I don’t often get the hard copy Guardian – the international edition doesn’t come cheap. I did see last Tuesday’s, and was reminded why I increasingly begrudge them the money.
On the front page, this emotive story of beastliness on the part of the Israeli troops in Gaza who left last month. It may all be true even though it is almost entirely based on hearsay evidence coming from one side of the conflict, and if so it’s a crying shame…
…as was the killing of a Palestinian police commander and two civilians by Hamas thugs, which moved policemen to storm the Gaza legislature in protest. Unlike the former story this was hot news on Tuesday. We find it nestling on page 6. Well, we wouldn’t want to spoil our Respect comrades’ breakfasts by giving Hamas too much bad press, would we?
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Friday, October 07, 2005
Don't defend Israel if your name is Cohen
'Please don't tell me that it helps the Palestinians to give the far right the time of day, or pretend that Palestinian liberals, socialists, women, gays, freethinkers and Christians (let alone Israeli Jews) would prosper in a Palestine ruled by Hamas. It's not radical, it's barely political, to turn a blind eye and say you are for the Palestinian cause. Political seriousness lies in stating which Palestine you are for and which Palestinians you support. The Palestinian fight is at once an anti-colonial struggle and a clash between modernity and reaction. The confusion of our times comes from the failure to grasp that it is possible to have an anti-colonialism of the far right. '
Nick Cohen writes on left anti-Semitism in the New Statesman. Read it (hat tip: Harry's Place).
Nick Cohen writes on left anti-Semitism in the New Statesman. Read it (hat tip: Harry's Place).
Saturday, October 01, 2005
The imam and the FDNY
Here’s a story that I’d have found hard to take seriously if I hadn’t got it from two reasonably credible sources (here and here).
The Fire Department of New York wants to appoint a Muslim chaplain. They thought they’d found the man for the job, and were on the point of swearing him in, when it emerged that he’d given an interview in which he’d expressed scepticism that the World Trade Center could really have been demolished by a couple of jumbo jets. “Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?" inquired Imam Intiqab Habib. The sources don’t say who he thinks did the conspiring, but it’s not hard to guess.
Well, New York firefighters evidently have low tolerance for half-baked conspiracy theories about the events that cost 343 of their comrades their lives. Muslim firefighters say they had no idea that he held these views. So the FDNY is still looking for a Muslim chaplain.
What this says about the state Islam is in is pretty depressing. It’s surely no coincidence that Habib studied in Saudi Arabia, and, as Irshad Manji argues in her manifesto for an Islamic Reformation, the sooner that country’s ideological stranglehold on the faith can be broken the better.
But let’s not dwell on the negative. Contemplate for a moment, if you will, what it says about the nation the rest of the world loves to hate – and which a significant chunk of the world hates particularly because of its friendship with Israel: the Fire Department of New York is looking for a Muslim chaplain.
The Fire Department of New York wants to appoint a Muslim chaplain. They thought they’d found the man for the job, and were on the point of swearing him in, when it emerged that he’d given an interview in which he’d expressed scepticism that the World Trade Center could really have been demolished by a couple of jumbo jets. “Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?" inquired Imam Intiqab Habib. The sources don’t say who he thinks did the conspiring, but it’s not hard to guess.
Well, New York firefighters evidently have low tolerance for half-baked conspiracy theories about the events that cost 343 of their comrades their lives. Muslim firefighters say they had no idea that he held these views. So the FDNY is still looking for a Muslim chaplain.
What this says about the state Islam is in is pretty depressing. It’s surely no coincidence that Habib studied in Saudi Arabia, and, as Irshad Manji argues in her manifesto for an Islamic Reformation, the sooner that country’s ideological stranglehold on the faith can be broken the better.
But let’s not dwell on the negative. Contemplate for a moment, if you will, what it says about the nation the rest of the world loves to hate – and which a significant chunk of the world hates particularly because of its friendship with Israel: the Fire Department of New York is looking for a Muslim chaplain.
Friday, September 30, 2005
New Links
Two significant new websites to draw readers' attention to.
First, Engage has a new site.
And the newly-formed Anglicans for Israel launched their website yesterday (hat tip: Melanie Phillips, whose account of a conversation with a senior C of E cleric underlines why such an organization is needed).
