Goose and gander: a somethingveryspecificist strikes

This should not be a day for point-scoring, but inevitably the point-scoring is in full swing. And I really was pulled up short when I realised what my last post had been.

For today neither the BBC nor anyone else in the left-liberal universe has the slightest difficulty in naming the beliefs held by a man who has slaughtered 90 innocent victims.

Even though there is, as I write, no evidence that any other person - let alone an organisation - sharing those beliefs helped or encouraged him to commit mass murder. Even though his action seems utterly irrational even considered as a means to the ends which are assumed to have motivated it. Even though the outrage would appear at this point to have at least as much in common with the classic spree killing as with the kind of organized religio-political mass murder campaign with which we are familiar.

So there's an absolutely blatant double standard here. Branding everyone in Norway or anywhere else who is worried about Muslim immigration as a potential mass murderer is out of order unless it's OK to do the same to Muslims every time an Islamist bomb goes off. So far from doing that, the BBC fights shy of even applying the label "Islamist" to terrorists, for fear of implicating Islam as such. No such fear of implying guilt by association is restraining it today, though:-

'The BBC's Richard Galpin, near the island which is currently cordoned off by police, says that Norway has had problems with neo-Nazi groups in the past but the assumption was that such groups had been largely eliminated and did not pose a significant threat.'

Once again: this is before we have a shred of evidence that any group was involved.

We ought to be getting some consistency and it ought to be a consistent moderate Somethingveryspecificism rather than any variety of Nothinginparticularism. By all means let's put the far Right under the spotlight, though without imputing bogus guilt by association: it remains true that the EDL hasn't organised any spree killings and Geert Wilders hasn't planted any bombs. But let's also insist that the BBC must boldly go into the journalistic no-go area it has created around the relationship of terrorism to Islamism and Islamism to Islam. Not because we should want to demonise Muslims but because when lives are at stake we need and are entitled to understand what the problem is.

Extreme varieties of nothinginparticularism

Edwin Greenwood notes that, whilst British media types have complied meekly with Indian officialdom's belated two-fingered gesture towards the Raj of turning Bombay into Mumbai, the locals are less enthusiastic.

I feel sure that they are also less reticent than the BBC about naming the cause which has claimed a further 18 lives in the city. I was originally going to link the previous sentence to this item. But now, on reading the Beeb's account of the latest Bombay bloodbath, I find that it makes my point just as well. Just as the estimable young Jordanian is tackling "extremism" with his computer games, so we have speculation as to whether the blasts were the work of "home-grown militant outfits like the Indian Mujahideen (IM)", or, as in 2008, of "Pakistani-based militants".

Extremism has to be an extreme form of something. You can't be a militant without something to be militant about. Pardon me for repeating myself, but it's one thing (and bad enough) for government to adopt this mealy-mouthedness as a matter of policy; for the organization we pay willy-nilly to bring us the news to follow suit is unconscionable.

Christians rejoice?

I was going to start this post by observing that I do not expect to read a more inane reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden than Cristina Odone's attempt to construct a (im-)moral equivalence between Americans celebrating the demise of the bearded one and the "Arab street" rejoicing over 9/11. That, however, was before Rowan Williams's PR man George Pitcher popped up singing from the same hymnbook*. My cup runneth over, and I think it is Mr Pitcher who must be awarded the palm, if only for his inspired use of the term "rednecks".

Well, George Pitcher is in the deepest and truest sense not my problem any more. As for Cristina Odone, however, I am emboldened to suggest that after less than a fortnight as a Catholic I already have a better grasp of Catholic moral theology than she has.

It is right to celebrate the success of a just endeavour and wrong to celebrate the success of an unjust endeavour. As simple as that. And when I say "right" I don't mean just "permissible". We ought to be thankful that Osama has been put out of the way of masterminding the taking of innocent lives, thankful to those whose professionalism, doggedness and courage has brought about this end. Why, Ms Odone, should anyone risk their neck for the sake of your freedom if the most you can manage when they triumph is a "yes, Osama bin Laden’s death is a good thing" from between gritted teeth?

But surely, you may now be saying, our Cristina has the Vatican on her side? Thus Fr Federico Lombardi:-

“Osama bin Laden – as we all know – was gravely responsible for promoting division and hatred between peoples, causing the end of countless innocent lives, and of exploiting religions to this end.

“Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of each and every one of us before God and before man, and hopes and commits himself so that no event be an opportunity for further growth of hatred, but for peace.”

And quite right, too. Note, for one thing, the first of these two sentences, and see if you can find its equivalent in either GP's or CO's posts; compare the forthright attribution of guilt with George Pitcher's portrayal of Osama as a man denied a fair trial. Note also the absence of direct condemnation of anyone other than Osama himself, and again compare and contrast. Note next that the Vatican can never forget the exigencies of diplomacy when it chooses its words. Fr Lombardi will have been keenly aware that there are Christians in Pakistan.

And note above all a crucial distinction. It is the termination of the man's evil deeds which is just cause for rejoicing, not the termination of his life. However just, the fighting of a war is a poor substitute for the repentance of the aggressor. That's a distinction which, I dare say, many patriotic Americans are failing to draw today, but the faux pacifist liberals sitting in judgment over them in North London aren't doing any better. Two sides of the same coin, in fact.

*That will, of course, be the one from which which the inappropriately militaristic "Onward Christian soldiers" has been expunged in favour of "Onward Christian pilgrims".

Islamophobia (the real thing)

As ever. Just the kind of story to make you feel extra good about our civic duty to hand out passports to hate preachers.

Summonsed by Bell: spinning against Israel in the name of Britain's Christians

'For the latest comments on Israel from Christian Aid see:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christian.aid.fears.for.ngos.in.israel/25917.htm

'Does Mr Grumpy have anything to say about this?'

- asks commenter David.

Well, David, due to the way the portfolios have been divvied up here I'm afraid you'll have to make do with the Nick Clegg to Grumpy's Cameron. Rest assured, though, that my remarks have been cleared by the big boss.

So, yes, meet William Bell, Christian Aid's "Advocacy Officer for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory". The man, in other words, who, with the blessing of my church (and forty others large and small), has a full-time job spinning against the Jewish state. David, I hardly know what to say (apart from everything I've been saying here for the past five years).

I'd just like to know what makes William Bell tick. Perhaps he will stumble on this and enlighten me. Does he ever turn on the radio in the morning and think "Gosh, those poor people in Tibet/Burma/Zimbabwe/Darfur... They could really do with a bit of advocacy. I'll have a word with the boss and see if I can talk him into broadening my job description."?


Or does he wake up every morning saying to himself, "What a dream of a job mine is. For if I wasn't able to speak out against the Most Evil State in the World, who else would?"?

And if that's the way it is, if it isn't about Jews, what is it about?

This particular effort from Mr Bell reveals quite a lot about the way he operates. Like any good lobbyist he can take any story and spin it on his clients' favour. Here the starting point is Israel's admission to the OECD. I'd say this accolade for the country's thriving economy was something to celebrate, on the whole. But for Mr Bell the Israeli glass is half empty at the very best. Not a proper democracy, he mutters. Unlike all those proper democracies for which the rest of the Middle East is famed. Again, I'd say it's little short of a miracle that Israel has stayed democratic through 60 years of staving off threats to its existence. No credit given by Mr Bell, though: "civil society [...] under threat [...] repression [...] intimidation [...] undermine human rights defenders [...]". Etc etc.

Does Christian Aid ever condemn Sudan, or any of the world's despotisms, in anything like these forthright terms?

I tried googling "Christian Aid Sudan repression". The first hit was the paid-for Christian Aid Week link. The second was an item on Ethiopia with a passing reference to Christian Aid. The third was a press release from the Disasters Emergency Committee, of which Christian Aid is of course a prominent member. It was issued in 2004. Of criticism of the Sudanese government there is not one word.

A little further down the list came Christian Aid's Sudan page. Still no word of criticism of the government. Maybe it's on the linked "Our work on conflict" page? Oh dear. We learn that they deliver urgent aid in Darfur, however:-

'But our experience has also told us that our response to conflict needs to be even more far-reaching than the delivery of humanitarian assistance, however important that may be.'

That's the lead in to a section headed "Speaking out". So this must be where they've put the hard-hitting criticism of the Sudanese regime, right? Wrong. Six paragraphs: one on Colombia, one general, four on... need I continue?

After this you won't be too surprised to learn that there is no Christian Aid Advocacy Officer for Sudan. And with that, back to William Bell.

What is it that has triggered Mr Bell's doom-laden pronouncements on the state of Israeli democracy? Simply this: there are moves afoot in the Knesset to limit the political activities of NGOs like, well, Christian Aid. Not, be it noted, that any laws have been passed; that it's even being talked about is enough.

