This post is cross-posted at Harry's Place
Who said that?
'[T]he pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips. I think they've probably got a grip on our party.'
Who said that? Answer: a former Trustee 0f Christian Aid, and current Patron of a Christian Aid partner charity.
'International law accepts that people living under illegal military occupation are entitled to fight against the occupiers with whatever means they have at their disposal. If the world does not like, for example, “terrorist suicide bombing” in Palestine (a weapon neither unique to the Palestinians nor invented by them), then, as one Palestinian exile said at a conference in December 2003, “Give us F-16s, Apache helicopters, missiles tanks and heavy weapons, and we’ll have a fair fight”.'
Who used these words to justify the deliberate killing of civilians? Answer: another Patron of the same Christian Aid partner charity.
Also on the roll of Patrons are a bishop who is currently a Trustee of Christian Aid; another bishop who was Chair of Christian Aid from 1998 to 2008; and his predecessor in that post. The organization claims that it 'works for a just peace for the people of Palestine and Israel' and 'promotes non-violence and reconciliation'.
Introduction
I'm a Christian and a one-time Christian Aid donor who believes there's a problem here. I started this blog to make the point (in 2005, having first raised the subject in a letter to Christian Aid in 2002 - the problem is not a new one). This is an update on these concerns which I've been encouraged to write having received an e-mail from a reader who belongs to a Liberal synagogue. He and others in the Liberal Judaism movement are unhappy that the movement is linking up with Christian Aid to campaign on climate change. They're not against the link in principle, but they do think Christian Aid should clean up its Middle East campaigning act first.
Blows have been exchanged in the LJ movement's magazine (here on page 4) but so far the debate seems just a little short on facts. Naturally it's not for me to tell Jews what to think, but I do think they ought to know what they're getting into. So I offer this post as a contribution to informed debate.
The Big, Big Issue
I started off my blog with a series of posts analyzing coverage of Israel and Palestine in Christian Aid News, the charity's magazine. This is how I summed up what I found:-
'Over the last seven issues [Summer 2003 to Summer 2005] of Christian Aid News more than 17 pages were devoted to Israel and Palestine. Most of this coverage involved political criticism of Israel. The most coverage any other conflict zone got was 4.5 pages for Angola – barely a quarter as much. Sudan, scene of more than two million deaths in the civil wars of the past two decades and, in the UN’s words, “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world”, got 2.5 pages. These include a full page feature about a woman who makes perfume. It tells you her recipe.'
Has anything changed over the four years since then? You can easily see for yourself. Go to the Christian Aid website. Click on the tab marked policy. Here you'll find policy papers filed under ten headings. Nine are for general and global issues - climate change, trade, and so on. One is for a specific area of the world: the Middle East. Click on this one: there are eight papers filed here, written between 2003 and 2008. One is a 2003 expose of alleged American theft of Iraqi wealth (did CA ever publish a 'hard-hitting report' on Saddam Hussein's regime?). The other seven all deal with Israel and Palestine.
You will search in vain for even one position paper on those conflicts in Sudan (and even if there was one, you could be pretty sure it would pull its punches when it came to apportioning blame; Omar Bashir's regime is touchy about what aid agencies say about it).
Sometimes slightly more subtle ways are found of justifying a preoccupation with a region slightly smaller than Belgium. During Lent this year Christian Aid led a 'virtual pilgrimage' around the Holy Land. Now the pilgrimage is of course a venerable Christian tradition, but pious tradition is not something that usually concerns Christian Aid overmuch. In this instance the pilgrimage furnished the perfect pretext for bringing sustained political criticism of Israel to a wider audience. Given a little imagination, a virtual pilgrimage could very well range across the entire world, but Christian Aid chose to do it differently, and that choice, it can scarcely be doubted, was very much a political one.
It's hard to see how this fixation with Israel and Palestine can be understood as (in the words of Liberal Judaism CEO Rabbi Danny Rich) 'seek[ing] to fulfil a humanitarian mandate'. On the contrary, its perverse consequence is that other areas of the world suffering human rights abuses on a vastly greater scale simply get ignored. You might expect that an international development agency like CA would be concerned to redress the neglect of many such places by mainstream media and political discourse in Britain. Instead it concentrates on the tiny scrap of land that's already a focus for relentless media overkill.
The sheer volume of coverage would tend to create a false impression - of Israel as a rogue state without peer - even if it were all scrupulously even-handed (it isn't). Whenever that perception is created it gives rise to undestandable anger. Not everyone is sophisticated enough to maintain a strict distinction between anger against Israel and anger against Jews (nor indeed do the sophisticated necessarily maintain it). For some the natural outlet for anger is violence and abuse. For many more it leads to a gradual desensitization to the proposition that the Jews are a people afflicted with a fundamental moral flaw.
The Tonge Connection
I've already hinted that my objections to Christian Aid's coverage of the conflict have to do with more than its sheer volume. At this point I take up the thread begun with the two quotations at the start of this post.
The name of the Liberal Democrat politician Jenny Tonge, now Baroness Tonge, will be all too familiar to many Jews. In 2004 a comment suggesting that Palestinian terrorism was an understandable reaction to the conditions of occupation led to her being sacked by party leader Charles Kennedy from the Lib Dem front bench. Two years later her statement at the party conference that "the pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips. I think they've probably got a grip on our party." was denounced by Kennedy's successor Menzies Campbell as having "clear anti-Semitic connotations." She is someone who has plainly moved way beyond legitimate criticism of Israel.
Earlier in 2006 Baroness Tonge had been appointed a Trustee of Christian Aid. After her conference speech the charity sought to portray it as irrelevant to her work with them. However, her position had evidently become untenable and she resigned her Trusteeship soon afterwards. I have little doubt that this was a result of pressure put on CA by responsible church leaders, but Tonge was no less certain that the pressure had come from a different quarter. As she wrote in an e-mail to a student:-
'After criticizing the lobby in a fringe meeting at conference (just after the publication of the book I mentioned [i.e. Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby]) I had to stand down from the board of Christian Aid because they had been warned by the BOD [Board of Deputies of British Jews], that my membership would endanger projects going ahead in the West Bank and Gaza.'
So was this the end of Christian Aid's association with this deplorable conspiracy theorist? By no means. The connection is now a little less direct, but it is nevertheless alive and well. Baroness Tonge is currently a Patron of Friends of Sabeel UK, a group which promotes the nationalist liberation theology of the Palestinian Anglican Canon Naim Ateek. Its declared aim is to work for a just peace, which it may or may not be doing; what is evident from its website is that it promotes a one-sided propagandist narrative of the conflict and its origins, and that it campaigns against the Israeli security barrier without acknowledging that the barrier is a response to the deliberate killing of hundreds of civilians.
Friends of Sabeel UK declares prominently on its website that it is a partner of Christian Aid. It can be assumed that the partnership is to FoSUK's advantage financially; Charity Commission records shows it raising barely half as much as it spends. The honour of being a Patron is one that Baroness Tonge shares with, among others, Professor Michael Taylor, former director of Christian Aid, Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter and a Trustee of Christian Aid, and John Gladwin, Bishop of Chelmsford and Chair of Christian Aid from 1998 to 2008.
The point of establishing this connection is that by now it would take pretty high levels of anti-Israel obsessionalism - and a pretty insouciant attitude towards anti-Semitism - to make anyone want to make common cause against Israel with Baroness Tonge. Two Liberal Democrat leaders have distanced themselves from her; the top brass of Christian Aid are doing quite the reverse.
A Connection Too Far
The Friends of Sabeel website reveals another connection that is, if anything, even more disturbing than that with Baroness Tonge. For also on the list of Patrons is Ibrahim Hewitt, "coordinator of the Palestine relief organisation Interpal".
The Harry's Place blog has made something of a speciality of researching Interpal and its relationship to Hamas. Rather than duplicate HP's efforts, I invite readers to inform themselves here and here, and specifically on Ibrahim Hewitt here. Follow the link to Mr Hewitt's pamphlet "What does Islam Say?" and note, for example, his opinions on the proper punishments for apostates (death) and homosexuals (one hundred lashes, or death). That he is comfortable with the proposition that those converting from Islam to Christianity deserve to forfeit their lives is not only ironic given that he is himself a convert with an at least nominally Christian background, but also makes him, one would think, a remarkable bedfellow for a brace of bishops.
Agreed, that is not directly relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not so the second of the quotes at the beginning of this post, also from Mr Hewitt's pamphlet and quoted in a recent Harry's Place post. Here it is again:-
'International law accepts that people living under illegal military occupation are entitled to fight against the occupiers with whatever means they have at their disposal. If the world does not like, for example, “terrorist suicide bombing” in Palestine (a weapon neither unique to the Palestinians nor invented by them), then, as one Palestinian exile said at a conference in December 2003, “Give us F-16s, Apache helicopters, missiles tanks and heavy weapons, and we’ll have a fair fight”.'
Hewitt further underlines this position by quoting approvingly from "contemporary Islâmic scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi", who has consistently upheld the right of Palestinians to resort to terrorism.
This is not, repeat not, about Mr Hewitt being a Muslim, nor is it about the fact that he sympathizes with the Palestinians. The issue is this: his argument that Palestinians are entitled to kill Israeli civilians is one which Christians must reject as morally intolerable. The claim that "international law" vindicates terrorism is of course preposterous; far less can it be vindicated by any credibly Christian ethic. I cannot justify deliberately murdering the unarmed and defenceless by appealing to a group identity which they share with others whose military might exceeds my own. To assert otherwise is, apart from any other consideration, inherently racist where the group identity in question is a racial one, as it plainly is in the case of Palestinian terrorism.
The principle I have just stated may or may not have been infringed by members of the Israeli forces in Gaza. If and to the extent it has been, that is deplorable. Where Palestinian terrorism is concerned no 'ifs' arise. That the infringement has occurred and that it has indeed been premeditated and deliberate is beyond question, and this infringement is precisely what Mr Hewitt seeks to vindicate in the quote above. And this presents Christian Aid and Friends of Sabeel UK with a choice. Either they can claim the moral high ground for their efforts on behalf of the Palestinians, or they can argue from political expediency that their tent should be large enough to accommodate Ibrahim Hewitt. But they cannot do both.