Good luck to both.
First, Engage has a new site.
And the newly-formed Anglicans for Israel launched their website yesterday (hat tip: Melanie Phillips, whose account of a conversation with a senior C of E cleric underlines why such an organization is needed).
Good luck to both.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Partners in Denial
My last posting mentioned one of Christian Aid's partner organizations, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. When I dropped in on their website to get the address to link to, I was curious to see what they had to say about the explosion at a Hamas victory rally in Gaza last Friday (23 September), which killed 16 people. Here's the heading from their press release two days afterwards.
2 Palestinians Killed, 24 Injured and a Number of Civilian Facilities Destroyed in 9 Israeli Aerial Attacks on the Gaza Strip
Two weeks following their redeployment in the Gaza Strip, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) launched 9 aerial attacks in 22 hours on a number of targets throughout the Gaza Strip. In these attacks IOF extra-judicially killed 2 Palestinians, injured 24 civilians, including 7 children, while they were inside their houses, and destroyed a number of civilian facilities. This escalation has come in retaliation for home-made rockets fired by Palestinian gunmen on Israeli towns. The rocket attacks on Israel followed the claim by Hamas that Israel was responsible for a heavy explosion that occurred in Jabalya refugee camp on 23 September 2005, which killed 16 Palestinians and injured dozens of others.
A footnote informs us that 'PCHR is still investigating the circumstances of this explosion'.
Deep breath. PCHR relays Hamas's claim that the Israelis attacked the rally, and thus is able to discount the rocket attacks on Israel as a retaliation for the tragic explosion. The rockets are quaintly described as 'home-made' as if to reassure us that they were really quite harmless. No mention of the several people who were injured by them. The footnote is the only hint of the fact that not only the Israelis but also the Palestinian Authority say that it was Hamas's own rockets that exploded at the rally(and evidently packed quite a punch even if they were 'home-made').
A pretty good index of the credibility of Hamas's account is that not even the Guardian has used it as a stick to beat Israel with. If Seumas and friends had thought they could pin this one on Ariel Sharon they'd have had to revert to the broadsheet format to make space for the headlines and photos. Perhaps they have, after all, learnt something from the massacre that never was in Jenin.
I predict that we won't see the results of the PCHR's 'investigation' splashed across their homepage.
And yes, the outfit which churns out this preposterously one-sided propaganda really is bankrolled by the UK 'charity' Christian Aid. Christian Aid is an official agency of my church denomination and 38 others.
Back in July I posted an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury protesting against the Anglican Consultative Council's resolution commending divestment from Israel. I have received a letter from Lambeth Palace, which I want to return to in a subsequent posting. The letter draws my attention to the resolution's reference to investments supporting 'violence against innocent Israelis' as well as the Israeli occupation. I had thought this was a meaningless gesture of even-handedness, as churches are hardly likely to have investments in Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Thinking about it, though, if this wording means anything at all it must imply that churches considering a divestment policy should include indirect support for an organization like the PCHR - effectively an apologist for Hamas - within its scope. Ergo they would have to sever their links with Christian Aid. After all, it would hardly make sense for churches to set lower ethical standards for the charities they support than for their commercial investments.
Am I expecting divestment campaigners to see it that way? I'll give you one guess.
2 Palestinians Killed, 24 Injured and a Number of Civilian Facilities Destroyed in 9 Israeli Aerial Attacks on the Gaza Strip
Two weeks following their redeployment in the Gaza Strip, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) launched 9 aerial attacks in 22 hours on a number of targets throughout the Gaza Strip. In these attacks IOF extra-judicially killed 2 Palestinians, injured 24 civilians, including 7 children, while they were inside their houses, and destroyed a number of civilian facilities. This escalation has come in retaliation for home-made rockets fired by Palestinian gunmen on Israeli towns. The rocket attacks on Israel followed the claim by Hamas that Israel was responsible for a heavy explosion that occurred in Jabalya refugee camp on 23 September 2005, which killed 16 Palestinians and injured dozens of others.
A footnote informs us that 'PCHR is still investigating the circumstances of this explosion'.
