Another reason why the Methodist vote was Antisemitic....

Graham Carter - the Chair of the Working Group who wrote the Report- said yesterday he wants to hold out the hand of friendship to the Jewish Community.

The response? Unprintable

"Graham Carter - the Chair of the Working Group who wrote the Report- said yesterday he wants to hold out the hand of friendship to the Jewish Community."

My response:

http://tinyurl.com/3xbx6vp

I'm always amazed at how poor little Tibet is overlooked. After all, Tibet has been occupied by China for sixty years and as many as one million Tibetans have been murdered by the Chinese during that period.

What lies at the heart of virtually all anti-Zionism is Jew-hatred. Nothing else can possibly explain its virulence.

Ben Abuyah,

You chose your name very well:

"[ben Abuyah] played the part of an informer during the Hadrianic persecutions, when the Jews were ordered to violate the laws of the Torah. As evidence of this it is related that when the Jews were ordered to do work on Shabbat, they tried to perform it in a way which could be considered as not profaning the Sabbath. But Elisha betrayed the Pharisees to the Roman authorities."

http://tinyurl.com/q9u5zg

Here, I have a present for you:

http://tinyurl.com/2uutby5

Ben Abuyah, you're the moron, unable to say anything of substance.

Go away you annoying man.

Anyone with eyes and ears knows that the Israel-Arab conflict is an extremely divisive one in the UK with very strong feelings on both sides. Boycott campaigns are political attacks against Israel. They have nothing to do with building peace, trust or mutual recognition as they do the opposite.

For the Methodist Church to take this stance is a political statement, that they are taking sides in the conflict against Israel.

Even if the motives behind such a stance are not anti-Semitic (which I doubt), they cannot be unaware that their cause itself is a magnet for anti-Semitism and the worst forms of extremism.

Jonathan, I think you defeat your own argument by saying that its antisemitic because they don't do it for other countries and then go on to list two other countries they've done it for...

The point is Jon, why is the Methodist Church not boycotting Iran, Sudan, China, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, or any other of a number of countries who oppress their populations?

Can you give one solid reason why this is not a political attack against Israel?

Its certainly a political statement.

That doesn't make it antisemitism though. Far from it.

It is now more than 24 hours since the vote

Can anyone name a practising Methodist who has broken ranks and denounced the Report and the vote?

To single out Israel - moreover on the basis of a biased stitchup Report - and not boycott those countries where there are genuine human rights issues - is antisemitic.

As Matt above says: "The point is .. why is the Methodist Church not boycotting Iran, Sudan, China, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, or any other of a number of countries who oppress their populations?"

Quite

Jonathan: I have not even received a reply from my local Methodist church.

Jon: When a small country is under political attack from the majority of OIC countries within the UN, is subject to economic, educational and media boycotts by the majority of the Arab world (even countries that it has sign peace agreements with), and most of those attacks ARE based on anti-Semitism, I think the onus is on the Methodist church to explain why this political attack is NOT based on anti-Semitism.

Can you explain that to me? Pretend you're explaining it to someone who knows nothing about this situation.

I've contacted the Methodist Church to voice my disgust. They have a "contact" page on their website.

Jon, my view is that even to group Israel with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria would be antisemitic, because Israel does not resemble such dictatorships at all. But the Methodists go even further - they say that Israel is worse.

Of course it's antisemitism.

Rev. Nichola Jones spoke 73 minutes into the conference

http://tinyurl.com/32m45hn

Pure antisemitic supercessionist replacement theology from a member of UK Friends of Sabeel:

"In the Bible we learn of the Chosen People. Who are they and what were they chosen for? Genesis tells us again & again that God chooses Abraham and makes a covenant with Abraham & his heirs: a covenant being a two-sided agreement with obligations on both parties, like marriage......Of course, Israel today is not the same as Israel in the Bible: in the Bible, Israel refers to the people of Abraham's descendants, who are in covenant with God. Israel today is a modern, secular state, created in 1948.......For years I cherished the Galatian text...now I read it properly: 'In Christ there is no longer male or female, slave or free, Jew or Greek (we could say Jew or Arab): we are all one in Christ.' We are heirs of Abraham, and so inheritors of the promise of Abraham. Jesus, who makes with us a new covenant which transforms us utterly, never speaks of the land or owning it: he speaks of the Kingdom & joining it and invites us to do so. He teaches us God is not a racist God with favourites, but God loves all his children & blesses them. What is it God requires of you, asks Micah today: to do justice, to show mercy, to walk humbly with God....."

Can I just clear something up?

As I understand it the methodist boycott is exclusively of SETTLEMENT products, not a wider boycott of Israel itself.
Can someone please confirm this?

I think its really dangerous to default to a position of 'this is anti-Semitic' when clearly its not the case. Criticism of a state and its policies does not equal criticism of a race of people and to say that it does cheapens the argument.