Christian Aid and Hamas
What, then, is Ibrahim Hewitt, a Muslim with extreme religious and political views, doing as a Patron of a Christian charity? It's just possible that the Christian Aiders are not aware quite how extreme his views actually are. On the other hand, it's not necessary to assume that they are ignorant of his and Interpal's stance towards Hamas. For Christian Aid itself seems to be by no means hostile towards Hamas.
It consistently offers no criticism of Hamas to balance its repeated criticisms of Israel. It consistently avoids use of the word "terrorism"; whilst its official statements condemn "violence" in general terms, there is never any suggestion that the deliberate killing of non-combattants deserves special condemnation. Nor is there any acknowledgement that Hamas has been one of the foremost sponsors of violence of this type, nor that it is intransigently hostile to the existence of Israel, which Christian Aid is officially committed to upholding.
There is more on this theme in my response to a Christian Aid parliamentary briefing produced in 2006 and typical of an approach which has been entirely consistent before and since.
Further evidence of Christian Aid's approach can be found on Friends of Sabeel UK's website. The FAQ page starts with the question "Is Sabeel anti-semitic?" - revealing a certain defensiveness, perhaps. The answer begins with "No" and ends with criticism of Israel. It contains no mention of the explicit anti-Semitism of Hamas.
The events page lists FoSUK as one of the supporters of the "Free Palestine!" demonstration in London on 16 May 2009. Also in the list of supporters are the Muslim Association of Britain ("the British franchise of Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood", in the words of Harry's Place) and Viva Palestina, under whose auspices George Galloway made his way to Gaza to hand over a wad of cash to Hamas. Viva Palestina is under investigation by the Charity Commission following this escapade (it is, after all, illegal to fund Hamas even if you don't have charitable status) - see this Harry's Place post which also notes the organization's close links with Ibrahim Hewitt's Interpal.
The Charity Commission seems happy to grant charities a good deal of leeway for political campaigning, and only under fairly extreme provocation does it bestir itself even to launch an investigation. Personally, I believe that this degree of politicization makes nonsense of the very concept of charity; even if the Commissioners disagree, it really is not acceptable for the churches which sponsor Christian Aid to share their indulgence.
The security barrier
'Christian Aid has expressed unequivocal support for the security of Israel and the rights of all Israeli people to live safely and securely' writes Rabbi Rich. Indeed it has. The problem is that there is a large gap between what the organization says in bland official statements (largely to keep the Charity Commission and/or the Archbishop of Canterbury off its back, I suspect) and what it actually practises. For in practice its support for the security of Israel is hedged about by the equivocations that surface whenever Israel takes action to safeguard its citizens.
The homepage of Friends of Sabeel UK features a photo of what is described elsewhere as an "armed Israeli lookout tower on the ‘Apartheid’ Wall". Another photo features "A Friends of Sabeel demonstration against the continued construction of the wall".
What has the security barrier meant for Israelis? Bearing in mind that construction began in 2003, the graph here tells its own story (I would not usually rely on an Israeli - or any other - government source, but the figures are not in dispute). To bring the picture up to date, one Israeli woman was killed by a suicide bombing in February 2008 (the bomber had come across the barrier-free border with Jordan). As I write that is the most recent suicide attack to have occurred in Israel. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have both acknowledged that their attacks have been frustrated by the presence of the barrier.
When Pope Benedict visited the Holy Land he described the security barrier as one of the saddest sights of his trip, and looked forward to a future in which it would have disappeared. But he also stated clearly that this was contingent on a renunciation of violence and aggression by all sides. That was an expression of 'unequivocal support for the security of Israel' and a model for Christians. It is sadly not the view of the Christian Aiders gathered together as Friends of Sabeel.
It might sound outrageous to suggest that the Friends of Sabeel want it made easier for Palestinians to kill Jews. But in June 2006 Baroness Tonge wrote complainingly in a letter to the Independent 'It should come as no surprise to anyone that suicide bombers in Iraq are Palestinians. Israel's security wall is forcing them to export themselves to another arena [...]' (my emphasis). Lest we forget, Baroness Tonge is a Patron of Friends of Sabeel UK and a very special friend of Christian Aid.
To be continued
This long post has been too long in the writing. For this I offer my apologies to the reader who asked me to write it, whilst leaving further thoughts for a follow-up post.
Update: the follow-up is here.
Appendix 1: selected past posts on Christian Aid
My June 2005 introduction to the blog
On the appalling 'Child of Bethlehem' Christmas appeal and its invocation of ancient tropes of Christian anti-Semitism
CA as Manichaeans
Demonizing imagery, and selective quotation from Rowan Williams
CA flies two MPs to Gaza - one of them just happens to be Jenny Tonge
A pat on the back for CA, for supporting a genuine peace initiative
On a student-oriented website which earned CA an award from the New Statesman
An open letter to the Director of Christian Aid (he didn't reply)
My reply to a comment from a Christian Aid employee
On episcopal politics and the beginning of CA's campaign against the security barrier
On Christian Aid advocacy for Hamas - with an update
On CA collaboration with War on Want and the Muslim Council of Britain
On Baroness Tonge's graduation to outright support for Hamas
Appendix 2: the charitable objectives of Friends of Sabeel UK
As lodged with the Charity Commission:-
(3.) THE CHARITY'S OBJECTS ARE:
(3.1) TO SUPPORT THE SABEEL THEOLOGY CENTRE IN JERUSALEM IN ITS WORK FOR THE PROMOTION OF RELIGION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY
(3.2) TO SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY IN THE HOLY LAND (ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN AREAS OF GAZA, THE WEST BANK AND EAST JERUSALEM) IN THEIR LIFE AND WITNESS
(3.3) TO RAISE AWARENESS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM CONCERNING CHRISTIANS IN THE HOLY LAND AND TO PROMOTE LINKS WITH THEM.
Showing posts with label Israeli security barrier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israeli security barrier. Show all posts
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
A seasonal post
'To make sense of a conflict in which both sides claim to be victims requires more than an emotional response to gory pictures. I support the Palestinian right to self-determination. But I am disturbed by the rise of anti-Israeli sentiments in Britain and the West, as when my old friends on the Left declared: “We are all Hezbollah now.”
'There is a tendency to reduce the Middle East to a simplistic morality play where Good battles Evil, projecting our own victim politics on to other people's complex conflicts.
'The Israelis I met bear no comparison with the caricature of expansionist “Zio-Nazis”. [...]'
- Mick Hume reports on a visit to Israel, and puts the concerns actuating this blog into a nutshell. The tendencies he describes continue to find an echo in the churches.
Simplistic morality plays have an enduring appeal for Christians of a certain sort, and the traditional view that the festive season is incomplete without some Jewish baddies is enjoying quite a comeback - as I noted in my post on Christian Aid's 2004 Christmas Appeal. This year we've had priests saying it with carols - either by banning them or, worse, rewriting them.
There's not much to be added to this post from a couple of years ago. It's been a year in which innocent civilians in Israel have been blessedly secure from the attentions of suicide bombers. It's also been a year in which innocent civilians in Bethlehem have continued to suffer misery resulting from the Israeli security barrier. These facts are not unrelated (that the will to butcher Jews is alive and well has been gruesomely confirmed in Mumbai). The world is complicated, and surely nowhere more so in the Middle East.
To left-leaning Christians whose emotional response to the conflict has been reinforced by a pre-Advent pilgrimage: I don't want you to be silent about what the people in Bethlehem are going through (though I would like you to revise the silent assumption that Darfur, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe are of lesser concern simply because you don't choose to take your holidays there). I do want you to give it a basic level of context, to hear and tell the Israeli story too, to acknowledge that it takes two to make peace. When you fail to do that, whatever blend of naivete, political dogmatism and - just possibly - prejudice it is that actuates you, you hand the terrorists a propaganda victory to compensate them for their lost opportunities for slaughter.
One or two further messages. To Mr Stephen Hugh-Jones: thank you for your comments; be assured that I'm not ignoring you, and will have my say in due course. To the little band of regulars who have appreciated my posts, apologies that you've been having a thin time lately. It's been something of an annus horribilis for Mrs Cyrus and myself, and I've often felt blogging is the last thing I want to do after a day in front of the computer. I hope for rather better things in the New Year.
To all readers, peace and joy over the remainder of the Christmas season and in the New Year, and (I need hardly add) please continue to pray for peace in the Holy Land.
'There is a tendency to reduce the Middle East to a simplistic morality play where Good battles Evil, projecting our own victim politics on to other people's complex conflicts.
'The Israelis I met bear no comparison with the caricature of expansionist “Zio-Nazis”. [...]'
- Mick Hume reports on a visit to Israel, and puts the concerns actuating this blog into a nutshell. The tendencies he describes continue to find an echo in the churches.
Simplistic morality plays have an enduring appeal for Christians of a certain sort, and the traditional view that the festive season is incomplete without some Jewish baddies is enjoying quite a comeback - as I noted in my post on Christian Aid's 2004 Christmas Appeal. This year we've had priests saying it with carols - either by banning them or, worse, rewriting them.
There's not much to be added to this post from a couple of years ago. It's been a year in which innocent civilians in Israel have been blessedly secure from the attentions of suicide bombers. It's also been a year in which innocent civilians in Bethlehem have continued to suffer misery resulting from the Israeli security barrier. These facts are not unrelated (that the will to butcher Jews is alive and well has been gruesomely confirmed in Mumbai). The world is complicated, and surely nowhere more so in the Middle East.
To left-leaning Christians whose emotional response to the conflict has been reinforced by a pre-Advent pilgrimage: I don't want you to be silent about what the people in Bethlehem are going through (though I would like you to revise the silent assumption that Darfur, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe are of lesser concern simply because you don't choose to take your holidays there). I do want you to give it a basic level of context, to hear and tell the Israeli story too, to acknowledge that it takes two to make peace. When you fail to do that, whatever blend of naivete, political dogmatism and - just possibly - prejudice it is that actuates you, you hand the terrorists a propaganda victory to compensate them for their lost opportunities for slaughter.
One or two further messages. To Mr Stephen Hugh-Jones: thank you for your comments; be assured that I'm not ignoring you, and will have my say in due course. To the little band of regulars who have appreciated my posts, apologies that you've been having a thin time lately. It's been something of an annus horribilis for Mrs Cyrus and myself, and I've often felt blogging is the last thing I want to do after a day in front of the computer. I hope for rather better things in the New Year.
