If I Was a Methodist, I Would Refer You to the New Israel Fund


By Avraham Reiss
November 23, 2010
Share

A few regulars on the JC Blogs have recently been cooperating with each other in combatting a blatant anti-Israeli decision by the Methodist Church in the UK, to boycott goods from Israeli settlements.

Read the actual decision at:

http://theconnexion.net/wp/?page_id=8498

-which is a private blog owned by a Methodist minister.

Note at the end, the wording:

"The Conference notes the call of the WCC in 2009 for an ‘international boycott of settlement produce and services’ and calls on the Methodist people to support and engage with this boycott of Israeli goods emanating from illegal settlements (some Methodists would advocate a total boycott of Israeli goods until the Occupation ends)."

And very near the beginning, note also:

"The Methodist Church has consistently expressed its concern over the illegal Occupation of Palestinian lands by the State of Israel."

In other words, the Methodist Church has decided that (1) Israeli rule over Judea, Samaria and Gaza represents "illegal Occupation of Palestinian lands by the State of Israel", and (2) calls for a boycott of Israeli goods emanating from illegal settlements (and note the "extra" in brackets at the end).

Jonathan Hoffman, vigilant as ever, pointed out the severity of the above decisions, and a few JC Bloggers entered the fray.

Basically, we pointed out to them that "Palestine" ceased to exist on 15th May 1948, that all lands under discussion thus became Israeli, Jordanian or Egyptian, this continuing until June 1967, when in a defensive war the IDF gained control of these areas. In subsequent, separate peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, both these two countries refused to take back the areas under discussion, thus leaving them under Israeli control, which is the position today.

There cannot be, therefore, any possible "illegal Occupation of Palestinian lands" (sic), since there have been no such things as "Palestinian lands" since 1948, at which time the Jews living in Eretz Yisrael were also "palestinians", and so therefore were their lands. But NOT since 1948. There is no "Palestine", and there are no "Palestinians".

The Methodists involved in the discussion had no rebuttal to these facts, and wriggled out of the implication that honesty required them to re-think their decision, by saying "we view history differently". Of course, no explanations as to how "differently", were offered.

Had these people been a little more knowledgeable about the people they had decided to boycott, they could have given us a much better answer.

It would have gone as follows:

"What are you complaining about? Your own New Israel Fund regards these areas as Occupied, and strives to end this Occupation. How do we know? Because it says so on the New Israel Fund's website, at:

http://www.newisraelfund.org.uk

"If you scroll thru to the page on that website at:

http://www.newisraelfund.org.uk/selected-nif-policies.php

you will see an article headed "Selected NIF Policies", under which you will find written:

"What is NIF's position on boycott, divestment and sanctions?
NIF supports an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories as a central tenet of the strategic framework in which we operate."

Further down on that page, you will find:
"NIF will not fund BDS activities nor support organizations for which BDS is a substantial element of their activities, but will support organizations that conform to our grant requirements if their support for BDS is incidental or subsidiary to their significant programs."

"In other words, the New Israel Fund won't get too mad if organisations supported by them boycott Israeli settlements goods."

We bring this up chiefly to show that everything telegramsam does on this blog is in line with NIF policy. He can argue till he is blue in the face (halevay!) that he doesn't represent them. But the facts remain. Know where he is coming from, and where he would like us to go ...

COMMENTS

Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:26

Rate this:

0 points

tspam, that is a great rebuttal to everything WE wrote. BOY, did you tear my facts apart one by one. What an intellect! How could I have even considered going up against you?


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:33

Rate this:

0 points

Why on earth would anyone want to go up against a sick and pathetic individual like yourself. I'm surprised with that fevered "mind" of yours that you haven't run of to your stuermer-like website to commune with your antisemitic friends Hagee and Robertson.
You have no "facts" to "tear apart", only hatred, bile and misplaced sense of being superior. You's look good in a black shirt with a death's head badge.