Jon - I guess you're fairly new to this blog. If you start asking sensible questions, or suggesting that criticism of Israel might not necessarily be antisemitic, you'll very quickly find that the Kahanists on here (mattpryor, joshua18, amber etc) will add you to their "self-hating Jews" list.

They'll also insist that you and I, and anyone else who expresses views they disagree with, are actually all the same person.

"I think its really dangerous to default to a position of 'this is anti-Semitic' when clearly its not the case."

Welcome to the Alice-in-Wonderland world that is the UK where being accused of anti-Semitism is considered to be infinitely worse than anti-Semitism itself.

Let me add one thing. It is obvious that the vast bulk of anti-Israeli sentiment in the UK is a result of the anti-Semitism which is so much a part of the British culture. Nothing else can possibly explain the virulence of anti-Zionism in Briain. Then again what can you expect from a nation that fought the Nazis in spite of the Jews of Europe and not because of them, and then did everything in her power to prevent their rescue? As far as the Jews of Europe were concerned Britain might as well have been fighting under the Swastika instead of the Union Jack. Absolutely nothing has changed in the interim.

It is anti-Semitism:

1) To boycott the Jewish state and only the Jewish state is blatant anti-Semitism. Even worse, this is what the seconder of the motion said:

"I personally would like to have divestment going a little bit further into the full boycott of Israel, but I know how much I can get away with in the churches sometimes. [...] Churches are paranoid about being critical of Israel sometimes, they want to be balanced all the time, we must put pressure on church leaders."

2) From the report in the JC (for link see below):

"Delegates at the conference in Portsmouth overwhelmingly passed every recommendation of the report, which also included a call to review whether Zionism was compatible with Methodist beliefs."

In other words, Methodists are about to consider whether the Jewish people have a right to self-determination. This is blatant anti-Semitism.

3) The proposer of the motion bases the position of the Methodists on supercessionism which is a blatantly anti-Semitic doctrine. This is what she said:

'In the Bible we learn of the Chosen People. Who are they and what were they chosen for? Genesis tells us again & again that God chooses Abraham and makes a covenant with Abraham & his heirs: a covenant being a two-sided agreement with obligations on both parties, like marriage……Of course, Israel today is not the same as Israel in the Bible: in the Bible, Israel refers to the people of Abraham’s descendants, who are in covenant with God. Israel today is a modern, secular state, created in 1948…….

"For years I cherished the Galatian text…now I read it properly: ‘In Christ there is no longer male or female, slave or free, Jew or Greek (we could say Jew or Arab): we are all one in Christ.’ We are heirs of Abraham, and so inheritors of the promise of Abraham. Jesus, who makes with us a new covenant which transforms us utterly, never speaks of the land or owning it: he speaks of the Kingdom & joining it and invites us to do so. He teaches us God is not a racist God with favourites, but God loves all his children & blesses them" '

Sources:

Fury as Methodists vote to boycott Israel

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/another-reason-why-methodist-vote-was-anti...

Methodists Boycott Israel, Citing “New Covenant” With God

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/07/02/methodists-on-jewish-theology-our-god...

Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trials-Diaspora-History-Anti-Semitism-England/dp...

"I guess you're fairly new to this blog. If you start asking sensible questions"

You are a lying little b*stard. You have done nothing on this blog expect make snide and insulting comments to other posters. Yesterday, I pointed out John Wesley's virulent anti-Semitism. For my pains, I was accused of being Adolf Hitler. Today you accuse a number of us of being "Kahanists".

Somebody suggested the other day that you are insane. I don't believe that for one moment. Evil is what you are. Complete scum.

One can only hope that the JC has checked out your IP details.

Joshua.

I am right though? It is JUST a boycott of produce from the settlements? Not a complete boycott of Israel or Israeli goods?

It's still a political attack Jon, regardless of whether it's "just" companies in Judea and Samaria or companies in Tel Aviv. It encourages Israel's enemies and emboldens extremists.

The core of Israel's enemies hate Israel not because of what Israel does but because of what Israel is.

People that side with those forces are therefore leaving themselves open to being accused of anti-Semitism. The onus is on them to prove that they are not.

Person A says "I hate Jews so I'm going to attack Israel".

Person B says "I agree with person A, I'm going to attack Israel too."

Does Person B hate Jews too?

My point is that if the Methodist Church's decision is not based on Jew hatred then it is up to THEM to justify it to YOU, not the other way round!

If I were so obsessed about Israel and the Palestinians that I demanded other people stopped shopping in Israeli shops then I think I'd deserve to be called an anti-Semite.

*sigh* I know I shouldn't rise to the bait, but here goes ...

Joshua, you accuse me of being "a lying little b*stard". OK then, give me an example of something I've said which you can demonstrate is not true.