To all readers, peace and joy over the remainder of the Christmas season and in the New Year, and (I need hardly add) please continue to pray for peace in the Holy Land.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Throat clearers
So, 'throat clearing' is the correct terminology for the 'legitimate security concerns, but' syndrome, courtesy of the incomparable Christopher Hitchens. Hitch's moral clearsightedness on these issues earns him forgiveness for his unfortunate religiophobic tendencies. Thanks, Paul M, for a prompt reply to my question, and a very merry Christmas from all at Schloss Grumpy and/or a deplorably belated 'happy Hannukah' to you and all who were celebrating. Please don't take that omission too personally, I only posted my Christmas cards yesterday.
It looks like being a bumper Christmas for the many Christian throat clearers, as noted by Ruth Gledhill in her Times blog (hat tip: Liz of Christian Attitudes). They even get their own special Christmas crib (complete with security barrier, but unaccountably lacking any terrorists among its dramatis personae).
[trackback link]
It looks like being a bumper Christmas for the many Christian throat clearers, as noted by Ruth Gledhill in her Times blog (hat tip: Liz of Christian Attitudes). They even get their own special Christmas crib (complete with security barrier, but unaccountably lacking any terrorists among its dramatis personae).
[trackback link]
Friday, June 22, 2007
Straight from the horse's mouth
OK. Cyrus, you're always banging on about how the security barrier saves lives. How can you be so sure?
Maybe because Hamas tell me so.
Maybe because Hamas tell me so.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
On the poisoning of the wells: the Accompaniment Programme comes to church (part 1)
On Pentecost Sunday the two members of my church who have participated in the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel gave a presentation on church (I've already posted my reaction to their written statements). Let's not beat about the bush: I wasn't expecting a balanced account of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I didn't get one. Indeed these two idealistic people seem to have convinced themselves that presenting one-sided propaganda is a positive moral imperative for them - but more of that later.
I'll begin by dealing relatively briefly with three fairly predictable manifestations of propaganda, before going on to a more detailed examination of one which took me aback.
1. The security barrier
Photographs of the barrier looking ugly and menacing (though not quite as ugly as the scene of a suicide bombing), maps showing how far it strays from the Green Line, descriptions of the hardships it inflicts on Palestinian farmers. Not a word about its life-saving function from the Israeli perspective. Or only very indirectly: figures for Israeli and Palestinian fatalities in 2006 were compared in order to make the point that Israeli use of force is disproportionate - not, of course, to make the point that the barrier has been remarkably successful in reducing what would otherwise have been a far higher toll of Israeli civilian lives. Lest we forget, the last suicide bomber to make a successful entry into Israel crossed the barrier-free border with Jordan.
Clearly the barrier is not the best thing since sliced bread. I would like nothing better than to see simultaneous commitments by Palestinian militant groups to stop sending suicide bombers into Israel and by the Israeli government to pull down the barrier. What was said about the barrier was not wrong, but it was only half of the story. And to the extent that the half of the story which concerns Israeli civilian lives is considered too unimportant to mention, I feel I am being told something not very attractive about what the self-styled peace movement understands by 'peace'.
2. Whose racism?
We heard about racist Jews in Israel, but not that Hamas is an organization with an overtly anti-Semitic ideology.
It's not as if EAPPI haven't had direct experience of the bigotry of some Palestinians. Last year, when the 'Mohammed cartoons' affair blew up, their Danish volunteers had to be sent home for their own safety, and even now, although there are several Norwegian and Swedish accompaniers, there are no Danes. But the only bigotry we heard about in church was Jewish bigotry.
3. Whose refugees?
We were told about the Palestinians expelled from Israel in 1948, but not about the similar number of Jews ethnically cleansed from the rest of the Middle East. Still less was a significant difference between the two cases pointed out: whereas today there are over a million Arabs living in Israel - those who chose to stay put in 1948 and were not expelled, plus their descendants - the Arab nations are by now virtually judenfrei. A loaded word, that last one, and not to be used lightly, but surely a salutary one for those who feel free to liken the Israelis to the Nazis. And perhaps especially salutary for Germans who feel free to liken the Israelis to the Nazis - to whom I commend this link.
Since so many on the Left acclaim Hezbollah as a resistance movement, it should be recalled that the small Jewish community which hung on in Lebanon until the 1980s was then helped on its way by a spate of kidnappings and murders conducted by that very same Hezbollah.
And what was it that took me by surprise? Find out in Part 2...
I'll begin by dealing relatively briefly with three fairly predictable manifestations of propaganda, before going on to a more detailed examination of one which took me aback.
1. The security barrier
Photographs of the barrier looking ugly and menacing (though not quite as ugly as the scene of a suicide bombing), maps showing how far it strays from the Green Line, descriptions of the hardships it inflicts on Palestinian farmers. Not a word about its life-saving function from the Israeli perspective. Or only very indirectly: figures for Israeli and Palestinian fatalities in 2006 were compared in order to make the point that Israeli use of force is disproportionate - not, of course, to make the point that the barrier has been remarkably successful in reducing what would otherwise have been a far higher toll of Israeli civilian lives. Lest we forget, the last suicide bomber to make a successful entry into Israel crossed the barrier-free border with Jordan.
Clearly the barrier is not the best thing since sliced bread. I would like nothing better than to see simultaneous commitments by Palestinian militant groups to stop sending suicide bombers into Israel and by the Israeli government to pull down the barrier. What was said about the barrier was not wrong, but it was only half of the story. And to the extent that the half of the story which concerns Israeli civilian lives is considered too unimportant to mention, I feel I am being told something not very attractive about what the self-styled peace movement understands by 'peace'.
2. Whose racism?
We heard about racist Jews in Israel, but not that Hamas is an organization with an overtly anti-Semitic ideology.
It's not as if EAPPI haven't had direct experience of the bigotry of some Palestinians. Last year, when the 'Mohammed cartoons' affair blew up, their Danish volunteers had to be sent home for their own safety, and even now, although there are several Norwegian and Swedish accompaniers, there are no Danes. But the only bigotry we heard about in church was Jewish bigotry.
3. Whose refugees?
We were told about the Palestinians expelled from Israel in 1948, but not about the similar number of Jews ethnically cleansed from the rest of the Middle East. Still less was a significant difference between the two cases pointed out: whereas today there are over a million Arabs living in Israel - those who chose to stay put in 1948 and were not expelled, plus their descendants - the Arab nations are by now virtually judenfrei. A loaded word, that last one, and not to be used lightly, but surely a salutary one for those who feel free to liken the Israelis to the Nazis. And perhaps especially salutary for Germans who feel free to liken the Israelis to the Nazis - to whom I commend this link.
Since so many on the Left acclaim Hezbollah as a resistance movement, it should be recalled that the small Jewish community which hung on in Lebanon until the 1980s was then helped on its way by a spate of kidnappings and murders conducted by that very same Hezbollah.
And what was it that took me by surprise? Find out in Part 2...
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Wall balls auf Deutsch
It's bad enough when a C of E bishop likens the Israeli security barrier to the Berlin Wall, but at least you can put it down to ignorance. That becomes harder when the parallel is drawn by a group of German bishops, one of them a cardinal. And when their appetite for dodgy historical analogies proves so insatiable that they can't even resist the 'Israelis are Nazis' one, things start to look very worrying indeed.
Read more here and here (the latter with some comments from yours truly, including an evaluation of the Pope's address at Auschwitz last year).
Thank goodness, the Nazi analogy has been pointedly repudiated by Cardinal Lehmann, Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference (in German here).
Cardinal Meisner used to be Bishop of the divided city of Berlin, so he knows perfectly well that the Berlin Wall was never meant to defend anyone or anything other than the communist elite and their bankrupt system. So the force of his analogy is clearly to imply that the Israeli barrier is equally irrelevant to genuine security considerations. Even Baroness Tonge knows better than that - it keeps terrorists out, 'forcing' them to go and do their stuff in Iraq instead.
There's been one suicide bombing in Israel so far this year, claiming three lives in Eilat (it would have been many more but for the presence of mind of the motorist who unwittingly gave the bomber a lift). Eilat is on the border with Jordan. There is no barrier between Israel and Jordan.
If building a wall were a practicable way of preventing things like this from happening, could Cardinal Meisner or anyone else seriously doubt that it would be morally justified?
Read more here and here (the latter with some comments from yours truly, including an evaluation of the Pope's address at Auschwitz last year).
Thank goodness, the Nazi analogy has been pointedly repudiated by Cardinal Lehmann, Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference (in German here).
Cardinal Meisner used to be Bishop of the divided city of Berlin, so he knows perfectly well that the Berlin Wall was never meant to defend anyone or anything other than the communist elite and their bankrupt system. So the force of his analogy is clearly to imply that the Israeli barrier is equally irrelevant to genuine security considerations. Even Baroness Tonge knows better than that - it keeps terrorists out, 'forcing' them to go and do their stuff in Iraq instead.
There's been one suicide bombing in Israel so far this year, claiming three lives in Eilat (it would have been many more but for the presence of mind of the motorist who unwittingly gave the bomber a lift). Eilat is on the border with Jordan. There is no barrier between Israel and Jordan.
If building a wall were a practicable way of preventing things like this from happening, could Cardinal Meisner or anyone else seriously doubt that it would be morally justified?
Monday, January 01, 2007
The Archbishop and what should not need saying
I suppose if I was a really dedicated blogger I'd envy those Stakhanovites who've carried on meeting their production quotas over the holidays. But I must admit to having enjoyed the break.
The world has of course not taken a break from producing bloggable news. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made a characteristic contribution to the festive season by declaring that Middle Eastern Christians are being victimized... by George Bush and Tony Blair. As well as applying ethical reasoning of similar quality to the Israeli security barrier. I have much more to write about/to the Archbish than I can manage just now. But be assured that he won't escape. To keep you going for now, Mick Hartley has a round-up of some excellent reactions from the Times. And Frances Waddams of Anglicans for Israel (no stranger in these parts, methinks) has been quick off the mark with a letter to Rowan W.