Deep breath. PCHR relays Hamas's claim that the Israelis attacked the rally, and thus is able to discount the rocket attacks on Israel as a retaliation for the tragic explosion. The rockets are quaintly described as 'home-made' as if to reassure us that they were really quite harmless. No mention of the several people who were injured by them. The footnote is the only hint of the fact that not only the Israelis but also the Palestinian Authority say that it was Hamas's own rockets that exploded at the rally(and evidently packed quite a punch even if they were 'home-made').
A pretty good index of the credibility of Hamas's account is that not even the Guardian has used it as a stick to beat Israel with. If Seumas and friends had thought they could pin this one on Ariel Sharon they'd have had to revert to the broadsheet format to make space for the headlines and photos. Perhaps they have, after all, learnt something from the massacre that never was in Jenin.
I predict that we won't see the results of the PCHR's 'investigation' splashed across their homepage.
And yes, the outfit which churns out this preposterously one-sided propaganda really is bankrolled by the UK 'charity' Christian Aid. Christian Aid is an official agency of my church denomination and 38 others.
Back in July I posted an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury protesting against the Anglican Consultative Council's resolution commending divestment from Israel. I have received a letter from Lambeth Palace, which I want to return to in a subsequent posting. The letter draws my attention to the resolution's reference to investments supporting 'violence against innocent Israelis' as well as the Israeli occupation. I had thought this was a meaningless gesture of even-handedness, as churches are hardly likely to have investments in Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Thinking about it, though, if this wording means anything at all it must imply that churches considering a divestment policy should include indirect support for an organization like the PCHR - effectively an apologist for Hamas - within its scope. Ergo they would have to sever their links with Christian Aid. After all, it would hardly make sense for churches to set lower ethical standards for the charities they support than for their commercial investments.
Am I expecting divestment campaigners to see it that way? I'll give you one guess.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Continuing the debate
Blogging again after a longish break due to pressure of work, pressure of holiday, pressure of sick computer… But the blog has been alive and well thanks to the wonderful people who have joined in the debate on my last posting. Here is my belated contribution, addressed to Christian Aid employee Grayscale.
Hi Grayscale
I want first to thank you (along with Huldah. Neal and Anita) for all your contributions to this debate, which IMHO has been of a very high standard. My impression is that we are a long way apart in our perceptions of what the debate has been about. I’m not expecting one more posting to bridge the gap, but even so I would like to take up some points on which I feel misunderstood and try to clarify where I’m coming from.
I don’t think you’ve appreciated how far Christians differ among themselves in their attitudes to Israel. Some understand specific biblical prophecies as having a direct bearing on the current situation. I disagree. Some appear to me to interpret such prophecies as giving Israel an exclusive claim to the West Bank and Gaza Strip and relieving it of any obligation to deal justly and compassionately with the Palestinians. I disagree unequivocally.
What I hope is specifically Christian about my blog is that it is centred on an awareness of the ways in which Christians have betrayed and abused their own faith by promoting and accepting anti-Semitism. I’m convinced that it doesn’t have to be this way – that Christianity can actually be a force against anti-Semitism. If I didn’t believe this I wouldn’t be a Christian. But it depends on repentance on the part of the Church as a whole – facing up to the sins of the past and turning back towards God and seeking his help in ensuring that these things never happen again. But if the awareness is missing, repentance will be incomplete and we will be in danger of repeating history. The blog’s meant to be a wake-up call, and that’s why I use that shocking and uncomfortable word ‘hate’ – not to accuse anyone, but to emphasize how high the stakes are.
I sense, and can fully understand, a genuine puzzlement on your part as to how a campaign against anti-Semitism can possibly have any bearing on Christian Aid and the dedicated, caring and unprejudiced people you know within the organization. You need to understand that I can only judge the face that Christian Aid presents to the outside world – its magazine, its websites, its advertising and so on. And if the impact of these is to promote harmful biases, that remains true however good the intentions behind them. We all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You seem to see anti-Semitism in very subjective terms. People persecute Jews when they feel hatred towards them in their hearts. Of course that is absolutely true – and I must reiterate that I am not suggesting such feelings are rife among the staff of Christian Aid. The critical point here, however, is that there is a stage before the passage from hatred to active persecution, and that is the development of beliefs that make it OK to direct anger and hatred towards Jews.