NGOs in Israel enjoy freedoms which would be inconceivable under any dictatorship. That, of course, is one major reason why the BBC website tells us more about Israeli human rights abuses, real or otherwise, than those of any of the world's dictatorships (than all of the world's dictatorships put together, is the impression I often get). Every time anyone in B'Tselem blows their nose a BBC stringer is on hand with tape recorder running.

Israel is also remarkably tolerant of international NGOs coming to the country to pursue anti-Israel political agendas. Sometimes somebody is refused admission and headlines are made, but these are exceptions that prove the rule. I've written a lot about the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, a Christian Aid partner and in effect a training programme for anti-Israel propagandists. Their volunteers may face some hurdles in getting into Israel, but get in they do.

So whilst a retreat from this openness would certainly be cause for concern, it would also be comprehensible. It would be directly related to the way Israel's openness has been abused by NGOs like Christian Aid, the way they take the soft option of giving democratic Israel a hard time whilst mutely bending the knee to tyrants.

Here's a reminder of how much open scrutiny of their human rights Israel's enemies tolerate. Simple but effective: if you're going to do something unpleasant, make sure no journalists are watching. True, you might not be able to suppress the story completely. But there won't be any tear-jerking eyewitness accounts or any of those pictures that speak a thousand words. Obviously it also helps that because you're Hamas you can rely on the Beeb to insert a sideswipe at Israel by way of "balance".

So where was Christian Aid when Hamas were bulldozing poor people's shacks?

From just across the border comes another recent story, taking us back to that booming economy that's won Israel a seat at the OECD. A reminder of who's benefitting and who isn't - and why.

It's only a privileged minority of the human race that can afford to turn up its noses at a thousand dollars a month for picking coriander, even if it comes at the slight risk of falling victim to a rocket attack. It's good money in Thailand and it's good money in Gaza. It's certainly more than enough to ensure you won't need to look to Christian Aid to provide your next meal.

And it's money that used to flow into the Gazan economy. Until?

'But until the start of the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, in 2000 when Israel tightened the border, thousands of Gazans used to travel daily through Erez to work on Israeli farms.'

Those smooth euphemisms for the campaign of mass murder directed at Israel's civilian population. Of course Israel turned off the flow of potential suicide bombers. What country on earth would not have done so? And now the Thais are doing the jobs Israelis won't do while Gaza has 40% unemployment. It's called shooting yourself in the foot - or it is if you think that the foot and the finger on the trigger have the same owner. If, that is, you count Hamas as the legitimate democratic representatives of the people of Gaza. What do you say, Mr Bell?

Christian Aid and Israel: some hard facts for Liberal Jews (and concerned Christians)

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.

Using the I-word

The Beeb keeps us updated on the fight against 'extremism' in colleges. Funny, isn't it, an extremist always used to be an extreme something-or-other, like an extreme socialist or an extreme nationalist, but now we have extremists who are just extreme nothing-in-particulars wanting to kill us in the name of goodness-knows-what. Anyway, it's state-approved.terminology, and the Beeb scribe does his/her duty to the Party.

Just once, though, he/she forgets him/herself and lets slip that dangerous, offence-giving I-word:-

'It [the government's set of guidelines] also mentions dissident Irish republican groups, as well as some racist and fascist organisations.'

Yes, indeed, we've still got to keep a careful eye on what those Paddies are up to.

Mumbai: the blame game

Have I mentioned Caroline Lucas MEP, or was that one of the ones that I didn't quite finish? As I have extensive Christmas shopping commitments today, I'll allow Howard Jacobson to do it for me. Let's face it, nobody, least of all me, does it like Howard.

We're still very much in the same territory as Grumpy's post on Astrid Proll (not that Dr Lucas has ever been a terrorist herself, I hasten to add). A Green Party ought to be a very good thing indeed. This one won't be getting my vote as long as we carry on hearing this kind of thing from its leader.

Baroness Tonge and Christian Aid: knifed by the Lobby?

Having described Baroness Tonge as a former trustee of Christian Aid, it's only fair to add that her tenure of the post was brief. Appointed in April 2006, she stepped down at the charity's AGM in November of the same year.