The final paragraph of Stephen Shaw's letter to the Times bears quoting, not because it says anything new but because it says what should not need saying:-
'My experience during many visits to Israel is that most Israeli Jews, as well as Israeli Arabs and Christians, dislike the fence. It is ugly, expensive and bad for Israel’s battered image. But they dislike even more being blown up as they travel on buses or eat in restaurants. The sad fact is that the fence has saved lives.'
Dear Rowan Williams, dear Bishop John Gladwin, dear Christian Aid, dear Episcopal Church, dear Anglican Peace and Justice Network, dear Ekklesia, dear Tablet readers, please do one thing for me. Simply read, mark, learn and inwardly digest that last sentence. You may think that using the barrier to slice off a chunk of Palestinian land is a shabby trick. You may have fifty good reasons why it should be dismantled. But there is only one thing that needs to be said in response: the fence has saved lives. And if your reaction is any kind of paraphrase on 'Yes, but...' or 'Well, actually, we don't particularly care about those lives', your self-image as people moved by a concern for peace and goodwill to men stands revealed as so much humbug.
A very happy New Year to one and all, and I'll be back on or after the 12th.
The world has of course not taken a break from producing bloggable news. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made a characteristic contribution to the festive season by declaring that Middle Eastern Christians are being victimized... by George Bush and Tony Blair. As well as applying ethical reasoning of similar quality to the Israeli security barrier. I have much more to write about/to the Archbish than I can manage just now. But be assured that he won't escape. To keep you going for now, Mick Hartley has a round-up of some excellent reactions from the Times. And Frances Waddams of Anglicans for Israel (no stranger in these parts, methinks) has been quick off the mark with a letter to Rowan W.
The final paragraph of Stephen Shaw's letter to the Times bears quoting, not because it says anything new but because it says what should not need saying:-
'My experience during many visits to Israel is that most Israeli Jews, as well as Israeli Arabs and Christians, dislike the fence. It is ugly, expensive and bad for Israel’s battered image. But they dislike even more being blown up as they travel on buses or eat in restaurants. The sad fact is that the fence has saved lives.'
Dear Rowan Williams, dear Bishop John Gladwin, dear Christian Aid, dear Episcopal Church, dear Anglican Peace and Justice Network, dear Ekklesia, dear Tablet readers, please do one thing for me. Simply read, mark, learn and inwardly digest that last sentence. You may think that using the barrier to slice off a chunk of Palestinian land is a shabby trick. You may have fifty good reasons why it should be dismantled. But there is only one thing that needs to be said in response: the fence has saved lives. And if your reaction is any kind of paraphrase on 'Yes, but...' or 'Well, actually, we don't particularly care about those lives', your self-image as people moved by a concern for peace and goodwill to men stands revealed as so much humbug.
A very happy New Year to one and all, and I'll be back on or after the 12th.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
They have no choice
'It should come as no surprise to anyone that suicide bombers in Iraq are Palestinians ("Iraq: the face of the enemy", 7 June). Israel's security wall is forcing them to export themselves to another arena to fight in this ridiculous "war" against terrorism being waged by the donkeys who lead us in the West.'
The Islamist hate sheet from which I have extracted this pearl of great price is not al-Grauniad, so of course it can only be the Daily Fisk. The writer is Jenny Tonge, member of the House of Lords, sometime member of the Liberal Democrat front bench, sometime guest of Christian Aid in Gaza, and by now clearly several votes short of an overall majority.
UPDATE 12 June
This letter hits the nail squarely on the head, and suggests there is hope for the Lib Dems even after they sacked the leader who sacked Tonge:-
Sir: The chief responsibility of a sovereign nation is the defence of its own citizens. If, as Lady Tonge asserts (letter, 8 June), the security wall being erected by the Israelis has forced suicide bombers to "export themselves" to Iraq, then clearly, for the Israelis, the wall is working. I can think of worse ways in which the Israelis could have protected their people.
Nowhere in her letter could I find a condemnation of the atrocities committed by suicide bombers in Iraq, even though their victims are mainly Muslim, and include those Iraqis trying courageously to build a liberal democracy as opposed to an oppressive, bigoted theocracy.
Menzies Campbell may have confirmed the place of the Liberal Democrats in the progressive, liberal centre of British politics through a rethink of the party's economic policies. But as long as he tolerates the hijacking of foreign policy by the likes of Lady Tonge then the Lib Dems will never be trusted to play a part in the government of this country.
CLLR WAYNE CASEY
DEPUTY LEADER, LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GROUP, LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET, LONDON NW7
For the record, this was my effort, but I'm glad it was Cllr Casey's that got published:-
Sir: Critics of Israel's security barrier have often seemed indifferent to its effectiveness in preventing suicide bombings. Now Baroness Tonge (letter, 8 June) breaks new ground by making it plain that she objects to it precisely because it is effective in excluding the bombers, thereby 'forcing' them to murder Iraqis as surrogates for Jews. If nothing else, she has reinforced the case for the abolition of the House of Lords.
The Islamist hate sheet from which I have extracted this pearl of great price is not al-Grauniad, so of course it can only be the Daily Fisk. The writer is Jenny Tonge, member of the House of Lords, sometime member of the Liberal Democrat front bench, sometime guest of Christian Aid in Gaza, and by now clearly several votes short of an overall majority.
UPDATE 12 June
This letter hits the nail squarely on the head, and suggests there is hope for the Lib Dems even after they sacked the leader who sacked Tonge:-
Sir: The chief responsibility of a sovereign nation is the defence of its own citizens. If, as Lady Tonge asserts (letter, 8 June), the security wall being erected by the Israelis has forced suicide bombers to "export themselves" to Iraq, then clearly, for the Israelis, the wall is working. I can think of worse ways in which the Israelis could have protected their people.
Nowhere in her letter could I find a condemnation of the atrocities committed by suicide bombers in Iraq, even though their victims are mainly Muslim, and include those Iraqis trying courageously to build a liberal democracy as opposed to an oppressive, bigoted theocracy.
Menzies Campbell may have confirmed the place of the Liberal Democrats in the progressive, liberal centre of British politics through a rethink of the party's economic policies. But as long as he tolerates the hijacking of foreign policy by the likes of Lady Tonge then the Lib Dems will never be trusted to play a part in the government of this country.
CLLR WAYNE CASEY
DEPUTY LEADER, LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GROUP, LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET, LONDON NW7
For the record, this was my effort, but I'm glad it was Cllr Casey's that got published:-
Sir: Critics of Israel's security barrier have often seemed indifferent to its effectiveness in preventing suicide bombings. Now Baroness Tonge (letter, 8 June) breaks new ground by making it plain that she objects to it precisely because it is effective in excluding the bombers, thereby 'forcing' them to murder Iraqis as surrogates for Jews. If nothing else, she has reinforced the case for the abolition of the House of Lords.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
One who got through
Nobody killed except the bomber, thank God, but this is one more reminder as to why Israel has a security barrier. Christian Aid, the Church of Scotland, the Anglican Peace and Justice Network and company please take note: if you want the barrier taken down, you'd better get talking to Islamic Jihad.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Sense on the Fence
After the material from the Church of Scotland that I have been covering lately, it made a refreshing change to read these wise words from a Scots Christian of a different persuasion.
Nice to read this about Boulos Marcuzzo, the Catholic Bishop of Nazareth...
'He was adamant however that everyone must first destroy “the walls of separation” in their hearts. The quotation is from Ephesians 2:14, and forms his Episcopal motto.'
...as it's also the motto of this website!
Could I suggest to Mr Kearney that he pays another visit to the Holy Land soon, and invites his opposite number in the Kirk to come with him?
Nice to read this about Boulos Marcuzzo, the Catholic Bishop of Nazareth...
'He was adamant however that everyone must first destroy “the walls of separation” in their hearts. The quotation is from Ephesians 2:14, and forms his Episcopal motto.'
...as it's also the motto of this website!
Could I suggest to Mr Kearney that he pays another visit to the Holy Land soon, and invites his opposite number in the Kirk to come with him?
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland: j'accuse (part 3)
‘Which say […] to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits’ (Isaiah 30:10)
This long posting comments on a Church of Scotland policy document which Moderator David Lacy enclosed with his letter (not available on-line as far as I can see). Reading this text made me very angry, and this is more than usually apparent in the style in which I have responded to it. Consequently, the decision to publish has involved some soul-searching. My first posting in this series has drawn the comment that I cannot expect to be taken seriously ‘except as a complete loon’. Am I simply being absurdly harsh towards a bunch of well-meaning Christians?
First, regarding their good intentions. We all know that these are what the road to hell is paved with, and that saying encapsulates some very good theology. ‘We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness’ say s the ‘prayer of humble access’ in the Book of Common Prayer. If we engage in politics we do so as sinners, whether we are Christians or not. That means we get it wrong.
What troubles me about the material from the Kirk is the sheer self-righteousness of it - the underlying certainty that they can approach complex political problems and unerringly discern the moral issues involved. And the moralism that results is not even a distinctively Christian one. It is the common property of Guardian readers of all faiths and none. We all have our ‘smooth things’, the opinions we love to hear because they do not threaten our sense of who we are. For far too many liberal Christians, it is clear, one-sided criticism of Israel is a ‘smooth thing’ – a position that can be adopted unthinkingly because it is part of the way ‘people like us’ think.
This paragraph from an article by Nick Cohen identifies the phenomenon precisely – especially the quote at the end:-
‘For decades, writers have reached for bovine metaphors to describe the tribalism of the small world of metropolitan liberalism. In 1963, Michael Frayn described “the radical middle-classes, the do-gooders; the readers of the News Chronicle, the Guardian, and The Observer; the signers of petitions; the backbone of the BBC. In short, the Herbivores, or gentle ruminants, who look out from the lush pastures which are their natural station in life with eyes full of sorrow for less fortunate creatures, guiltily conscious of their advantages, though not usually ceasing to eat the grass”. Harold Rosenberg, Frayn’s American contemporary, put it more succinctly in his gorgeous description of the New York intelligentsia as “the herd of independent minds”.’
And from a position inside the herd, the charge that campaigning against the Israeli security fence is actually complicity in murder may very well appear to be the ravings of a ‘complete loon’. But it is true, nevertheless.