In the past these have included…
Sick and crazy as they seem to us now, all of these have been taken in their time as objective truth, and all of them in their time were good enough to convince what are often called ‘ordinary decent people’ that Jews could justly be excluded from the benefits conferred by a common humanity – invariably with deadly consequences.
And what about some beliefs about Jews that are current in today’s world – and especially, it must be said, in the Middle East?
Against this background I believe I am fully justified in asking: what beliefs about Israel and its largely Jewish population are likely to be promoted when people read Christian Aid’s public media output? Are they right or wrong? If they’re wrong, are they harmfully wrong? These are questions about consequences, not intentions. The test of genuinely good intentions, I’d suggest, is a readiness to be accountable for the consequences of one’s actions.
You have pointed out that Christian Aid’s main campaigns are focused on global economic structures – I have absolutely no problem with that in principle. If it stuck to those issues, that would be fine. Equally, if it were supplementing these central campaigns with a series of campaigns on regional and local issues, focusing on those areas where the need is most acute (e.g. Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo), that would be perfectly reasonable.
But what do we have in fact? Global campaigning coupled with a campaign against one state on behalf of one people. Where is the sense of this if not to suggest that that one state is committing the world’s worst human rights abuses against that one people? And that, as the other participants in this debate have repeatedly pointed out, is simply not true. You argue that campaigns have to be planned on a long term basis – but it wasn’t true 10 years ago either. Or 20 years ago. Or 30 years ago. You point out that more resources go to the global campaigns. Fine, but I am afraid I am not prepared to see even a small proportion of my charitable giving going to fund a campaign which demonizes Israel. There are, after all, other charities.
To create such a false impression is wrong in principle and would be wrong whatever state was being singled out. When the state ‘just happens’ to be Israel, we have crossed the boundary which should never be crossed, taking us into very unpleasant and dangerous territory indeed. We’re far too close to the conclusion ‘give the Jews their own state and they turn into monsters’, after which it’s one more short step to ‘they were monsters all along’. To repeat, no amount of good intentions can excuse this.
You ask why Christian Aid backs Israeli organizations if it is anti-Israel. Well, Israel is a democratic and pluralist society in which a huge range of views can be legally expressed – including ones which are highly critical of the Israeli state. And it is organizations propagating such views which get CA support. On the other hand, CA is happy to back Palestinian organizations which are wholly uncritical of Palestinian terrorism (if you doubt this tell me where on the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights website I can find condemnation of terrorist violence against Israeli civilians). There appears to me to be a glaring double standard here. Some time ago I praised CA for supporting a group which brings together Palestinian and Israeli parents bereaved by violence, with no ideological preconditions. I just wish that was more typical of its approach.
In your last posting you seem to imply that the very raising of these issues is evidence of the malign influence of religious fanaticism. Speaking for myself I must reject that emphatically. Certainly, I would say that my faith plays an essential part in motivating me to stand up and be counted. But none of my arguments rest on any religious assumptions apart from those bound up with concern for basic human rights. You have had ranged against you in this debate two Christians, one conservative, one liberal, and two Jews, at least one of them non-religious – a reasonably wide spectrum of opinion. Look up some of my links (notably Engage, Harry’s Place, Melanie Phillips, Normblog) and you will find the same arguments couched in purely secular terms and directed at secular institutions (The Guardian, the Respect Coalition etc.) which propagate the same bias as Christian Aid. Read here about Oxfam’s apology for a poster produced by its Belgian affiliate whose message surely came very close indeed to anti-Semitism. So, whilst it is obviously your personal choice whether to remain with Christian Aid, I fear you would be leaving them for entirely the wrong reasons.
Responding to Huldah’s postings, you seem surprised that anyone would expect an organization calling itself Christian Aid to have a distinctively Christian ethos. In saying that I’m not taking issue with its policy of helping people of all faiths and none, or even necessarily with its readiness to employ non-Christians (Huldah may disagree on the latter point, I suspect). But your attitude does confirm the impression I’ve gained of an organization which is informed primarily by secular leftist political ideology and travels very light indeed theologically. Of course there are better and worse theologies, just as there are better and worse political ideologies. I do think, though, that some half-way decent theology would be an antidote to the inclination to take a simplistic ‘good guys and bad guys’ view of the conflict.