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:35

Rate this:

0 points

SadSpam has the intellect of a pea - no sorry that is an insult to peas. He is a sad vexatious little pisher. He left his brain chained to the Soviet Embassy some years ago.


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:38

Rate this:

0 points

Oh hello, it's the ZF's resident failure. King Midas in reverse, everything he touches turns to crap. Do you go to these demos and buycotts in order for them to fail?


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:38

Rate this:

0 points

Oh hello, it's the ZF's resident failure. King Midas in reverse, everything he touches turns to crap. Do you go to these demos and buycotts in order for them to fail?


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:48

Rate this:

0 points

Poor tspam, fell right into it! EVERYONE can see that his modus operandi is "if you can't get the ball, get the man!"

In this post, he couldn't refute ONE fact, so he resorted to personal insults.

Well, that's what we would expect of a pro-Arab NIF lackey - or should that be NIF gofer? Suggestions, anybody.

Again, tspam - you couldn't refute even ONE fact, so you resorted to personal insults. I hope all the NIF personnel are like that!


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:48

Rate this:

0 points

Poor tspam, fell right into it! EVERYONE can see that his modus operandi is "if you can't get the ball, get the man!"

In this post, he couldn't refute ONE fact, so he resorted to personal insults.

Well, that's what we would expect of a pro-Arab NIF lackey - or should that be NIF gofer? Suggestions, anybody.

Again, tspam - you couldn't refute even ONE fact, so you resorted to personal insults. I hope all the NIF personnel are like that!


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:51

Rate this:

0 points

That's what happens Avraham when you have the intellect of a sub-pea. Your brain cannot cope with rational arguments so it defaults into ad hominem insults. He also needs to change his medication and it is way past his bedtime.


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:55

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan, I agree with your diagnosis. But how can someone be so ignorant of how stupid he sounds with these childish tactics?


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:03

Rate this:

0 points

Poor tspam, so frustrated. He barely understands a serious post, manages to glean just enough to undertand that he has finally been truly identified as an NIF lackey/gofer, but lacks the intellectual capability of rebutting straightforward arguments as presented in the post.

Just look at how low he has sunk: instead of an objective rebuttal, he writes: "You's look good in a black shirt with a death's head badge." WOW!

Poor, poor, tspam.

But on the other hand, LUCKY US! - if that is the opposition!


mattpryor

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:06

Rate this:

0 points

Lol good way to lose the argument tsam!

Jonathan you are being racist towards peas, please show more consideration to vegetables' feelings.


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:06

Rate this:

0 points

tspam - the "cut 'n paster" - that's all he knows how to do, to write a post!

NIF lackey/gofer.


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:17

Rate this:

0 points

What argument, kiddies? You have no argument.
And when it comes to ad hominems, you are only getting back what you deserve. You stop them and everyone else will too. But like most bullies, you most because you like to think you can dish it out, but heaven forfend if someone stands up to you. You really are a pathetic bunch of low-lives.


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:20

Rate this:

0 points

And Avraham, I'd much rather be gainfully employed by someone like the NIF than be a shill for antisemites.
By the way, those death threats and wishes in the postings...I'm sure the Jewish division of the Shabak will be interested. And unlike Ayatollah Ovadia, they do take claims like this seriously.


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:21

Rate this:

0 points

Still didn't see any rebuttal of anything in this post. You make me very happy to know that that is the standard of NIF lackeys and gofers.

Jonathan got it right: sub-pea!


amber

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:41

Rate this:

0 points

tspam, you actively side with those who would do harm to Jews and Israel. Every single one of your posts is an attack on Israel or Jews, holding Jews to different standards to others.

You also spend your life on this blog.

You are a very sad man. Not that I feel sorry for you - I don't have sympathy for antisemitic scum like you.


amber

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:45

Rate this:

0 points

An excellent post Avraham. The Methodists should be ashamed of this evil policy.