In replying to my letter Mr Lacy could have said two simple things. Firstly, he could have acknowledged that the protection of Israeli civilians from terrorist murder is a valid objective, and that to the extent that the security barrier does in fact further this objective, that is a consideration which must at least be set against its adverse impact on Palestinian civilians. Secondly, he could have said what follows from the first point: if Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorist attack, and if its defensive measures have harmful consequences for the Palestinians, the moral responsibility for these consequences must at least be shared with those who carry out terrorist attacks, those who organize them, and those who applaud and encourage them.
Mr Lacy did not say these things. The five-page document he sent me tells me that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is unwilling to say them. I think that is something worth getting angry about.
From the report of the Church and Nation Committee to the 2004 General Assembly
(with exposition)
‘ISRAEL-PALESTINE – SECURITY WALL OR BARRIER TO PEACE?’
‘AGREED DELIVERANCES’
‘33. In condemning violence in any form, affirm the right of both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security.’
(OK, we’ve covered our arses, now we can get down to the serious business of bashing Israel.)
’34. Condemn the construction of the “Security” Wall by the state of Israel as a serious infringement of the human rights of all Palestinians.’
(Let’s put Israeli security into ironic quotes straight away – we don’t actually give a monkey’s. Palestinians have human rights. Jewish kids blown to pieces by suicide bombers? Tough luck.)
’35. Call on HMG to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Israel to dismantle the Wall, and to remove checkpoints and barricades which make Palestinians’ lives intolerable, unable to lead a normal life.’
(We want to see more Jewish kids blown to pieces.)
‘36. Regret the decision of HMG not to support legal action in relation to the Wall at the International Court of Justice.’
(We want the Israelis turned into pariahs until they agree to let their kids be blown to pieces.)
’37. Condemn the intention of the Israeli government to destroy a large number of Palestinian homes in Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza strip under the pretence of creating a so-called security corridor on the border to Egypt, and urge HMG to do everything in their power to encourage the Israeli government to stop their immoral policy of house demolitions on Palestinian land as a way of creating ever new facts on the ground.’
(Just in case we haven’t made it clear who the evil bastards are. They really do deserve to have their kids blown to pieces.)
And from the accompanying report:-
‘1. The turmoil in the Middle East is seldom out of the media. We watch in despair the seemingly endless cycle of violence and can scarcely imagine the fear and pain of both Palestinians and Israelis, subjected to military incursions, targeted assassinations and suicide bombings […] [The Road Map] envisages an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours […] one of the main barriers to its implementation is Israel’s construction of a security barrier around the West Bank.’
(A little pious waffle makes sure our arses are well covered before we get back to the serious business of bashing Israel. There are terrorists killing defenceless civilians and there are soldiers killing the terrorists, and it’s all violent and bad - you see, we’re totally unbiased. We really, really don’t like violence, it’s just that we like to see Israel defending itself against violence even less. How can there ever be peace when they do stuff like that?)
‘2. Is it a fence or a wall? Israel claims that only 5% of the Wall consists of concrete. The Israeli government refers to a “security fence”, or simply to a barrier. The New York Times uses “security barrier”. “Apartheid Wall” is favoured by some Palestinians and solidarity organizations, while Heads of Churches in Jerusalem use “Separation Wall”. In a debate in the House of Commons last November, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bill Rammel stated:
“We could have a long debate about whether we are talking about a wall or a fence, but it is clear that although it could be described as a fence, a significant part of it is a wall, as was described.”
‘He then went on to refer to it as a wall. Critics say that calling such an aggressive and substantial Wall a “fence” is to mislead, and where the Wall is made of concrete (as in Qalqilya and Abu Dis, below) its presence and effect is all pervasive. This report will therefore refer to a Wall.’
(People we like say it’s a wall, people we don’t like much say it isn’t, so we’ll go with Wall even if 95% of it is in fact a fence. What do you mean, closed minds?)
‘3. Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza following the Six-Day War in 1967 […]’
(Yes, OK, that was one of the wars where Israel’s neighbours wanted to wipe it off the map. We haven’t got space to go into every little detail, for goodness’ sake.)
Points 3 and 4
The Israelis are gratuitously inflicting misery on the entirely innocent Palestinians.
‘5. In September 2000, the frustration, anger and despair of Palestinians led to the beginning of the second Intifada or uprising. For some Palestinians, this has resulted in popular demonstrations, violent protests and suicide bombing attacks on both military targets within the West Bank and Gaza and civilian targets within Israel. On the Israeli side there have been targeted assassinations, military incursions into Palestinian towns and refugee camps and an increasing restriction on movement for Palestinians. Each side points to the violence of the other as provocation for their “retaliatory attacks” and the depressing “tit for tat” continues with mounting human tragedy. Between September 2000 and December 2003, 842 Israelis and 2,648 Palestinians were killed.’
(When the Palestinians do bad stuff it’s because the Israelis make them frustrated, angry and despairing, and when you feel like that, you just have to go and blow yourself up somewhere, don’t you? And the bad stuff the Israelis do? Well, clearly entirely their responsibility, and not to be explained away by the influence of human emotions such as frustration, anger and despair.)
‘6. Since its foundation in 1948, Israel has been acutely aware of its need for security, especially from hostile neighbours. Many of the policies above were carried out in the name of security and today its government points to “the murder of over 800 innocent people during the past three years” for its decision to embark on the construction of a Separation Wall. Its stated purpose is to create a temporary barrier to protect the Israeli people from attack by Palestinian terrorists. Its creation, however, is exacerbating an already desperate situation.’
(See, there’s no bias here! We’ve given three whole sentences to Israel’s so-called case for protecting its population, before pointing out that its success in doing so can only make matters worse, and then proceeding to…)
Points 7, 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
The Israelis are gratuitously inflicting misery on the entirely innocent Palestinians.
‘14. The fact that the Wall has encroached further into Palestinian territory, and very obviously has been routed to include the illegal Israeli settlements on the Israeli side of the Wall, must raise questions about the real motivation behind its construction. Israel claims it takes this route to protect Israeli citizens, but Palestinians only see more of their land being taken away.’
(Of course they don’t care about protecting their citizens, the evil, lying bastards. The ones in illegal settlements deserve to die anyway, so there plainly can’t be a case for protecting them.)
’15. […] The well-documented humanitarian consequences of the Wall raise further questions about Israel’s understanding of its responsibilities under International Humanitarian Law. To what extent can it justify punishing an entire population for the activities of some suicide bombers?’
(‘Not at all’ is of course the answer to our rhetorical question, even if ‘some’ suicide bombers are sent by organizations that enjoy mass support among the population. What should be happening is that Jewish kids should be getting blown to pieces to punish them for living in an evil imperialist apartheid state. The building of a Wall to stop this happening just goes to show what a very evil imperialist apartheid state it is. And the status of suicide bombing under International Humanitarian Law? Not our concern.)
‘16. There has already been much international criticism of the Wall […]’
(Lots of important people have criticized the wall/fence, so clearly it’s OK for us to do so as well. Remember: ‘the herd of independent minds’. All together now: ‘All we like sheep…’.)
’17 The Israeli Government claims that the Wall has already been successful, pointing to a decrease in the number of suicide bombings. However, even within Israel itself there are increasing concerns being raised concerning the ability of current Israeli policies to ever provide lasting security […]’
(... and some of the critics are Jews, so that puts us right in the clear. No need to waste time evaluating the claim that the wall/fence has saved lives, still less to ask what current PA or Hamas policies are contributing to ‘lasting security’.
’18. Criticism was also voiced by Avraham Burg, a senior opposition member of the opposition Labour Party and a former Speaker of the Knesset, when he said:
“Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centres of Israeli escapism”.
(And here’s a Jew saying it serves them right if their kids get blown up. So what can be wrong with us saying it?)
Point 19
The US backs Israel – the real Axis of Evil exposed!
’20. In 1989, the world watched when the Berlin Wall came down amid great rejoicing as people in Eastern Europe experienced freedom and respect for their human rights for the first time in many years. In 1994, the system of apartheid finally came to an end in South Africa and the oppression against the black majority population ended. They, too, experienced the right to vote, to travel, to protest and to exercise their human rights in other ways. It seemed then that a new era had begun and that the world was changing for the better. Now, over a decade later, in the building of the Wall, a terrible step back into these dark days of the past is being taken. The whole Church should campaign against the Wall with as much passion and commitment as was given to the fight against apartheid. We believe this to be necessary because Jesus Christ came into the world to break down barriers and to uphold the rights of every human being. In the story of the Good Samaritan, in Christ’s encounter with the woman at the well, through the tax collector Zacchaeus, and ultimately on the cross, Christ came to build bridges and to overcome all that divides us from one another. In the Early Church, the barriers between Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, men and women were all broken down. It is the task of the Church to be Christ’s hands working for the days when the Wall is torn down and Israelis and Palestinians have the opportunity to work towards living in peace and security.’
(With this effusion of sanctimonious bullshit the report ends.)
The Berlin Wall is a red herring that I have disposed of here. South Africa is scarcely less of a red herring. The security barrier is not the Berlin Wall and it is not an apartheid boundary erected to divide race from race (let us recall once again that Israel has over a million Arab citizens). It serves to protect civilians from being murdered, as is their basic human right.
When the report fulminates against ‘a terrible step back into these dark days of the past’, let us note that whilst a detailed report on Sudan was presented to the 2005 General Assembly (and in fairness it is a lot stronger than anything the Anglican Communion has said on this subject to date), it did not ask for ‘passion and commitment’ on behalf of the victims of violence that has claimed over two million lives. Deliverance 26 states that the General Assembly ‘After wars in Sudan where no one side has had all the virtue and where no one side can be given all the blame, welcome the peace agreement signed in January 2005.’ Whether the phrase I emphasize is really an appropriate description of the conflicts in the Sudan is beyond the scope of this posting; the point is that the fairness and balance extended to the Islamist dictatorship in Khartoum are entirely withheld from the democratic state of Israel, which is treated to a sustained exercise in, precisely, giving one side all the blame.
An unpleasantly insensitive detail here is the double reference to Christ’s concern for a despised and marginalized people of his world, the Samaritans (Christian readers will know that the woman at the well was a Samaritan – see John’s Gospel, chapter 4). ‘See, the Jews were just as xenophobic then as now!’ this insinuates – as if this were in any way a specifically Jewish trait. We may recall that today’s tiny Samaritan community enjoys the full freedom of worship extended by Israel to its numerous religious minorities.