Isn’t there also an issue of honesty here? CA seems happy to be labelled as Christian when it’s a matter of signing up churchgoers to deliver collection envelopes and stump up their own cash. But when it comes to spending the cash it seems to think that specifically Christian beliefs and values are largely irrelevant to its work. ‘We believe in life before death’ is a great slogan, but it makes me wonder how many of the people running CA believe in any other kind of life. Might it not be more honest to drop the ‘C’ word from the organization’s name?
To wrap this up, I do think it has been a valuable exchange of views even though we have plainly not resolved our differences. May we all carry on listening to each other with respect, and may the God of love and truth go with you on whatever paths the future takes you to.
Cyrus
Hi Grayscale
I want first to thank you (along with Huldah. Neal and Anita) for all your contributions to this debate, which IMHO has been of a very high standard. My impression is that we are a long way apart in our perceptions of what the debate has been about. I’m not expecting one more posting to bridge the gap, but even so I would like to take up some points on which I feel misunderstood and try to clarify where I’m coming from.
I don’t think you’ve appreciated how far Christians differ among themselves in their attitudes to Israel. Some understand specific biblical prophecies as having a direct bearing on the current situation. I disagree. Some appear to me to interpret such prophecies as giving Israel an exclusive claim to the West Bank and Gaza Strip and relieving it of any obligation to deal justly and compassionately with the Palestinians. I disagree unequivocally.
What I hope is specifically Christian about my blog is that it is centred on an awareness of the ways in which Christians have betrayed and abused their own faith by promoting and accepting anti-Semitism. I’m convinced that it doesn’t have to be this way – that Christianity can actually be a force against anti-Semitism. If I didn’t believe this I wouldn’t be a Christian. But it depends on repentance on the part of the Church as a whole – facing up to the sins of the past and turning back towards God and seeking his help in ensuring that these things never happen again. But if the awareness is missing, repentance will be incomplete and we will be in danger of repeating history. The blog’s meant to be a wake-up call, and that’s why I use that shocking and uncomfortable word ‘hate’ – not to accuse anyone, but to emphasize how high the stakes are.
I sense, and can fully understand, a genuine puzzlement on your part as to how a campaign against anti-Semitism can possibly have any bearing on Christian Aid and the dedicated, caring and unprejudiced people you know within the organization. You need to understand that I can only judge the face that Christian Aid presents to the outside world – its magazine, its websites, its advertising and so on. And if the impact of these is to promote harmful biases, that remains true however good the intentions behind them. We all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You seem to see anti-Semitism in very subjective terms. People persecute Jews when they feel hatred towards them in their hearts. Of course that is absolutely true – and I must reiterate that I am not suggesting such feelings are rife among the staff of Christian Aid. The critical point here, however, is that there is a stage before the passage from hatred to active persecution, and that is the development of beliefs that make it OK to direct anger and hatred towards Jews.
In the past these have included…
- The Jews are collectively responsible for knowingly murdering the Son of God
- The Jews exploit and cheat Christians by usury
- The Jews ritually sacrifice Christian children
- The Jews spread plague by poisoning wells
- The Jews are traitors to the Fatherland
- The Jews run the capitalist system and manipulate it to their own advantage
- The Jews undermine our society by revolutionary agitation
- The Jews are plotting to take over the world
- The Jews are biologically subhuman
Sick and crazy as they seem to us now, all of these have been taken in their time as objective truth, and all of them in their time were good enough to convince what are often called ‘ordinary decent people’ that Jews could justly be excluded from the benefits conferred by a common humanity – invariably with deadly consequences.
And what about some beliefs about Jews that are current in today’s world – and especially, it must be said, in the Middle East?