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:47

Rate this:

0 points

What's to rebut? There's nothing to rebut unless you want to rehearse all the arguments re:the occupied territories and the colonies. You believe the territories are not occupied, I say they are because they were acquired through an act of war. Doesn't matter which kind of war.
The Balfour Declaration, 1917, recognised the Jews' right to a national homeland (whatever that is) in Palestine as long as it didn't affect the rights of the indigenous populationThe UN Partition Plan of 1947 stated that Western Palestine (that's the bit from the River to the Sea) will be divided into Jewish and a Palestinian Arab states. After a civil war, the Jews end up with 78% of the land while the Palestinians are left with 22%.
Fast forward to today, and despite the best efforts of the nationalist religious, the demographic map of Western Eretz Yisrael/Palestine is still largely the same as it was in 1948.
For pragamatic and Zionist reasons -- and the mainstream Zionist movement from Herzl and Hess, through Katznelson, Gordon and Ben-Gurion all the way to Alon, Rabin and even Sharon and Netanyahu has always been pragmatic -- Israel would be better served relinquishing control of the West Bank as soon as possible. This is simply because without this kind of pragmatism, Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish democratic state within 10 years. At the most.
Now, some Jews feel that as a dear friend, relative even, Israel must be told what it is doing wrong. You do not let dear friends and relatives embarrass themselves in public, do you? This is especially true since we are now being told by the Prime Minister of Israel, no less, that Israel is the state of the Jewish people and he will only sign a peace deal if the Palestinians recognise it as such. Fair enough.
So here we have some Jews who believe that one way of trying to help Israel not embarrass itself and to fufil its own high standards is to refuse to buy produce from settlements. It's a non-violent protest, but personally I think it is a waste of time since it's reminiscent of knee-jerk student politics.
There, now go and pray to the stones and kiss your pictures of Hagee and Robertson.


amber

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:49

Rate this:

1 point

tspam, why don't you kiss your pictures of Arafat, Bin Laden and Nasrallah? Good company for your Israel hating sorry self.

Idiot.


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:50

Rate this:

-2 points

Amber, it is quite obvious that you have lost the capacity to read along with any shred of humanity and humour.


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:50

Rate this:

-2 points

Amber, it is quite obvious that you have lost the capacity to read along with any shred of humanity and humour.


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:54

Rate this:

0 points

attaboy, NIF lackey/gofer; now start writing long, senseless posts here. As long as you are doing that, you can't be doing damage elsewhere. (Although I doubt if you can do serious damage anywhere - nobody takes you seriously).

What does Nick say about all this?


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:56

Rate this:

-1 points

Fantastic rebuttal, Avraham. Now, ne'ah doresh, ne'eh mekayem.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:56

Rate this:

1 point

Must be schizophrenia: tspam talking to Abraham. Emptiness to emptiness !


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:56

Rate this:

0 points

NIF lackey/gofer : so far just in this post alone, you have personally attacked Amber, Jonathan and myself. That is in fact everyone who posted here.

As if your attacks did anything to anyone - except to show that you have nothing else to say.

Why not admit you are a loser, and go to bed?


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:56

Rate this:

-1 points

Sorry, that should be na'eh doresh, na'eh makayem.


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:57

Rate this:

1 point

I'm off to see an episode of Foyle's War - a superb series!


telegramsam

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:59

Rate this:

-1 points

Come on, Avraham, you can do better then that. I gave you a full ad hominem-less post. Where's the rebuttal?


telegramsam

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:00

Rate this:

-1 points

Foyle's War. You surprise me with your good taste sometimes. Lasted longer than the war itself, mind.


telegramsam

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:02

Rate this:

-1 points

Sorry to be pedantic and all that (Yoni would approve), but I think it should be "if I were a Methodist...
Since you being a Methodist is an impossibility.


amber

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:04

Rate this:

1 point

tspam lectures about "humanity" as he endlessly and obsessively demonises his fellow Jews.

You are an antisemite tspam.


amber

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:05

Rate this:

1 point

i don't find antisemitism funny tspam. Glad you can be so cavalier with the lives of your fellow Jews.