‘Christ came to build bridges and to overcome all that divides us from one another’. Yes, and first and foremost the barriers of incomprehension, mistrust and hatred that we build in our heads and hearts – all of us – and that lead us to want to hurt and destroy. In the Middle East such barriers most certainly do not exist exclusively, or even primarily, in Israeli heads and hearts. And though Christ came to break the barriers down, Christians are very good at finding ways to build them up again. Like when they still commit the blasphemy of invoking Christ in order to demonize his people.
This long posting comments on a Church of Scotland policy document which Moderator David Lacy enclosed with his letter (not available on-line as far as I can see). Reading this text made me very angry, and this is more than usually apparent in the style in which I have responded to it. Consequently, the decision to publish has involved some soul-searching. My first posting in this series has drawn the comment that I cannot expect to be taken seriously ‘except as a complete loon’. Am I simply being absurdly harsh towards a bunch of well-meaning Christians?
First, regarding their good intentions. We all know that these are what the road to hell is paved with, and that saying encapsulates some very good theology. ‘We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness’ say s the ‘prayer of humble access’ in the Book of Common Prayer. If we engage in politics we do so as sinners, whether we are Christians or not. That means we get it wrong.
What troubles me about the material from the Kirk is the sheer self-righteousness of it - the underlying certainty that they can approach complex political problems and unerringly discern the moral issues involved. And the moralism that results is not even a distinctively Christian one. It is the common property of Guardian readers of all faiths and none. We all have our ‘smooth things’, the opinions we love to hear because they do not threaten our sense of who we are. For far too many liberal Christians, it is clear, one-sided criticism of Israel is a ‘smooth thing’ – a position that can be adopted unthinkingly because it is part of the way ‘people like us’ think.
This paragraph from an article by Nick Cohen identifies the phenomenon precisely – especially the quote at the end:-
‘For decades, writers have reached for bovine metaphors to describe the tribalism of the small world of metropolitan liberalism. In 1963, Michael Frayn described “the radical middle-classes, the do-gooders; the readers of the News Chronicle, the Guardian, and The Observer; the signers of petitions; the backbone of the BBC. In short, the Herbivores, or gentle ruminants, who look out from the lush pastures which are their natural station in life with eyes full of sorrow for less fortunate creatures, guiltily conscious of their advantages, though not usually ceasing to eat the grass”. Harold Rosenberg, Frayn’s American contemporary, put it more succinctly in his gorgeous description of the New York intelligentsia as “the herd of independent minds”.’
And from a position inside the herd, the charge that campaigning against the Israeli security fence is actually complicity in murder may very well appear to be the ravings of a ‘complete loon’. But it is true, nevertheless.
In replying to my letter Mr Lacy could have said two simple things. Firstly, he could have acknowledged that the protection of Israeli civilians from terrorist murder is a valid objective, and that to the extent that the security barrier does in fact further this objective, that is a consideration which must at least be set against its adverse impact on Palestinian civilians. Secondly, he could have said what follows from the first point: if Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorist attack, and if its defensive measures have harmful consequences for the Palestinians, the moral responsibility for these consequences must at least be shared with those who carry out terrorist attacks, those who organize them, and those who applaud and encourage them.
Mr Lacy did not say these things. The five-page document he sent me tells me that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is unwilling to say them. I think that is something worth getting angry about.
From the report of the Church and Nation Committee to the 2004 General Assembly
(with exposition)
‘ISRAEL-PALESTINE – SECURITY WALL OR BARRIER TO PEACE?’
‘AGREED DELIVERANCES’
‘33. In condemning violence in any form, affirm the right of both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security.’
(OK, we’ve covered our arses, now we can get down to the serious business of bashing Israel.)
’34. Condemn the construction of the “Security” Wall by the state of Israel as a serious infringement of the human rights of all Palestinians.’
(Let’s put Israeli security into ironic quotes straight away – we don’t actually give a monkey’s. Palestinians have human rights. Jewish kids blown to pieces by suicide bombers? Tough luck.)
’35. Call on HMG to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Israel to dismantle the Wall, and to remove checkpoints and barricades which make Palestinians’ lives intolerable, unable to lead a normal life.’
(We want to see more Jewish kids blown to pieces.)
‘36. Regret the decision of HMG not to support legal action in relation to the Wall at the International Court of Justice.’
(We want the Israelis turned into pariahs until they agree to let their kids be blown to pieces.)
’37. Condemn the intention of the Israeli government to destroy a large number of Palestinian homes in Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza strip under the pretence of creating a so-called security corridor on the border to Egypt, and urge HMG to do everything in their power to encourage the Israeli government to stop their immoral policy of house demolitions on Palestinian land as a way of creating ever new facts on the ground.’
(Just in case we haven’t made it clear who the evil bastards are. They really do deserve to have their kids blown to pieces.)
And from the accompanying report:-
‘1. The turmoil in the Middle East is seldom out of the media. We watch in despair the seemingly endless cycle of violence and can scarcely imagine the fear and pain of both Palestinians and Israelis, subjected to military incursions, targeted assassinations and suicide bombings […] [The Road Map] envisages an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours […] one of the main barriers to its implementation is Israel’s construction of a security barrier around the West Bank.’
(A little pious waffle makes sure our arses are well covered before we get back to the serious business of bashing Israel. There are terrorists killing defenceless civilians and there are soldiers killing the terrorists, and it’s all violent and bad - you see, we’re totally unbiased. We really, really don’t like violence, it’s just that we like to see Israel defending itself against violence even less. How can there ever be peace when they do stuff like that?)
‘2. Is it a fence or a wall? Israel claims that only 5% of the Wall consists of concrete. The Israeli government refers to a “security fence”, or simply to a barrier. The New York Times uses “security barrier”. “Apartheid Wall” is favoured by some Palestinians and solidarity organizations, while Heads of Churches in Jerusalem use “Separation Wall”. In a debate in the House of Commons last November, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bill Rammel stated:
“We could have a long debate about whether we are talking about a wall or a fence, but it is clear that although it could be described as a fence, a significant part of it is a wall, as was described.”
‘He then went on to refer to it as a wall. Critics say that calling such an aggressive and substantial Wall a “fence” is to mislead, and where the Wall is made of concrete (as in Qalqilya and Abu Dis, below) its presence and effect is all pervasive. This report will therefore refer to a Wall.’
(People we like say it’s a wall, people we don’t like much say it isn’t, so we’ll go with Wall even if 95% of it is in fact a fence. What do you mean, closed minds?)
‘3. Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza following the Six-Day War in 1967 […]’
(Yes, OK, that was one of the wars where Israel’s neighbours wanted to wipe it off the map. We haven’t got space to go into every little detail, for goodness’ sake.)
Points 3 and 4
The Israelis are gratuitously inflicting misery on the entirely innocent Palestinians.
‘5. In September 2000, the frustration, anger and despair of Palestinians led to the beginning of the second Intifada or uprising. For some Palestinians, this has resulted in popular demonstrations, violent protests and suicide bombing attacks on both military targets within the West Bank and Gaza and civilian targets within Israel. On the Israeli side there have been targeted assassinations, military incursions into Palestinian towns and refugee camps and an increasing restriction on movement for Palestinians. Each side points to the violence of the other as provocation for their “retaliatory attacks” and the depressing “tit for tat” continues with mounting human tragedy. Between September 2000 and December 2003, 842 Israelis and 2,648 Palestinians were killed.’
(When the Palestinians do bad stuff it’s because the Israelis make them frustrated, angry and despairing, and when you feel like that, you just have to go and blow yourself up somewhere, don’t you? And the bad stuff the Israelis do? Well, clearly entirely their responsibility, and not to be explained away by the influence of human emotions such as frustration, anger and despair.)
‘6. Since its foundation in 1948, Israel has been acutely aware of its need for security, especially from hostile neighbours. Many of the policies above were carried out in the name of security and today its government points to “the murder of over 800 innocent people during the past three years” for its decision to embark on the construction of a Separation Wall. Its stated purpose is to create a temporary barrier to protect the Israeli people from attack by Palestinian terrorists. Its creation, however, is exacerbating an already desperate situation.’
(See, there’s no bias here! We’ve given three whole sentences to Israel’s so-called case for protecting its population, before pointing out that its success in doing so can only make matters worse, and then proceeding to…)
Points 7, 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
The Israelis are gratuitously inflicting misery on the entirely innocent Palestinians.
‘14. The fact that the Wall has encroached further into Palestinian territory, and very obviously has been routed to include the illegal Israeli settlements on the Israeli side of the Wall, must raise questions about the real motivation behind its construction. Israel claims it takes this route to protect Israeli citizens, but Palestinians only see more of their land being taken away.’
(Of course they don’t care about protecting their citizens, the evil, lying bastards. The ones in illegal settlements deserve to die anyway, so there plainly can’t be a case for protecting them.)
’15. […] The well-documented humanitarian consequences of the Wall raise further questions about Israel’s understanding of its responsibilities under International Humanitarian Law. To what extent can it justify punishing an entire population for the activities of some suicide bombers?’
(‘Not at all’ is of course the answer to our rhetorical question, even if ‘some’ suicide bombers are sent by organizations that enjoy mass support among the population. What should be happening is that Jewish kids should be getting blown to pieces to punish them for living in an evil imperialist apartheid state. The building of a Wall to stop this happening just goes to show what a very evil imperialist apartheid state it is. And the status of suicide bombing under International Humanitarian Law? Not our concern.)
‘16. There has already been much international criticism of the Wall […]’
(Lots of important people have criticized the wall/fence, so clearly it’s OK for us to do so as well. Remember: ‘the herd of independent minds’. All together now: ‘All we like sheep…’.)
’17 The Israeli Government claims that the Wall has already been successful, pointing to a decrease in the number of suicide bombings. However, even within Israel itself there are increasing concerns being raised concerning the ability of current Israeli policies to ever provide lasting security […]’
(... and some of the critics are Jews, so that puts us right in the clear. No need to waste time evaluating the claim that the wall/fence has saved lives, still less to ask what current PA or Hamas policies are contributing to ‘lasting security’.
’18. Criticism was also voiced by Avraham Burg, a senior opposition member of the opposition Labour Party and a former Speaker of the Knesset, when he said:
“Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centres of Israeli escapism”.