- The Jews are plotting to take over the world I(yes, this is still believed)
- The Jews ritually sacrifice non-Jewish children (ditto)
- The Jews claim they were victims of genocide but it is all a huge lie
- Jews control the US Government behind the scenes and manipulate it into trying to wipe out Islam
- The Jews who worked in the World Trade Center all stayed at home on 11 September 2001
Against this background I believe I am fully justified in asking: what beliefs about Israel and its largely Jewish population are likely to be promoted when people read Christian Aid’s public media output? Are they right or wrong? If they’re wrong, are they harmfully wrong? These are questions about consequences, not intentions. The test of genuinely good intentions, I’d suggest, is a readiness to be accountable for the consequences of one’s actions.
You have pointed out that Christian Aid’s main campaigns are focused on global economic structures – I have absolutely no problem with that in principle. If it stuck to those issues, that would be fine. Equally, if it were supplementing these central campaigns with a series of campaigns on regional and local issues, focusing on those areas where the need is most acute (e.g. Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo), that would be perfectly reasonable.
But what do we have in fact? Global campaigning coupled with a campaign against one state on behalf of one people. Where is the sense of this if not to suggest that that one state is committing the world’s worst human rights abuses against that one people? And that, as the other participants in this debate have repeatedly pointed out, is simply not true. You argue that campaigns have to be planned on a long term basis – but it wasn’t true 10 years ago either. Or 20 years ago. Or 30 years ago. You point out that more resources go to the global campaigns. Fine, but I am afraid I am not prepared to see even a small proportion of my charitable giving going to fund a campaign which demonizes Israel. There are, after all, other charities.
To create such a false impression is wrong in principle and would be wrong whatever state was being singled out. When the state ‘just happens’ to be Israel, we have crossed the boundary which should never be crossed, taking us into very unpleasant and dangerous territory indeed. We’re far too close to the conclusion ‘give the Jews their own state and they turn into monsters’, after which it’s one more short step to ‘they were monsters all along’. To repeat, no amount of good intentions can excuse this.
You ask why Christian Aid backs Israeli organizations if it is anti-Israel. Well, Israel is a democratic and pluralist society in which a huge range of views can be legally expressed – including ones which are highly critical of the Israeli state. And it is organizations propagating such views which get CA support. On the other hand, CA is happy to back Palestinian organizations which are wholly uncritical of Palestinian terrorism (if you doubt this tell me where on the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights website I can find condemnation of terrorist violence against Israeli civilians). There appears to me to be a glaring double standard here. Some time ago I praised CA for supporting a group which brings together Palestinian and Israeli parents bereaved by violence, with no ideological preconditions. I just wish that was more typical of its approach.
In your last posting you seem to imply that the very raising of these issues is evidence of the malign influence of religious fanaticism. Speaking for myself I must reject that emphatically. Certainly, I would say that my faith plays an essential part in motivating me to stand up and be counted. But none of my arguments rest on any religious assumptions apart from those bound up with concern for basic human rights. You have had ranged against you in this debate two Christians, one conservative, one liberal, and two Jews, at least one of them non-religious – a reasonably wide spectrum of opinion. Look up some of my links (notably Engage, Harry’s Place, Melanie Phillips, Normblog) and you will find the same arguments couched in purely secular terms and directed at secular institutions (The Guardian, the Respect Coalition etc.) which propagate the same bias as Christian Aid. Read here about Oxfam’s apology for a poster produced by its Belgian affiliate whose message surely came very close indeed to anti-Semitism. So, whilst it is obviously your personal choice whether to remain with Christian Aid, I fear you would be leaving them for entirely the wrong reasons.
Responding to Huldah’s postings, you seem surprised that anyone would expect an organization calling itself Christian Aid to have a distinctively Christian ethos. In saying that I’m not taking issue with its policy of helping people of all faiths and none, or even necessarily with its readiness to employ non-Christians (Huldah may disagree on the latter point, I suspect). But your attitude does confirm the impression I’ve gained of an organization which is informed primarily by secular leftist political ideology and travels very light indeed theologically. Of course there are better and worse theologies, just as there are better and worse political ideologies. I do think, though, that some half-way decent theology would be an antidote to the inclination to take a simplistic ‘good guys and bad guys’ view of the conflict.