BTW, as someone who lost a significant number of relatives in the Shoah, I resent people telling me they wish I'd died in Auschwitz. Some people might consider that to be antisemitic.

Why don't you give us your real name Ben Abuyah? Nothing you say can be taken seriously as you use a pseudonym (and as I understand it an insulting one).

Is it because you know your own views are unacceptable to your peers? Or because you are not what you claim to be?

1) "Joshua, you accuse me of being "a lying little b*stard". OK then, give me an example of something I've said which you can demonstrate is not true."

This is a lie:

"I guess you're fairly new to this blog. If you start asking sensible questions"

You make no attempt to be sensible. You simply make snide and insulting comments to other posters:

2) "BTW, as someone who lost a significant number of relatives in the Shoah, I resent people telling me they wish I'd died in Auschwitz."

The fact you may or may not have lost members of your family in the Holocaust does not alter in any way what you are, a lying little Jew-baiter. I don't care what you resent or don't resent. The fact is that the Jewish people would be better off if we could swap you for one of your relatives. And think how much happier your family would be with one less coward to bother about.

3) "Some people might consider that to be antisemitic."

From a vicious anti-Semite that is utterly risible. Not of course that you give a sh*t about anti-Semitism.

Hi matt.

Thanks for your response. I have to admit that whilst I see your logic, I don't agree. There are a lot of people both inside and outside Israel who see the settlements in the OPT as illegal, unhelpful and/or ultimately a barrier to peace. Are all of these people antisemitic too?

I think that simply calling people antisemites as a knee jerk response is pretty unhelpful to the debate.
If you genuinely believe that methodists are wrong in boycotting settlement products then you should explain why and, by extension why the settlements are a good thing.

Glad to get back on topic Jon.

I'd be more than happy to tell you my views on this if you don't mind it being a bit lengthy. I think the religious settler movement is much maligned in the British and Israeli press. Many of them are dirt poor. A lot of evacuees from Gush Katif for example ended up being relocated in Judea and Samaria. They are the scapegoats of the scapegoats. It's unjust.

Israeli businesses in the disputed territories employ a lot of Palestinian people and contribute greatly to the Palestinian economy. Bibi's government is working closely with Salaam Fayyed's team to bolster and improve the Palestinian economy, and boycott calls such as this from Israel's so-called friends greatly undermine all that.

Boycotting settlement produce is the thin end of the wedge as Israel's enemies decide what is a "settlement" and what is not, and our press, student activists and trouble makers tow the line. I think the phrase is salami slicing. Can you remember the confusion and outrage in Israel when parts of Jerusalem came under the spotlight as settlements? Many people who take the Palestinian side of the dispute also consider Tel Aviv a settlement. Who is going to stand up to them to tell them otherwise? How will you feel when people start boycotting Tel Aviv businesses? You must know it'll happen. That's how reactionary politics works. You give a bit, they want more. The question is, where are you prepared to draw the line?

The other thing that really irks me is that there is no Palestinian state yet, and there won't be until the Palestinian leadership starts negotiating in earnest and showing a bit more good faith. Until that happens Judea and Samaria is Israel. The current Israeli government has called for open and direct talks without preconditions and have been refused. That people are putting pressure on Israel to cede land through BDS campaigns, when their supposed negotiating partner is continuously intransigent, seems bizarre to say the least.

If the object of boycotts is to encourage both parties to negotiate a peace settlement then why just apply pressure to Israel, when as far as I can tell Israel is the party that wants to get this resolved?

The point I was trying to make earlier is this: Israel is under political and economic attack from every direction. Okay in the UK it's (comparatively) civilised, but the depth of hatred and animosity towards Israel (and yes, Jews) closer to the region is truly frightening. To take the same side of the debate as Jihadis and Jew haters is to validate their hatred, and to me that is morally repugnant and offers no hope for the future.

Thoughts?

(PS I'll bookmark this page so I can read your reply - I'm sure Tanya Greenberg will bury it with her pointless one-line-wonders by tomorrow morning).

To amplify Mattpryor on 25th April 1920 the League of Nations in San Remo passed the following resolution which despite the present members of the UN and especially the Arab and Muslim bloc's claims to the contrary still has the force of law;
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." That means that all the land from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea was and is to be part of a Jewish State. That is the right to build communities in Judea and Samaria by Jews is enshrined by law. The creation of a state for the Palestinians will only be by Israel giving up that legal right. Therefore boycotting goods from Judea and Samaria produced by Jews is similar to boycotting goods from Tel Aviv and as such is anti-Semitic.

Sorry matt. Currently away, will try and formulate a response when near a computer.

Advis3r, I'd advise you to read the passage you quoted more carefully:

"The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ..." (my emphasis).

In no way does that create a right for the establishment of a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine, nor in any specific part of Palestine.