Was she pushed? Of course. But by whom? Not, for sure, by Christian Aid's own mandarins - not, at least, unless someone else was leaning on them. Instead of disowning her appalling views on terrorism they ducked the issue with the breathtakingly disingenuous claim that her remarks were 'outside the remit of a development organisation which deals with issues of poverty and humanitarian relief'. My reaction to this piece of bovine manure is here.

It seems the Baroness may have recently given us a clue to her own views about who did the pushing. Here she is, speaking in a House of Lords debate on 2 July:-

“I am beginning to understand the power of the Israel lobby, active here as well as in the USA, with AIPAC, the Friends of Israel and the Board of Deputies. They take vindictive actions against people who oppose and criticise the lobby, getting them removed from positions that they hold and preventing them from speaking — even on unrelated subjects, in my case. I understand their methods. I have many examples. They make constant accusations of antisemitism, when no such sentiment exists, to silence Israel’s critics.”


(from Engage; the whole speech is in Hansard).

Whether she is talking about her exit from Christian Aid or her earlier enforced exit from the Lib Dem front bench (or both), the issues are the same, so let's for the sake of convenience assume the former.


The phrase "the Israel lobby" has of course acquired its place in "respectable" political discourse thanks to Mearsheimer and Walt's eponymous book. It may have been a shoddy piece of work but it has done its job: like a virus the phrase has entered our collective bloodstream.


A telling insight into the quality of Mearsheimer and Walt's analysis came from their insinuation that the Lobby had "got its grips" (to use the words applied by Baroness Tonge to her own party) into the Church of England. My extended riposte to this claim is here. Clearly, though, it has explanatory force for Baroness Tonge: Church leaders got her kicked out of her Christian Aid trusteeship because they go in fear of the Board of Deputies.


What is the reality here? So far from the Board being an omnipresent, omnipotent lobby with its grips in every institution, it has been savaged by Rabbi Sidney Brichto in the latest issue of the excellent new magazine Standpoint for its timidity in making the case for Israel in an environment where anti-Israel sentiment is ubiquitous.


I surmise that the reasons for Baroness Tonge's exit from her trusteeship were eminently straightforward. Namely that in the upper echelons of the Churches there are to be found decent and reasonable Christians who uphold Israel's right to exist and her citizens' right to life, and that they were not prepared to accept that an apologist for terrorism should hold a post in an official agency of the Churches. My guess is that CA's bosses privately sympathized with the Baroness but were not willing to stick their necks out for her. A public row with Church leaders could easily damage the charity's standing among ordinary churchgoers - and thus its income. That, by the way, is the parameter within which it plays at radicalism. In a way I have more respect for War on Want, which makes no bones about its politics and raises its cash from those who think as it does.


And what role did Jews, inside or outside the Board of Deputies, play? Well, Jews have good reason to be well-informed and concerned about the Baroness's views, and I can well believe there were some who alerted their Christian contacts to her track record and argued that she was not an approriate person to hold such a position. You can call this lobbying by all means, but it is not, repeat not, an instance of The Lobby at work, pulling the strings of those nominally in authority. It is - need I say it - a normal way for human beings to conduct their affairs. It bore fruit because decent and reasonable Christians found themselves in agreement with it - through persuasion, not through intimidation.


There are, I fear, two factors which would make it hard for Baroness Tonge to give this scenario credence. The first is that she appears to be so totally convinced of the rightness of her cause that she cannot conceive of anyone - especially a Gentile - disagreeing with her in good faith. In this she exemplifies the almost cult-like character of the anti-Israel movement. If they will not acknowledge how evil Israel is there must be sinister forces at work.

And with that we arrive at the second factor. My scenario assumes that Jews are ordinary human beings who feel, think and act in the way ordinary human beings feel, think and act and have ordinary human powers. For someone who sees the Board of Deputies as the local branch of the Lobby, and bishops and Lib Dem leaders alike as its abject puppets, that assumption has already ceased to be self-evident. And the reason for devoting a longish post to a person of no huge importance in herself is that these attitudes now reach deep into the mainstream.

Baroness Tonge and Hamas: from understanding to praise

The list of speakers at IslamExpo last month reads like this blog's Most Wanted list. Comrades Steele and Milne of al-Grauniad were there, arm in arm with Gorgeous George, as was their colleague Maddy of the Sorrows. Tariq Ramadan, Rowan Williams' favourite Muslim intellectual, was there, and, talking of the Archbishop, Sarah Joseph was there. Ilan Pappé was there, assuredly with the blessing of his fans in the Deutsche Volksunion.