Evil.


amber

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:06

Rate this:

0 points

Avraham, Foyle's War is indeed excellent. Saw it last night.


amber

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:07

Rate this:

2 points

tspam compares Ahava to the Soviet Union.

Imbecile.


raycook

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:28

Rate this:

1 point

Sam, you disingenuousness and blatant ignoring of historical facts to make a case do not help whatever cause you are following:

"The UN Partition Plan of 1947 stated that Western Palestine (that's the bit from the River to the Sea) will be divided into Jewish and a Palestinian Arab states. After a civil war, the Jews end up with 78% of the land while the Palestinians are left with 22%."

You omit the fact that Arab League rejected the Partition Plan which the Jews accepted and then attacked Israel to annihilate it. The Palestinians were not left with 22% because THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS.

The area that was not under Israeli control was under Jordanian and Egyptian control FOR 19 YEARS without a whiff of a Palestinian state being created because they were determined to destroy Israel which is why there was another war in 1967 which led not to the destruction of Israel but the loss of the territory occupied by Egypt and Jordan.

The Partition Plan was itself a betrayal of former agreements which would have given all the land West of the Jordan to a Jewish state and all the land to the East to an Arab one. That Arab state became Jordan.

If you were to argue more cogently for a 2-state solution instead of trying to make schoolyard points against individuals, you would have more respect on these blogs. You would still meet opposition but at least there would be a proper debate.


jose (not verified)

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 04:50

Rate this:

0 points

Instead of calling these people 'Palestinians', a term that corresponds to nothing, it would be more correct to call them Jordanians (a term created in the 1920s and not in the 1960s at least).
Of course, there are Jordanians from Jordan and also Jordanians from Judea-Samaria (the correct term for the area used for millenia, while "West Bank" is a Palestine Mandate time creation).

So the Jordanians have been waging a terror war for 40 years to get one half of one percent more land than they have already... It gives you an idea of their extremism and that of their Al Qaida friends. You can imagine that Spain is not safe and half of France as well (and why only half?).
And if we consider the efforts they make for America to accomodate with Sharia law, America is not safe either.


Avraham Reiss

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 06:23

Rate this:

0 points

Tspam, answer one, simple question: do you or do you not identify yourself with the aims of the New Israel Fund as stated in this post?

Are there any New Israel Fund aims with which you do not agree?


Avraham Reiss

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 06:28

Rate this:

0 points

While it is true that the residents of Judea/Samaria are ex-Jordanian, to present them as Jordanians today is misleading, since Jordan itself is not involved in any extreme activities, and did in fact rid itself of the J/S residents by leaving these areas in Israeli hands when signing the peace agreement with Israel.

There are a few names that can be applied to the residents of J/S, but why annoy the Moderator so early in the morning ...


Yoni1

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 08:24

Rate this:

1 point

Spam and 5%, the Dumb & Dumber of JC blogs. I'll leave it to others to decide which is which.


telegramsam

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 08:25

Rate this:

-2 points

Avraham, in answer to your two questions:
1. I am in favour of ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. If that's an aim of NIF, so be it. But it is also the aim of the Likud Prime Minister of Israel, the Israeli Labour Party and Kadima, three parties that make up about two-thirds of public opinion in Israel. I am against organised boycotts, however. That's just gimmick politics.
2. Apparently, just the one -- to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, for the sake of Israel's future.
And if that makes me an antisemite according to Amber, so be it.


Yoni1

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 08:30

Rate this:

1 point

"The Balfour Declaration, 1917, recognised the Jews' right to a national homeland (whatever that is) in Palestine as long as it didn't affect the rights of the indigenous population"

That is a lie, as per usual with spammo. How about quoting what it actually says?

In any even, the BD is not a legal document. It is an expression of British imperialist policy at the time. Jewish rights in Israel don't flow from the BD, but from 3000-year history.


Yoni1

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 08:30

Rate this:

2 points

"The Balfour Declaration, 1917, recognised the Jews' right to a national homeland (whatever that is) in Palestine as long as it didn't affect the rights of the indigenous population"

That is a lie, as per usual with spammo. How about quoting what it actually says?

