of their own doing...
He also recommends that next time, the group gets a different perspective on the ground by being shown around by some different organizations, among them what is sometimes called the "one man NGO" of Jeff Halper's Israeli Committee Against Housing[sic] Demolitions -- an individual with a loose grasp on the truth and, to be charitable, an ambiguous at best attitude toward Palestinian terror.
All of that is frustrating, but, I'm sorry to say, somewhat de rigeur and expected at this point. What is not so expected, and what is not so excusable, is the creeping ambiguity toward violence in Rev. Kirkpatrick's reply. In his blog post, Will says, "I cannot help but think that Rev. Kirkpatrick mis-spoke:" and includes a quote from the reply. I have included an extra paragraph I thought also relevant, to wit:
I believe that we, along with most Presbyterians, long for the same outcome for the people of the region, which is a secure future for both Israelis and Palestinians within viable, internationally recognized borders, in which there is no justification or need for violence, one against the other. Or, as the Bible puts it, "…neither shall they learn war anymore; but they shall all sit under their own fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid." (Micah 4:3-4)
Says Will of this:
At any rate, this serves to illustrate the quagmire of our policies toward the Middle East -- in which, as Christians, we appear to be endorsing violence.
He is being understandably diplomatic. I do not have any such compunctions (at least, not many). Palestinian "resistance" takes one form and one form only and I will not bother to repeat to my audience the form that that terror takes. Those who provide justification and excuse for Palestinian violence must face the natural and obvious consequences their words have. I believe the tone of the note, the finger of blame it points, the excuses it makes, the organizations it turns to for authority taken in toto point very clearly to providing a justification for Palestinian violence. You do not write and reason as Reverend Kirkpatrick has and then get away with an "oh by the way" tip of the hat to non-violence. The words and their meanings say otherwise. Their consequences are well known.
Update: Here is a link to a new article in the Presbyterian Church's unofficial paper, The Layman, which contains some of the text of the letter to Rev. Kirkpatrick, as well as the names of the signatories: Presbyterian group says PCUSA falsely portraying Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Link
Rev. Kirkpatrick and the PCUSA have taken the side of the terrorists and of those who seek to destroy the Jewish State.
Kirkpatrick does state here that he sees both the "justification" and the "need" for Palestinian terrorism.
Having read through several years of Kirkpatrick statements condemning Israeli policies in the harshst terms possible while simultaneously expressing great sympathy fo rht esuffering of the Palestinian people, I conclude that this is a fair statement of his true feelings.
Thanks for linking this information. I know the folks involved from Houston, and they included our General Presbyter and immediate past Moderator of Presbytery. They include people from both the liberal and conservative sides of the church. They did their homework and did it well. Our presbytery also bought an ad in the Houston Chronicle this spring disavowing this policy. Kirkpatrick's response is arrogant, condescending and shows how far he will go to defend the indefensible.
Kudos to your friends. They did, and are doing, important work. They certainly managed to shine some much-needed light into a very dark corner.
Divestment
A group from the Presbytery of the New Covenant called Presbyterians in Dialogue for Peace sent a letter to Rev. Kirkpatrick, John Detterick, and Rick Ufford-Chase objecting to divestment on a variety of grounds. The letter can be found here: http://www.houstonjewish.org/PDF/Presbyteriansindialogueletter.pdf . The writers make a sound argument.
Amazingly enough, they received a response from Rev. Kirkpatrick (available at http://www.palpres.org/article.php?story=20050616094035996 ).
I cannot help but think that Rev. Kirkpatrick mis-spoke:
"I believe that we, along with most Presbyterians, long for the same outcome for the people of the region, which is a secure future for both Israelis and Palestinians within viable, internationally recognized borders, in which there is no justification or need for violence, one against the other. Or, as the Bible puts it, “…neither shall they learn war anymore; but they shall all sit under their own fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid.†(Micah 4:3-4)"
He cannot have meant to imply that at the current time violence is both justified and needed in the Middle East as a plain reading of this paragraph indicates. At least, I can't fathom that being his intended meaning. However, such a reading would explain the number of groups and individuals we as a denomination support and endorse who themselves practice and encourage violent struggle.
At any rate, this serves to illustrate the quagmire of our policies toward the Middle East -- in which, as Christians, we appear to be endorsing violence.
Open letter to C. Kirkpatrick
Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:
As Clerk of the PC(USA) General Assembly, you repeatedly state that the PC(USA) supports a safe and secure Israel. You also suggest that the disparity in strength between Israel and the Palestinians justifies and necessitates Palestinian violence to end the Occupation.
You imply that the Palestinian goal is to eliminate Israeli occupation and atrocities. The only problem is, that Palestinians have made it clear that their only goal is to eliminate Israel. They do not consider the "Occupation" as something that began in 1967, but as having begun in 1948. Thus, ending the "Occupation" means ending the existence of the State of Israel.
Please explain how you envision a safe and secure Israel, with an entity that is determined to eliminate it? Thank you.
Tamara Fiche, PhD
West Orange, NJ
I would like to be updated on any activity being brought against Kirkpatrick and the other heads of PC(USA)for these acts of wrong doing! I just read "Broken Covenant" and was shocked by the books allegations! Is anything being done to bring the heads of PC(USA) to some sort of accountability?
sad that you all have such poor understanding of the atrocities committed by israel aganist the palestinians. rev kirkpatrick hasnt been persuaded by the typical bullying tactics of israel and its supporters and has been courageous enough to not only say something but do something in response to what can only be characterized as crimes aganist humanity by a vicious and misguided government.
Right. I seem to recall about a terror bombing today, which left at least one Israeli woman dead and many maimed.
How many similar attacks are deflected? I think probably there are attempts made to harm Israeli civilians on a daily basis. Of course this isn't even counting the thousands of rockets that fall on men, women, kids, animals, houses, burn the fields and terrorize simple people who are just trying to life their lives.
I guess dead Jews just ain't news, right?
Or maybe we just deserve this? Straight answer please - I would like ONE person to answer me why the war against the Jewish people just never ends.
Rolf, why are YOU SILENT over Islamofascist atrocities?
Why do YOU provide cover for Islamofascism?
Why do YOU ignore CURRENT DAY SLAVERY in Muslim Sudan?
Why do YOU ignore genocidal threats against Israel by the Islamofascist Regime of iran?
Why do YOU ignore Muslim Honor Killings of Muslim women?
Why do YOU ignore Islamofascist attacks on NON-Muslims as on
- 9/11
- Madrids 3/11
- Londons 7/7
- Beslan school massacre
- bombing of Pan Am 103
- Beltway Sniper "John Mohammed"
- saddam husseins GASSING of the Kurds of Halabja?
- Death fatwa on Salman Rushdie, for writing a book of fiction?
- near nuclear war between Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India, over land, Kashmir?
Rolf, why are YOU a FASCIST appeaser? Anything to do with you heritage?