Sorry if I'm doing them an injustice, but I can't picture any of these characters as innocents abroad who, expecting to encounter 'Europe’s largest celebration of Islamic culture, tradition, innovation and art', were horrified to discover they had stumbled into a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood rally. If I discover that any of them used it as a platform to denounce Hamas as an anti-Semitic terrorist organization, he/she will get a fulsome apology from me. But I'm not expecting to have to take the trouble.

I certainly won't in the case of the speaker who said this:-

“I would like to say a thank you to the three speakers before me…I hope you (audience) realise how much guts it takes to speak like they have…they are very brave and deserve a tribute from all of us.”

The immediately preceeding speaker was Azzam Tamimi, Hamas's Special Envoy and as such, unsurprisingly, an open supporter of suicide bombers. The tribute came from former Christian Aid trustee Baroness Tonge. Stephen Pollard, from whose blog the quote comes, comments:-

'Let there be no doubt now about what Baroness Tonge believes. She no longer even bothers hiding behind the ambiguity of ‘understanding’ why people become suicide bombers. As her remarks at IslamExpo show, she now thinks that those who explicitly praise and honour suicide bombers “are very brave and deserve a tribute from all of us.”'

David T of Harry's Place says simply 'He's right, isn't he?' He is indeed.

More about the Baroness to come.

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]

Human sacrifice and weasel words

If you've read David Hirsh's impressive paper on Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism, you'll know all about the 'Livingstone formulation' (if you haven't, do). The exact wording of the formulation varies, but without ever straying very far from Ken's version: 'for far too long the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government'.

Can anybody think up a name for the formulation exemplified over the past week or so by the following?

'None of the donors has disputed Israel's right to protect its people against suicide bombers and rocket attacks. It has every reason to point out how often those followed broken promises by Palestinian leaders. But'

'The bank acknowledges Israeli security concerns, but'

(both from here)

'The ICRC says it recognises Israel's right to take measures to defend itself.
"[But'

(from here)

The first quote is actually untypical in the extent to which it calls a spade a spade. Whereas the second is absolutely typical - the bland bureaucratese of 'security concerns' ('legitimate security concerns' is another popular variant) smoothing the transition to the inevitable 'but', and minimizing any danger that the reader will be troubled by upsetting mental images of streets spattered with body parts.

Blockaded Gaza is run by people who are unashamedly at war with Israel. They're at war because they want to wipe it off the map. For want of anything more effective, they fight with home-made rockets which subject the population of Sderot to constant stress and anxiety, and now and again kill somebody. From their point of view this is better than nothing. Does anyone really need to be told what their number one reason for wanting the blockade relaxed is?

And as their groupies constantly remind us, they are the People's Choice. Hard to argue with when they can mobilize 20% of the population for a demo.

So Israel reacts with a blockade, and normal economic activity is throttled. It's an impasse from which, ultimately, only the extremists - Hamas and still worse - are likely to benefit.

How to break the impasse? There's a consensus, extending from Christian Aid via the World Bank and the International Committee of the Red Cross to Bronwen Maddox of the Times, that Israel must make a sacrifice. A human sacrifice.

There is, unfortunately, a serious case to be made that this course would really be in Israel's best long-term interests. If you want to make that case, fine. The situation is serious enough that every option needs to be examined. But your good faith will be more evident if you can make it without using weasel words.

Understanding terrorists, understanding victims

'Israel is to allow a key Palestinian leader to travel to the West Bank, in a measure seen as another attempt to bolster President Mahmoud Abbas.

[...]

'Mr Hawatmeh is the head of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

[...]

'The DFLP was held to blame for an attack on a school in the northern Israeli town of Maalot in 1974 that left 24 Israelis, mostly children, dead.'

(from this BBC report; the emphasis is mine)

I'll leave others to debate the wisdom of Israel's initiative. I hope good will indeed come of it. Here I want to look at a different issue which this raises: the question of understanding.

There are those who think it's very important to understand the perpetrators of terrorist attacks. Not to excuse, they say with earnest emphasis, but simply to try to understand.

It's an admirable attitude - provided that it's held sincerely. And the litmus test of sincerity is...? Simply that the principle is applied with no exceptions. For if we say (or if the selectivity of our understanding implies) that we see some people as so evil that the attempt to understand should not be made, we are admitting that our 'understanding' does indeed, relatively speaking, excuse.

And there is no doubt that terrorism consistently seems to be a special case in terms of its alleged claims on our 'understanding'. Specifically, those combatting terrorism are not seen as being entitled to an equivalent measure of understanding. People who say they understand terrorists tend not to say, for example, that they understood the warders at Abu Ghraib, that they understand George Bush, that they understand why the inmates of Guantanamo are incarcerated without trial, or even that they understand why a London policeman shot dead an innocent man whom he believed to be a suicide bomber.

Least of all do they understand anything Israel does to counter terrorism. It is inconceivable that, for instance, the security barrier should have been constructed out of any but the worst possible motives. I was told the other day that it is totally irrelevant to the prevention of terrorism and that the reduction in attacks on Israel has been entirely due to Hamas's restraint - not, as I've recently noted, the view that Hamas themselves take.

But if those are hard cases, the one I started with ought to be very easy indeed. Can the understanders of terrorists understand how Israelis felt about that attack back in 1974? Can they understand how they must feel now about having to treat this man not as a cold-blooded child-killer but as a moderate whom they need to enlist in the fight against the really bad guys? Is it too much to hope that they can begin to understand, just a little, that the reasons why there is no peace do not add up to a simple morality tale?

Who's watching who?

A 'study' by 'think tank' Demos (yes, I know, that's more than enough ironic quotes) repeats the accusation that UK government ministers have told Muslims to 'spy on their children' (read more).

What a wealth of emotional manipulation is contained in that little phrase! All must watch on Big Brother's behalf. Perfect nourishment for the already not exactly underdeveloped Muslim sense of victimhood. You'd think Maddy of the Sorrows was still in the tank.

I have one little question for Demos and all those of like mind. If you can remember as far back as August 2002, you might recall that in that month a Florida man was arrested and charged with planning a series of bomb attacks on mosques. How did the police catch up with him in time? His wife turned him in, that's how. So, Demos, MCB et al, did she deserve praise for very possibly saving many lives? Or censure for 'spying' on her nearest and dearest?

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.

Lack of space prevents...

The Grauniad reports on a trial in progress in Istanbul:-

'Sakka made the confession while being questioned about his alleged role in suicide bomb attacks against four targets in Istanbul, including the British consulate general and the local headquarters of the HSBC bank, in which 61 people died and more than 600 were injured.'

Would it be impossibly nitpicking of me to ask whether it would have been so very hard to squeeze in a mention of the fact that the other two targets were synagogues?

Madrid: the voice of the suffering

Two years tomorrow since the Madrid train bombings. Associated Press and Yahoo think it is important that the voice of those still suffering is heard. No, not the injured or the bereaved or traumatized emergency service workers, but those who are really suffering - Spain's beleaguered Muslims.

It's not that there's been a backlash as such, you understand. Any more than there was in America after 9/11 or Australia after Bali or Britain after 7/7 (although the backlash warnings started, in that case, about five minutes after the last bomb went off). But just as in these other cases, we are not to suppose this reflects the decency, fair-mindedness and tolerance of a Christian/post-Christian Western democracy. No, only decisive action by the government stemmed the tide of violent Islamophobia:-

After the bombings, however, the Socialist government did several things that helped calm Spaniards and avert a violent backlash against Muslims, said Jesus Nunez Villaverde, an expert on the Islamic world and director of a Madrid think tank, the Institute of Studies on Conflict and Humanitarian Action.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero unveiled an international campaign, now taken up by the United Nations, to encourage dialogue between Western and Islamic nations, Nunez Villaverde said. The government also hired more police officers specializing in Islamic extremism rather than launch a broad crackdown on immigrants.

Plus one brave Muslim leader, Mansur Escudero, went so far as to condemn the attacks and issue a fatwa against Osama Bin Laden. We don't learn whether any other Muslim leaders may have been saying somewhat different things; evidently the community speaks with one voice (apart from the folk who have been sending Sr. Escudero death threats).

But all this has apparently not sufficed to prevent some Spaniards from wondering whether mass immigration from Morocco has been an unmitigated blessing - which, we all know, is a very evil thought indeed. So no room for complacency:-

"We have no guarantee that just because nothing has happened so far it is not going to happen tomorrow," Nunez Villaverde said.

Well, that is very true. It would of course help matters if there are no more bombs left on crowed commuter trains. If the Spaniards, or the Americans, or the Aussies, or the Brits are finally pushed beyond breaking point, and the boys who cry 'wolf' finally get their backlash, it may perhaps look something like this action by a gentleman who knows how to do a backlash properly:-

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — Protests are planned for Monday in the same area of campus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where, authorities said, a former student plowed a sport utility vehicle into nine people Friday afternoon. [...]

Police said Mohammad Taheri-azar, a 2005 UNC-Chapel Hill graduate, admits he acted to “avenge the death of Muslims around the world.” UNC police and local authorities, however, say they have not taken a stance on that interpretation, but are simply repeating what the suspect has told them.

UNC-Chapel Hill student leaders said that Monday’s protest is aimed at the reluctance of the university to label Friday’s incident as an act of terrorism. “This is innocent people being attacked by an SUV, driven by a man who was doing it for retaliation for treatment of Muslims around the world,” said Jillian Bandes, with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “To me, that spells terrorism.”

It is doubtless because they disagree with Ms Bandes that the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent have not, as far as I can see, thought the story worthy of coverage.

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.

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.

An open letter to Daleep Mukarji

(Dr Daleep Mukarji is Director of Christian Aid)

Dear Dr Mukarji,

On 2 February 2003 I wrote to you expressing concern about Christian Aid’s approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and specifically the one-sided criticism of Israel made in a postcard your supporters were invited to send to Tony Blair. I told you that I felt it necessary to discontinue my previous support for Christian Aid in the light of this. You wrote me a substantial and courteous reply, but this did not adequately address my concerns, especially as I found a consistent pattern of anti-Israel bias displayed in Christian Aid News and other Christian Aid media. On 20 August 2004 I wrote a second letter to you, to which I did not receive a reply. It now seems clear to me that Christian Aid’s position on this issue is one which it has adopted consciously and deliberately and which it has no intention of reviewing. Consequently I now feel it is appropriate to make my concerns public, and so I have set up a website where I document my charge of bias in extensive detail.

Please note that I do not charge Christian Aid with conscious anti-Semitism. However, I agree with the International Council of Christians and Jews when they apply this standard to criticism of Israel: ‘Voicing opposition to Israeli Government policy is not of itself anti-Semitic. But criticism which demonises and de-legitimises the Jewish state alone, often by applying double standards, acts as a contributory factor to antisemitism’. On this basis I find Christian Aid’s current position wholly unacceptable.

I am aware that similar concerns have been raised by members of the Jewish community, and I have read with interest your reply to them in the Jewish Chronicle of 11 March 2005. I am naturally pleased to note your unreserved condemnation of suicide bombings. It would, it seems to me, only be necessary for you to go a little further in order to supply the Jewish community with the really substantial reassurance it is looking for. I am now inviting you to take this further step.

Will you name, and condemn by name, the organizations which mastermind suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians?

Will you condemn them for denying Israel the right to exist? Will you acknowledge that your assertion that ‘Israel’s right to recognition and safety for all its citizens, as well as the right to independent economic development, is not in question’ is simply false as far as they are concerned – and that it can only be genuinely true of Christian Aid if you are prepared to speak out against those who disagree?

Will you condemn their explicitly anti-Semitic ideologies?

Will you condemn them for the massive contribution they make to the impoverishment of their fellow-Palestinians? Will you make it clear that the drastic deterioration in Palestinians’ living standards which you rightly seek to address has occurred since these organizations launched a systematic campaign of murder and terror against Israeli civilians?

Will you acknowledge the Palestinian contribution to the failure of the Oslo peace process, rather than pointing solely to Israel’s responsibility?

‘Christian Aid unreservedly condemns the suicide bombings and attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians, as do our partners in both the occupied territories and Israel’, you say. Will you ensure that your partners do not just bury their condemning somewhere in a policy document, but do it loud and clear – e.g. in prominent positions on their websites? Will you tell the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, for instance, that amid its detailed documentation of alleged Israeli human rights violations it must at least mention the existence of Israeli civilians killed by terrorists?

A clear and positive response from you on these points would also serve to reassure me that your condemnation of terrorist attacks is more than just the bare minimum you judge to be necessary in order to safeguard Christian Aid’s status as a registered charity, an official agency of the Churches and a recipient of substantial government and European Union funding. At a time when we are confronting the reality of British suicide bombers selecting British citizens as targets I believe it would also be welcomed by very many of your Christian supporters.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Cyrus