(And here’s a Jew saying it serves them right if their kids get blown up. So what can be wrong with us saying it?)
Point 19
The US backs Israel – the real Axis of Evil exposed!
’20. In 1989, the world watched when the Berlin Wall came down amid great rejoicing as people in Eastern Europe experienced freedom and respect for their human rights for the first time in many years. In 1994, the system of apartheid finally came to an end in South Africa and the oppression against the black majority population ended. They, too, experienced the right to vote, to travel, to protest and to exercise their human rights in other ways. It seemed then that a new era had begun and that the world was changing for the better. Now, over a decade later, in the building of the Wall, a terrible step back into these dark days of the past is being taken. The whole Church should campaign against the Wall with as much passion and commitment as was given to the fight against apartheid. We believe this to be necessary because Jesus Christ came into the world to break down barriers and to uphold the rights of every human being. In the story of the Good Samaritan, in Christ’s encounter with the woman at the well, through the tax collector Zacchaeus, and ultimately on the cross, Christ came to build bridges and to overcome all that divides us from one another. In the Early Church, the barriers between Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, men and women were all broken down. It is the task of the Church to be Christ’s hands working for the days when the Wall is torn down and Israelis and Palestinians have the opportunity to work towards living in peace and security.’
(With this effusion of sanctimonious bullshit the report ends.)
The Berlin Wall is a red herring that I have disposed of here. South Africa is scarcely less of a red herring. The security barrier is not the Berlin Wall and it is not an apartheid boundary erected to divide race from race (let us recall once again that Israel has over a million Arab citizens). It serves to protect civilians from being murdered, as is their basic human right.
When the report fulminates against ‘a terrible step back into these dark days of the past’, let us note that whilst a detailed report on Sudan was presented to the 2005 General Assembly (and in fairness it is a lot stronger than anything the Anglican Communion has said on this subject to date), it did not ask for ‘passion and commitment’ on behalf of the victims of violence that has claimed over two million lives. Deliverance 26 states that the General Assembly ‘After wars in Sudan where no one side has had all the virtue and where no one side can be given all the blame, welcome the peace agreement signed in January 2005.’ Whether the phrase I emphasize is really an appropriate description of the conflicts in the Sudan is beyond the scope of this posting; the point is that the fairness and balance extended to the Islamist dictatorship in Khartoum are entirely withheld from the democratic state of Israel, which is treated to a sustained exercise in, precisely, giving one side all the blame.
An unpleasantly insensitive detail here is the double reference to Christ’s concern for a despised and marginalized people of his world, the Samaritans (Christian readers will know that the woman at the well was a Samaritan – see John’s Gospel, chapter 4). ‘See, the Jews were just as xenophobic then as now!’ this insinuates – as if this were in any way a specifically Jewish trait. We may recall that today’s tiny Samaritan community enjoys the full freedom of worship extended by Israel to its numerous religious minorities.
‘Christ came to build bridges and to overcome all that divides us from one another’. Yes, and first and foremost the barriers of incomprehension, mistrust and hatred that we build in our heads and hearts – all of us – and that lead us to want to hurt and destroy. In the Middle East such barriers most certainly do not exist exclusively, or even primarily, in Israeli heads and hearts. And though Christ came to break the barriers down, Christians are very good at finding ways to build them up again. Like when they still commit the blasphemy of invoking Christ in order to demonize his people.
Friday, January 06, 2006
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland: j'accuse (part 2)
The Kirk’s website
The ‘World Mission’ section contains descriptions of the Kirk’s work in sub-Saharan Africa, in Egypt, in Syria and in Lebanon. There is not the slightest hint of political criticism of any state or organization in these areas. All are evidently paragons of respect for human rights. The Kirk-supported Scottish Churches’ China Group offers the following delicate allusions to anti-religious persecution in the People’s Republic:-
‘After 1951 all missionaries had to leave China. From 1951 to 1976 relationships between overseas churches and Christians in China were intermittent, sensitive to the fact that the Chinese were in a situation of becoming an independent and indigenous church. Often these were years of no correspondence between either churches or old friends from the Chinese Church - this was particularly so in the 1950s and during the Cultural Revolution (1966 - 1976). During this time all religious institutions were closed down and religious life basically went underground.
‘In the Constitution of the People's Republic of China there is a clause allowing for the religious freedom with various strings attached - these strings have sometimes been pulled tighter than at other times depending on the political climate of the time. Protestantism and Catholicism are set out as two separate religions in the Constitution.
‘Under the socialist government, religion is administered by officials of the United Front Work Department working in the sub-department of the Religious Affairs Bureau. These officials have a dual task: to ensure that all believers are allowed the freedom to believe according to the Constitution by ensuring that property confiscated during the Cultural Revolution is returned, that there is no harassment of believers, that in housing, jobs etc believers are not discriminated against and so forth.
‘On the other hand they are there to keep a check on religious activities, by enforcing the regulations for religious affairs that were brought in January 1994, for example, ensuring that church congregations, don't grow too big too quickly. Some officials are very sympathetic to believers, others are antagonistic.’
Now compare and contrast with this statement:-
‘The wall
‘The situation for Palestinians is deteriorating every day. The wall which is being constructed around the Palestinian towns and villages and which seeks to maximise the amount of land that Israel can appropriate and minimise the amount of people who will be allowed access to their former land. There are terrible consequences of the wall which Israel is building around the Palestinian people. In effect Israel is separating Palestinian communities from their lands and from each other with only Israelis allowed to travel on the roads between them. It is clearly creating facts on the ground and changing the borders of a future Palestinian State without reference to the Palestinian people. Further information is available at http://www.stopthewall.org/and from Christian Aid: www.christian-aid.org.uk and World Council of Churches: http://www.wcc-coe.org/’
And the balancing condemnation of terrorism? There isn’t one.
My conclusion again: the Kirk’s public stance on this issue makes it institutionally anti-Semitic.
The ‘World Mission’ section contains descriptions of the Kirk’s work in sub-Saharan Africa, in Egypt, in Syria and in Lebanon. There is not the slightest hint of political criticism of any state or organization in these areas. All are evidently paragons of respect for human rights. The Kirk-supported Scottish Churches’ China Group offers the following delicate allusions to anti-religious persecution in the People’s Republic:-
‘After 1951 all missionaries had to leave China. From 1951 to 1976 relationships between overseas churches and Christians in China were intermittent, sensitive to the fact that the Chinese were in a situation of becoming an independent and indigenous church. Often these were years of no correspondence between either churches or old friends from the Chinese Church - this was particularly so in the 1950s and during the Cultural Revolution (1966 - 1976). During this time all religious institutions were closed down and religious life basically went underground.
‘In the Constitution of the People's Republic of China there is a clause allowing for the religious freedom with various strings attached - these strings have sometimes been pulled tighter than at other times depending on the political climate of the time. Protestantism and Catholicism are set out as two separate religions in the Constitution.
‘Under the socialist government, religion is administered by officials of the United Front Work Department working in the sub-department of the Religious Affairs Bureau. These officials have a dual task: to ensure that all believers are allowed the freedom to believe according to the Constitution by ensuring that property confiscated during the Cultural Revolution is returned, that there is no harassment of believers, that in housing, jobs etc believers are not discriminated against and so forth.
‘On the other hand they are there to keep a check on religious activities, by enforcing the regulations for religious affairs that were brought in January 1994, for example, ensuring that church congregations, don't grow too big too quickly. Some officials are very sympathetic to believers, others are antagonistic.’
Now compare and contrast with this statement:-
‘The wall
‘The situation for Palestinians is deteriorating every day. The wall which is being constructed around the Palestinian towns and villages and which seeks to maximise the amount of land that Israel can appropriate and minimise the amount of people who will be allowed access to their former land. There are terrible consequences of the wall which Israel is building around the Palestinian people. In effect Israel is separating Palestinian communities from their lands and from each other with only Israelis allowed to travel on the roads between them. It is clearly creating facts on the ground and changing the borders of a future Palestinian State without reference to the Palestinian people. Further information is available at http://www.stopthewall.org/and from Christian Aid: www.christian-aid.org.uk and World Council of Churches: http://www.wcc-coe.org/’
And the balancing condemnation of terrorism? There isn’t one.
My conclusion again: the Kirk’s public stance on this issue makes it institutionally anti-Semitic.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland: j'accuse (part 1)
As Hamas prepare to abandon their ceasefire (meanwhile enjoying the prospect of sweeping electoral gains), I have a message of seasonal cheer for them, for Islamic Jihad and for the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland wants to make it easier for you to kill Jewish children!
I have received a reply to the letter I sent to the current Moderator, David Lacy, and it makes grim reading. He restates his condemnation of the Israeli security barrier and pointedly refuses to balance it with condemnation of Palestinian terrorism. One might be able to take comfort from the fact that his term of office is just 12 months – but he encloses a policy document which makes it plain that he does indeed speak for the General Assembly, and I find this is confirmed by the Kirk’s website.
The details are drearily familiar. For those who prefer to be spared them I begin with a summary.
- The Israelis – to be precise, Israel’s Jews – are made the scapegoats for the conflict between them and the Palestinians. Bland and perfunctory condemnations of violence, typically not referring specifically to terrorism at all, are followed by lengthy denunciations of Israel’s attempts to defend its people.
- Israel is turned into a rogue state, uniquely deserving of a political campaign against it.
- Whereas empathy and compassion are shown towards the Palestians, there is a complete failure of empathy and compassion – a hardening of heart – towards a people whose identity has been shaped in an unparalleled way by the experience of racism and ultimately genocidal violence.
The following assertion will strike some as being over the top, but I really can find no other way to do justice to what is at stake: the Kirk’s public stance on this issue makes it institutionally anti-Semitic.
I will deal with the policy document and the website in subsequent postings. Here I address the Moderator’s letter.
The Moderator’s letter
The substantive content is as follows:-
‘I have to tell you, first of all, that the article in Scotland on Sunday to which you refer is entirely representative of my views.
‘I do not believe, as you say, that the “primary responsibility for the wall lies with those who organise and commit terrorist attacks”. [note: this is a misquotation of my letter - unlike the Church of Scotland I do not use the word “wall” to describe something which is in fact a fence for 95% of its length] That could only be said if the wall followed the Green Line. But, of course, it doesn’t but makes large incursions into Palestinian territory. I have never dismissed Israel’s security needs: I just question where their defence becomes attack.
‘The Church of Scotland has consistently rejected the idea that criticism of the policies of the state of Israel is in any way anti-Semitic. Both before and after my recent trip to Israel, I consulted with the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks and with Jewish community leaders in Scotland, all of whom fully understand that the Church of Scotland’s position is against some of the policies of Israel and has nothing to do with the anti-Semitism you suggest.’
Right Reverend Sir, ‘the idea that criticism of the policies of the state of Israel is in any way anti-Semitic’ – ipso facto - formed no part of my letter, and I challenge you to find any statement in this website that supports it.
I do say that such criticism plainly may be anti-Semitic, given that it often emanates from unashamed anti-Semites.
I do say that the nature of the criticism may be such as to constitute at least unconscious anti-Semitism and to legitimize prejudice against the Jewish people, even if it is made by people who strongly deny being anti-Semitic.
I do say that this is the case where the criticism persistently focuses on measures taken by Israel to protect its civilian population from being murdered, and where there is no balancing criticism of those doing the murdering.
I do say that this is the nature of the criticism of the security barrier made by you personally and the Kirk collectively.
The implication of the second paragraph quoted is that Israel has to be beyond criticism before you will even consider criticizing its enemies. And in fact you do not go so far as to say you would support the building of the barrier if it followed the Green Line. Judging by the ‘report of the Church and Nation Committee to the 2004 General Assembly’ which you enclosed, the policy of the Kirk is explicitly that it would not. You tell me you ‘have never dismissed Israel’s security needs’, without telling me how you think they can be met. You do not respond at all to the argument that the barrier has saved dozens, maybe hundreds, of lives. Is it that you feel they are lives not particularly worth saving?
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Anglican Consultative Council passes disinvestment resolution
As an Anglican I note with deep concern that the following resolution was passed unanimously at the meeting in Nottingham last week of the Anglican Consultative Council:-
As one who greeted Rowan Williams’ translation to Canterbury with enthusiasm, and who has found his previous comments on Israel and Palestine admirably sane and sensitive, I am deeply disappointed by his support for the resolution. Having read his opening address I find it particularly difficult to understand how he could have gone on to vote for it. Conversely, although his predecessor George Carey’s churchmanship is not mine, I congratulate him for taking what seems to be virtually a lone stand against the resolution.
The ACC has met in an atmosphere of division and crisis unparalleled in the history of the Anglican Communion. In the identification of a common enemy, however, they have been enabled to achieve not just unity but unanimity. The psychological mechanism of scapegoating is familiar enough. That the common enemy turns out to be the ancient enemy of the faith speaks, at the very least, for an alarming lack of self-awareness.
I recently visited an exhibition at Berlin’s National Historical Museum on Jewish life in medieval Europe. Some of the exhibits recall how, when the First Crusade set out on its journey to Palestine in 1096 (incidentally following a period of chronic division within the Church), it first turned its zeal on the Jewish communities of the Rhineland. Jewish culture had flourished here in a period of relative tolerance and security. Now they were presented at swordpoint with the choice between conversion and death. Loyalty to their faith cost 1300 men, women and children their lives in the city of Mainz alone.
Make no mistake, an unbroken thread links the prejudices of the eleventh century with those which helped the Nazis to power and enabled them to carry through the Final Solution with minimal resistance from the churches. And now it seems to me we are seeing something very close to an updated version of the old ultimatum being addressed to Jews. Now the choice is “give up your state or die”. Jews are being categorized (for example by the academic boycott campaigners) into bad Zionists and good anti-Zionists. When Palestinian militants claim the right to inflict indiscriminate violence on the bad Zionist Jews, many on the western Left look the other way or openly applaud. And fury greets Israeli attempts to defend themselves, notably by the security fence. Yes, I know it’s been built on Palestinian land, and of course that’s wrong, but the sheer vehemence of the criticism, and the total lack of interest in the possibility that the fence has actually been effective in saving lives, leads me to suspect that there is something more primal underlying this: Jews are supposed to be defenceless. How dare they acquire power? How dare they place such an inflated value on their lives?
Is all this really something the Anglican Communion wants to be part of?
(see also my open letter to Rowan Williams)
The Israeli Palestinian Conflict
The Anglican Consultative Council:
a) welcomes the September 22nd 2004 statement by the Anglican Peace and Justice Network on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict (Pages 12 - 14 of the Report)
b) commends the resolve of the Episcopal Church (USA) to take appropriate action where it finds that its corporate investments support the occupation of Palestinian lands or violence against innocent Israelis, and
i) commends such a process to other Provinces having such investments, to be considered in line with their adopted ethical investment strategies
ii) encourages investment strategies that support the infrastructure of a future Palestinian State
c) requests the Office of the Anglican Observer to the United Nations, through or in association with the UN Working Committee on Peace in the Middle East, as well as through this Council, and as a priority of that Office, to support and advocate the implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 directed towards peace, justice and co-existence in the Holy Land.
(text from Anglican Communion website)
Some comfort can be taken from the fact that the original wording was watered down, but even in this form it raises all of the three basic concerns that I have about Christian Aid’s stance on the conflict.
The singling out of Israel. Although the ACC passed other resolutions on political issues, and notably on the situation in Zimbabwe, none calls for economic pressure to be put on any other state.
There is a deep irony in the timing of this. Specific concern has been raised about the Church of England’s £2m investment in Caterpillar. Caterpillar supplies Israel with the bulldozers which it uses to demolish the homes of suicide bombers.
Since the beginning of the Intifada a few thousand houses have been razed. It is an attempt to mete out posthumous punishment against those who kill Israeli citizens – and in my view a misguided one. But now let us turn our attention to another part of the world. In an orgy of destruction lasting just a month Robert Mugabe’s regime has left one and a half million Zimbabweans homeless, according to the UN’s estimate. Their crimes? Poverty, powerlessness and voting for the opposition. The ACC's resolution has strong words about the regime's record, but, to repeat, no suggestion of disinvestment or any other form of economic pressure. And it "asks" the government to mend its ways - a courtesy not extended to Israel.
Whilst on the subject of double standards, the Episcopal Church (USA) deserves a special mention. This is the church whose liberal majority affects to care so much about gay rights that they are prepared to bring the Anglican Communion to the brink of schism for the sake of consecrating a gay bishop. It does nothing to increase my respect for this stance when they then join with conservative homophobes in the vilification of the only country in the Middle East where gays have any rights whatsoever. Do they know which companies have helped to build and equip the prisons in which the rest of the region accommodates gays? Do they care? This looks more like a butterfly flitting from one fashionable cause to the next than a joined-up Christian witness.
- The one-sided apportioning of blame, manifested in the assumption that only one side needs to be pressured into seeking peace and justice. Yes, there is the phrase about “violence against innocent Israelis”, but what an empty gesture of even-handedness that is – as if the C of E might have investments in companies that deal directly with Islamic Jihad! Much more to the point is that investment in “a future Palestinian state” is commended without any suggestion of its being made conditional on an end to terrorist violence.
And note that, whereas the right to their land is asserted for Palestinians collectively and unconditionally, Israelis are divided into sheep and goats – the “innocent” who deserve to be spared from being blown up, and, implicitly, the guilty who don’t. - The absence of the humility that should inform post-Holocaust Christians’ dealings with the Jewish people. Instead, we find Christians arrogating to themselves the right to pass judgment, without a hint of self-criticism, on the way Jews have tried to deal with their experience of persecution and ultimately genocide at the hands of a Christian culture.
In present-day Germany there is a strong feeling that it is not for Germans - especially, not for the German state - to criticize Israel. One can argue whether the taboo has been taken too far, but the point is that it represents an owning of collective responsibility for the sins of the past – something deplorably lacking in the ACC’s stance. If a secular political culture can understand and apply the principle of “first take the beam out of your own eye” in this context, it really is pretty scandalous to find that a Christian body like the ACC apparently can’t.
As one who greeted Rowan Williams’ translation to Canterbury with enthusiasm, and who has found his previous comments on Israel and Palestine admirably sane and sensitive, I am deeply disappointed by his support for the resolution. Having read his opening address I find it particularly difficult to understand how he could have gone on to vote for it. Conversely, although his predecessor George Carey’s churchmanship is not mine, I congratulate him for taking what seems to be virtually a lone stand against the resolution.
The ACC has met in an atmosphere of division and crisis unparalleled in the history of the Anglican Communion. In the identification of a common enemy, however, they have been enabled to achieve not just unity but unanimity. The psychological mechanism of scapegoating is familiar enough. That the common enemy turns out to be the ancient enemy of the faith speaks, at the very least, for an alarming lack of self-awareness.
I recently visited an exhibition at Berlin’s National Historical Museum on Jewish life in medieval Europe. Some of the exhibits recall how, when the First Crusade set out on its journey to Palestine in 1096 (incidentally following a period of chronic division within the Church), it first turned its zeal on the Jewish communities of the Rhineland. Jewish culture had flourished here in a period of relative tolerance and security. Now they were presented at swordpoint with the choice between conversion and death. Loyalty to their faith cost 1300 men, women and children their lives in the city of Mainz alone.
Make no mistake, an unbroken thread links the prejudices of the eleventh century with those which helped the Nazis to power and enabled them to carry through the Final Solution with minimal resistance from the churches. And now it seems to me we are seeing something very close to an updated version of the old ultimatum being addressed to Jews. Now the choice is “give up your state or die”. Jews are being categorized (for example by the academic boycott campaigners) into bad Zionists and good anti-Zionists. When Palestinian militants claim the right to inflict indiscriminate violence on the bad Zionist Jews, many on the western Left look the other way or openly applaud. And fury greets Israeli attempts to defend themselves, notably by the security fence. Yes, I know it’s been built on Palestinian land, and of course that’s wrong, but the sheer vehemence of the criticism, and the total lack of interest in the possibility that the fence has actually been effective in saving lives, leads me to suspect that there is something more primal underlying this: Jews are supposed to be defenceless. How dare they acquire power? How dare they place such an inflated value on their lives?
Is all this really something the Anglican Communion wants to be part of?
(see also my open letter to Rowan Williams)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)