Isn’t there also an issue of honesty here? CA seems happy to be labelled as Christian when it’s a matter of signing up churchgoers to deliver collection envelopes and stump up their own cash. But when it comes to spending the cash it seems to think that specifically Christian beliefs and values are largely irrelevant to its work. ‘We believe in life before death’ is a great slogan, but it makes me wonder how many of the people running CA believe in any other kind of life. Might it not be more honest to drop the ‘C’ word from the organization’s name?
To wrap this up, I do think it has been a valuable exchange of views even though we have plainly not resolved our differences. May we all carry on listening to each other with respect, and may the God of love and truth go with you on whatever paths the future takes you to.
Cyrus
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Reaction from Christian Aid
Back from my hols to find that for the first time I have an unofficial reaction from Christian Aid. Grayscale posted this comment on my last posting on Pressureworks:
Pressureworks is Christian Aid's political campaigning web site for young people (not just for students).
Christian Aid does not campaign in or for Zimbabwe - hence no mention of Mugabe. However, Christian Aid is working in Zimbabwe to alleviate suffering there. See here - http://www.christianaid.org.uk/world/where/safrica/zimbabp.htm - for more details on what's we're doing there.
Christian Aid does campaign in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with its Israeli partners B'TSELEM and ICAHD, hence the stories currently running on Pressureworks.I hope this answers your question.
As an aside I would add that, although I can't speak for the organisation officially (I'm employed by CA but I don't devise policy), from what I've experienced here, I very much doubt that 'hate' is part of Christian Aid's work, anywhere or at any time. It seems to be a heavy duty word to be throwing around about an organisation that, whatever differences of opinion you may have with it, is quite obviously more interested in alleviating suffering than causing it it. I don't deny that the issues in the IOPT are complicated and ancient and that great violence is used by both sides in the conflict, both doubtless feeling that they have no choice. My sympathies lie with all victims on both sides. Doubtless there is vast anger and pain on both sides. But accusing people of hate isn't any way to deal with.
Walk in peace -
Thanks for the feedback, Grayscale. I have to say that 'we don't do Zimbabwe because we don't do Zimbabwe' falls some way short of a satisfactory answer to my question. If Christian Aid genuinely cares about poor people having their homes bulldozed, why isn't it laying into Mugabe? If it doesn't, what is the Pressureworks campaign against Israel about?
You don't like the word 'hate'. We're Christians, we don't do hate, right? Sorry, but the historical record makes it all too clear that we do. I don't like the word either. I like the reality it describes still less. Watch out, when I have a bit more time, for some thoughts on my holiday in Cracow, the setting of Schindler's List.
I believe the material I've posted on this site makes a reasonably strong case for saying that Christian Aid, as an organization, has got it in for Israel (I obviously can't pass any kind of judgement on you or other individuals involved with CA, and I don't doubt your good faith). Now it is certainly possible that this has nothing whatever to do with the fact that Israel is a state - the only one in the world - run (predominantly) by Jews. It could be that CA would react in exactly the same way to an Israel run by Bolivians or Norwegians or Arabs. I would like very much to be able to give it the benefit of the doubt, but my problem with this assumption is that it leaves me unable to comprehend what the real reason for the bias against Israel is.
Can you help me out?
Pressureworks is Christian Aid's political campaigning web site for young people (not just for students).
Christian Aid does not campaign in or for Zimbabwe - hence no mention of Mugabe. However, Christian Aid is working in Zimbabwe to alleviate suffering there. See here - http://www.christianaid.org.uk/world/where/safrica/zimbabp.htm - for more details on what's we're doing there.
Christian Aid does campaign in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with its Israeli partners B'TSELEM and ICAHD, hence the stories currently running on Pressureworks.I hope this answers your question.
As an aside I would add that, although I can't speak for the organisation officially (I'm employed by CA but I don't devise policy), from what I've experienced here, I very much doubt that 'hate' is part of Christian Aid's work, anywhere or at any time. It seems to be a heavy duty word to be throwing around about an organisation that, whatever differences of opinion you may have with it, is quite obviously more interested in alleviating suffering than causing it it. I don't deny that the issues in the IOPT are complicated and ancient and that great violence is used by both sides in the conflict, both doubtless feeling that they have no choice. My sympathies lie with all victims on both sides. Doubtless there is vast anger and pain on both sides. But accusing people of hate isn't any way to deal with.
Walk in peace -
Thanks for the feedback, Grayscale. I have to say that 'we don't do Zimbabwe because we don't do Zimbabwe' falls some way short of a satisfactory answer to my question. If Christian Aid genuinely cares about poor people having their homes bulldozed, why isn't it laying into Mugabe? If it doesn't, what is the Pressureworks campaign against Israel about?
You don't like the word 'hate'. We're Christians, we don't do hate, right? Sorry, but the historical record makes it all too clear that we do. I don't like the word either. I like the reality it describes still less. Watch out, when I have a bit more time, for some thoughts on my holiday in Cracow, the setting of Schindler's List.
I believe the material I've posted on this site makes a reasonably strong case for saying that Christian Aid, as an organization, has got it in for Israel (I obviously can't pass any kind of judgement on you or other individuals involved with CA, and I don't doubt your good faith). Now it is certainly possible that this has nothing whatever to do with the fact that Israel is a state - the only one in the world - run (predominantly) by Jews. It could be that CA would react in exactly the same way to an Israel run by Bolivians or Norwegians or Arabs. I would like very much to be able to give it the benefit of the doubt, but my problem with this assumption is that it leaves me unable to comprehend what the real reason for the bias against Israel is.
Can you help me out?
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Al-Grauniad strikes again
A stunning scoop from Harry's Place. Showing it has learnt absolutely nothing from the Dilpazier Aslam affair, the Guardian must surely now be considered lost to the cause of liberalism. Or to anything that could meaningfully be described as democratic socialism.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Clueless on Gaza
A well-argued piece from Oliver Kamm in today's Times on Sharon's plan for withdrawal from Gaza.
Myths die hard. Increased security for Israeli civilians is not a mirage at all; Mr Sharon’s policies have been unambiguously successful in curbing terrorism. With the construction of a security barrier (not a “wall”, as anti-Israel campaigners habitually term it, but for most of its length a chain-linked wire fence that could be taken down within an afternoon) and the assassination of successive leaders of Hamas, the number of successful terrorist attacks within Israel fell by more than 75 per cent between 2002 and 2004. The breathing space that these policies have allowed Israelis has encouraged serious thinking about territorial compromise and the outlines of an eventual settlement with the Palestinians.
The dispiriting fact is that no negotiated two-state agreement is likely in the near future. Western commentators who speak of a two-state “solution” adopt a misnomer. A two-state arrangement, with Israel withdrawing to boundaries approximating the pre-1967 armistice line, is not a solution to the conflict, but an outcome of the end of the conflict. The end of the conflict requires something more deep-rooted: a changed relationship and mutual trust between Israelis and Palestinians.
Read it all.
Myths die hard. Increased security for Israeli civilians is not a mirage at all; Mr Sharon’s policies have been unambiguously successful in curbing terrorism. With the construction of a security barrier (not a “wall”, as anti-Israel campaigners habitually term it, but for most of its length a chain-linked wire fence that could be taken down within an afternoon) and the assassination of successive leaders of Hamas, the number of successful terrorist attacks within Israel fell by more than 75 per cent between 2002 and 2004. The breathing space that these policies have allowed Israelis has encouraged serious thinking about territorial compromise and the outlines of an eventual settlement with the Palestinians.
The dispiriting fact is that no negotiated two-state agreement is likely in the near future. Western commentators who speak of a two-state “solution” adopt a misnomer. A two-state arrangement, with Israel withdrawing to boundaries approximating the pre-1967 armistice line, is not a solution to the conflict, but an outcome of the end of the conflict. The end of the conflict requires something more deep-rooted: a changed relationship and mutual trust between Israelis and Palestinians.
Read it all.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
ACC resolution defended
The Secretary General of the Anglican Communion issued a statement last week in response to criticism of the Anglican Consultative Council's resolution on the Palestinian/Israel conflict (read it here with my brief and caustic comment). Essentially it retreats into a position of 'more prayerful than thou' rather than engaging in kind with political criticism of a political decision. If you think that's unkind, read what Melanie Phillips has to say...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