In any even, the BD is not a legal document. It is an expression of British imperialist policy at the time. Jewish rights in Israel don't flow from the BD, but from 3000-year history.


Yoni1

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 08:33

Rate this:

2 points

Incidentally, the Methodist boycot is not 'anti-Israel': it's anti-Jews, it is firmly rooted in antisemitism.


telegramsam

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 08:33

Rate this:

-2 points

Yoni, for you, annything:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, 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."[


Yoni1

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:15

Rate this:

2 points

Which part of "civil and religious rights" (which you sneakily omitted first time round) is causing you difficulty, spam? I am sure we can find you a remedial teacher.
Civil and religious rights are NOT political rights.
Go away and try again, and come back when you have mastered the basics of rational historical argument (hint: it doesn't include deliberately misquoting your sources).


Yoni1

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:17

Rate this:

2 points

Oh, and "existing non-Jewish communities" is not 'indigenous population'. The Jews are as indigenous - indeed, more so than - anybody else.
Only an antisemite like you would distort the source to make it look as though the Jews weren't indigenous.


telegramsam

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:26

Rate this:

-2 points

Yoni, in the parlance of 1917, civil rights are political rights. It would be anachronistic to try and put our terminology on that of a different era. And existing non-Jewish communities were the indigenous population, since the Balfour Declaration spoke to setting up in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, the majority of whom -- then as now -- did not live there. So, they were not indigenous.


telegramsam

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:39

Rate this:

-1 points

Yoni, as an after thought, why do you think that Chaim Weizmann received from Balfour a commitment that "nothing shall be done to prejudice...the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"? Perhaps it was fear of a dual-loyalty backlash against Jews indigenous to other countries.


Yoni1

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:03

Rate this:

1 point

You don't really know what 'indigenous' means, do you? This is not about specific individuals who live in Kamchatka or Tierra del Fuego: it's about the Jewish nation. If you don't know that it's indigenous to Israel, you are even stupider than I realised. If you do know but are lying about it, you are an even viler antisemite than I realised.

"in the parlance of 1917, civil rights are political rights" - what utter bollocks. Civil rights are individual freedoms, e.g. religious freedom. They have nothing to do with establishing a polity, which should be clear to the meanest intelligence if he would apply a modicum of integrity (I appreciate that this must perforce exclude you).

A national home is mentioned only for Jews. It is not mentioned for anybody else. In such a carefully worded document, that means that no national rights were envisaged for anybody else. Kapish?


telegramsam

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:26

Rate this:

-2 points

I am afraid, Yoni, that you and I will have to disagree. As I have pointed out on the Unesco thread, a problem arises when two distinct and separate concepts, religion and nationhood, are mixed.
In simple terms, Israel was created for the Jews to return to their national home.
In theory, that is great, but in practice there is a problem inasmuch as there is another people there who also define themselves in national terms, whether we like it or not. In fact what adds to the problem is that they started to define themselves in national terms at much the same time as the Jews did, the mid- to late 19th century. Nationalism, as political idea, came to the fore in Europe towards the end of the 18th century. It's our bad luck, if you will, that the indigenous Arabs, the Palestinians, were because of their geographical position on a main trading route between Europe and the east influenced by the Europeans.
The Jews were also influenced by European thought because a large number lived in Europe (we know very little about the national thinking of the Jews of the Levant, South Arabia and North Africa, except that they saw in Eretz Yisrael a mythological land towards which they prayed and to which some of them went to be buried). Modern political Zionism, that of Hess and Herzl, was created as part of a Europe-wide national awakening.
Anyway, we are dealing with the here and now. And in the here and now, there are in Western Palestine/Eretz Yisrael two national groups in conflict. By and large, the demographic map of Western Palestine/Eretz Yisrael hasn't changed much since 1948. So is it not time to recognise reality and lance this boil once and for all, so the Jews get 78% of Western Palestine/Eretz Yisrael, while the Palestinians get the remaining 22%.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS