Methodist Vote: Joint Statement from Zionist Federation and Christian Friends of Israel

Very reasonable, firm but fair.

Jonathan, you say the Report "reeks of supercessionism", but in fact the theological part raises the issue of supercessionism only to point out - "not only but also" - two major flaws in the concept:

"For Christian theology, the validity of covenants established before the New Covenant established in and through Jesus Christ has always been an issue and still today we struggle with the writers of the New Testament on this subject. Particularly relevant for reflectionon Israel/Palestine is a theology of supersessionism, whereby some have believed that the Church has succeeded the Jewish people as the New Israel and inherited all the promises previously made by God. Not only would this view seem to invalidate completely any claim on the land by the Jewish community [Note by me: the Report affirms Israel's right to exist and so surely does recognise a claim by the Jewish community], but there is also a recognition that sometimes this doctrine has led to a perverse tradition within Christianity ofof anti-Judaism and possibly even anti-Semitism and has sometimes resulted in the charge of ‘Christ-killer’ being the justification for pogrom,murder, discrimination and Holocaust against the Jewish people throughout Europe. No post-Holocaust Christian theology can fail to deal with this ugly legacy especially given the foundational connection between the Shoah and the creation of the modern State of Israel." (3.4)

In contrast to this negative presentation of the concept of supercessionism, the Report refers with what comes over as approval to the idea of the Jews as a "paradigm nation", with a valid Covenant with God - ie dedicated to creating a society of justice and wisdom in the Holy Land that can be an example to the rest of humanity. Not one of the critics of the Reprot has referred to this paragraph, which contradicts the concept of supercessionism:

"In Rowan Williams’ paper, Holy Land and Holy People, given in 1994, reference is made to the idea of a paradigm nation, where the Biblical People of God are given a homeland in order to better facilitate the promotion of a community life defined by wisdom and justice.For Williams, the homeland is not an end in itself, but is seen as necessary for wisdom and justice to flourish. Thus, Israel's vocation as the paradigm nation, revealing to the rest of humanity how the divine will is to be fulfilled, can be pursued. This accords with Wesleyan understandings of land, namely that land can be no more than the space in which the vocation is practised. Given this understanding, the modern State of Israel, if it claims also to be the homeland for the ancient Jewish People of God, must take seriously this vocation as the paradigm nation where justice and wisdom are seen to be done." (3.12)

In other words, Israel is "singled out", but only because of the Christian belief that Israel has a special responsibility to act with justice and wisdom, as an example to the rest of humanity, and should be reminded of this responsibility - an idea about the role of the Jewish people in the Holy Land that is the basic theme of the Hebrew Bible.

Nicola Jones's comments are very contradictory - at first she seems to be referring to the "paradigm nation" when she talks about the Biblical injunction to be "a light unto the nations"...her later remarks could be seen as supercessionist, but surely her comments should be seen as part of the debate, where differing points of views are put forward, and not as the view of the Report as a whole, which, as I've just said, portrays supercessionism in a negative light.

best wishes,

Deborah

"In other words, Israel is "singled out", but only because of the Christian belief that Israel has a special responsibility to act with justice and wisdom, as an example to the rest of humanity, and should be reminded of this responsibility - an idea about the role of the Jewish people in the Holy Land that is the basic theme of the Hebrew Bible."

Israel acts with far more restraint and compassion than any other country in similar circumstances. Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the list goes on and on.

Singling out Israel when Israel leads the way in compassionate counter-terrorism is disgusting.

Another point: re your claim that the West Bank settlements are perfectly legal, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

"International intergovernmental organisations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, every major organ of the United Nations, the European Union and Canada have declared that the settlements are a violation of international law...."

Deborah

Deborah,

With regards to settlements I would ask once again why is Israel being singled out for these political attacks, which undermine the peace process and damage the Palestinian economy?

Given that the Israel-Arab conflict is such a sensitive and divisive one, why is the Methodist Church determined to pour oil on the fire?

Why are they undermining the efforts of the Israeli government and Salaam Fayaad, who are trying to boost the Palestinian economy through trade and business? Why are they trying to take us back 10 years?

Please could you tell me, if "Jews for Justice" are so keen to see progress with the peace process, why is your group not pressuring the Palestinian Authority to return to direct negotiations as the Israeli government has repeatedly called for?

By the way I am enjoying an Israeli couscous salad for my lunch, hopefully produced in a factory somewhere in Judea and Samaria.

Maccoby, you are a terrible hypocrite. I could name you dozens of countries which act illegally (unlike Israel) with abysmal human rights records (unlike Israel), yet the Methodists only have a problem with Israel, alone, of all nations on earth.

It is transparent antisemitism, and you should be ashamed for being so intellectually dishonest and morally flawed.

Maccoby, what about justice for Jews?

matt pryor, I deliberately seek out as much Israeli produce as I can when I shop, and especially from settlements, to undo the "work" of those who wish to see a Judenfrei Middle East.

It's worth it just to annoy the self haters.

Hope you had a good lunch!

Amber the couscous was delicious thanks! All the better for having come all the way from the Holy Land.

Deborah

The way the Report raises supersessionism and then dismisses it and then re-raises it is pure sophistry. Why raise it if you know you are going to dismiss it? And then why raise it again? It is similar to Tonge saying there shd be an Inquiry into body parts allegations in order to dismiss them. It is insidious.

And look what they say abt Zionism: "From time to time, the Methodist Conference has undertaken critical
study in order to determine whether certain beliefs are acceptably held by Methodist members. The two areas of Zionism and Christian Zionism require exploration."

What? They want an enquiry into whether it is heresy for Methodists to believe that Jews have a historic and cultural connection to the land of Israel?

It is completely appalling

Jonathan, could you point out where the issue of supersessionism is raised again? (Incidentally, we both spelled the word wrongly before and are now spelling it right, so that is something we have agreed on....) As far as I can see, the subject is only raised once, in the bit I have quoted, and is then dismissed - and on the point that it is dismissed, we agree again.

Re the sentence: "The two areas of Zionism and Christian Zionism require exploration", surely this means exploration of different aspects of Zionism to ascertain which aspects are acceptable to Methodists and which are not. An expansionist Zionism that believes in holding on to "Judea and Samaria" would evidently not be held by the writers of this Report to be acceptable to Methodists. Since the Report states that it affirms the right of the State of Israel to exist, it evidently does hold with some form of Zionism. And the bit about the "paradigm nation" supports the idea of a Jewish homeland, but insists that a homeland in the Holy Land for a people claiming to be heirs to "the ancient Jewish People of God" should be a place where justice and wisdom are practised - and a place where particular outrage is felt when justice and wisdom are manifestly absent; hence the "singling out". This surely accords with Jewish theology too.

best wishes,

Deborah

PS Re your question: "Why raise it if you know you are going to dismiss it?" I think the subject of supersessionism is raised because this is a part of Christian theology which is relevant to the subject of the State of Israel, but it is a part which the authors of the Report are evidently deeply unhappy about - and they want to make clear their unhappiness with it and their dismissal of it.

Deborah

One more point (for today), in connection with the alleged antisemitism of the Report: in the bit about Christian Zionism, the Report states: "It is certainly the case that the huge majority of the pro-Israel lobby in the US is made up of Christians..." - ie they don't see it as the "Jewish Lobby". The Board of Deputies' critique mentions the Report's reference to the "pro-Israel lobby" but leaves this point out.

Deborah

PS Correction: actually it wasn't the Board of Deputies who criticised the bit about the "pro-Israel lobby" in the US but this week's editorial in the JC!"

Deborah

Maccoby, you're still a hypocrite.

Maccoby, you yourself are part of a lobby, the Israel bashing lobby.

Maccoby, answer one question:

Why is Israel singled out?

Deborah, you ask where the doctrine of supersessionism is raised again. It is here: "It seems to conjure up a notion of favouritism, with an image of God dispossessing some peoples in order to grant
land to his chosen ones." That is a deliberate misunderstanding of the 'chosen people' phrase in the Bible, which is as much about responsibilities as it is about rights. Antisemites throughout the ages have wilfully misinterpreted the 'chosen people' phrase in this way.

Re the sentence: "The two areas of Zionism and Christian Zionism require exploration": the interpretation of Zionism as possibly meaning 'expansionist Zionism' is yours. "Expansion" plays no part in Zionism which is simply the historic move to establish a country with a Jewish framework in the area that has been inhabited continually by Jews for centuries.

Did you read the Board of Deputies' response? : (my emboldening)

In one of its most alarming passages, the report asks the Methodist Conference, “To determine whether certain beliefs are acceptably held by Methodist members. The two areas of Zionism and Christian Zionism require exploration” (3.15). Aside from the fact that this moves towards the dangerous area of dogmatic censorship of many highly respected Methodists, it should be noted that Conference has only previously agreed to a Standing Order with reference to the Freemasons and the British National Party. It is a grim coincidence that the Hamas Charter also links a mainstream Jewish belief with freemasonry and fascism. Whilst this report tends to caricature Zionism as the preserve of the zealots of the settlement movement, ‘Zionism’, as many ideologies, denotes a wide range of views. The majority of these are fully compatible with a two-state solution, and most Jews believe in some form or other of Zionism. This document, therefore, seriously considers theologically proscribing a belief held in one form or other by most Jews. This is one of the many reasons why this poorly considered report is likely to cause a serious schism for Methodist-Jewish relations.

Furthermore, in requesting the Faith and Order Committee to come up with a response to Zionism and Christian Zionism (Resolution 14/5), it asks for particular consideration of ‘covenant’ and ‘possession’, approaches which form the basis of the theological outlooks of extremists and fundamentalists in all three Abrahamic faiths. The report even asks whether the Church should consider raising the spectre of supersessionism (3.4), a theological approach that it acknowledges has led to some of the worst excesses of Christian antisemitism. Whilst the Methodist Church can play a constructive role in ending this conflict, adding another fundamentalism to the mix is completely the wrong contribution.

Regards Jonathan

"The huge majority of the pro-Israel lobby in the US is made up of Christians, many of whom interpret the apocalyptic writings in Scripture to mean that the modern State of Israel and its government must be held above criticism whatever policy is enacted."

... and what you take from this passage in the Report is that it's good that they are not mentioning the 'Jewish Lobby'! Come on .... that's not the point, Deborah.

The point is, that the authors wilfully fail to mention that there is widespread support for Israel in the US - just look at Congress. This crosses all divides - of religions or other.

(The JC editorial says "The report attacks the undue
influence of the "pro-Israel lobby" in the US". No it does not, as far as I can see.)

Regards Jonathan

Deborah,
You write:
" Israel is "singled out", but only because of the Christian belief that Israel has a special responsibility to act with justice and wisdom, as an example to the rest of humanity, and should be reminded of this responsibility - an idea about the role of the Jewish people in the Holy Land that is the basic theme of the Hebrew Bible."

Whatever the religious mumbo-jumbo underlying such an idea, one has to conclude that this only adds to the appalling double standards, held by many people in The West, with regard to the conflict in the Middle East. When one also considers the fraught nature of Judeo/Christain relations over the centuries, it also adds to the charge that much of the criticism against Israel is inherently anti-semitic.

"Holding Israel to higher standards" is classic Jewbaiting.

Jews are entitled to hope for high standards from Israel. Non-Jews are not entitled to expect higher standards from Israel than from other countries.

"the modern State of Israel, if it claims
also to be the homeland for the ancient Jewish People of God, must take seriously this vocation as the
paradigm nation where justice and wisdom are seen to be done."

This is pure Jewbaiting

Jonathan,
It is a charter for clever anti-semites who go to church.

"Clever"?
What's clever about it?
I prefer:-
A charter for anti-semites that go to church.

Jon,

I do take your point and I was in two minds whether to leave the "clever" in. However....

I think it is quite clever to say " I think that The Jews are the best thing since sliced motzah. Of course, they should behave like some sort of super dooper human that has never ever walked upon this planet."

Who can disagree?

Jonathan, you write, re the passage about favouritism:

"That is a deliberate misunderstanding of the 'chosen people' phrase in the Bible, which is as much about responsibilities as it is about rights. Antisemites throughout the ages have wilfully misinterpreted the 'chosen people' phrase in this way."

Surely the authors of the Report are pointing out here the distortion of the 'chosen people' concept that is apparent among Jewish settlers and their supporters, such as Christian Zionists - ie that the Jews are God's favourites and the whole land was given to them and not to the Palestinians. The "chosen people" concept, as you rightly say, is "as much about responsibilities as it is about rights". But that is precisely what the Report points out in the paragraph about the Rowan Williams paper. (Actually Nicola Jones also pointed this out, saying that rights involve responsibilities.) They are saying that Israel needs to take seriously its responsibilities as the heir to the "ancient Biblical People of God", ie the chosen people in this sense, not in the sense of being God's favourite who have the land by right and can dispossess others.

best wishes,

Deborah

PS Even if we ignore completely (which I think we shouldn't) Israel's responsibility as "the chosen people" (in the true sense), it should be pointed out that Israel claims to be a Western liberal style democracy and does indeed have many elements of democracy (fast being eroded by the growing fascism of the extreme right wing government). So its people are able to protest and demonstrate against their government's policies, but they don't, at least not in large numbers. This makes the people of Israel accountable in a way that the people of Burma or Iran - who are oppressed themselves under dictatorships - are not.

Deborah

Jonathan, re your query about my quotation from the JC editorial last Friday, here is the editorial (which I typed out for the Just Peace UK list). This is the sentence I was referring to (somewhere in the middle of the paragraph, sentence 9 I think):

"The report attacks the undue influence of the 'pro-Israel lobby' in the US."

Deborah

Methodist Shame

Official statements from the Board of Deputies are usually bland words, designed to smooth ruffled feathers and going out of their way not to offend. But its reaction to Wednesday’s decision by the Methodist Church to endorse a report demanding a boycott of goods from “illegal” West Bank settlements, an end to Israel’s occupation and the “siege of Gaza” was – quite rightly – suffused with anger and outrage. Condemning the church’s “crass….breathtaking insensitivity”, the Board says that the Methodist Church should “hang its head in shame, just as surely as it will cause the enemies of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines”. We can only concur. With their vote on Wednesday, the Methodists have, de facto, declared themselves to be in formal hostility to Jews. Speakers in the debate claimed that they “have no argument with the Jewish people” and that “there is no hint of antisemitism in what we have said” but such words are the purest sophistry. Both the debate and the report were a compendium of classic antisemitic tropes. One speaker complained that Jews had “lobbied so fiercely”. The report attacks the undue influence of the “pro-Israel lobby” in the US. And it describes a history of Zionism and Israel so deformed that it could almost have been written by the Hamas leadership. There is not a word of criticism of Hamas, Hizbollah or any group or nation other than Israel. As the Board puts it, the document is “full of basic historical inaccuracies, deliberate misrepresentations and distortions of Jewish theology and Israeli policy” For the Methodists to argue that endorsing as policy calumnies about the very basis of Israel and Jewish theology is not antisemitic is to display either dangerous ignorance or a duplicity which renders the church unfit for civilised discourse. The Methodists, it might be said, number only 330,000 people in the UK. Need we be so exercised? Worryingly, this seems to be a harbinger of further such actions. Where the Methodists have led, others – such as the Church of England – may soon follow. This decision cannot be ignored. We must prepare ourselves for similar, perhaps even worse, attacks – and fight back.

Jonathan, sorry - please ignore my previous post - I've just realised that you were querying the editorial's comment on the Report, not what I said....

Deborah

Maccoby, nothing excuses the singling out of Israel. Morality is not a sliding scale, applied differently to different people.

Your reference to "fascism" in Israel is disgusting, and betrays a failure of comprehension. Israel does not "claim" to be a Western democracy, it is. Not only are there free and afair elections, held at regular intervals, but there is a free press and an independent judiciary, all hallmarks of a true democracy.

These qualities are patently lacking in Israel's neighbours, and amongst the Palestinian authorities, whether Fatah or Hamas. These societies do indeed demonstrate fascism in action, with torture chambers, secret police, political prisoners, a lack of press freedom, cronysim and a total disregard for the rule of law as you would recognize it, human rights, and the practice of apartheid against women and ethnic minorities.

Yet this doesn't concern you, nor the Methodist church, whose silence on such matters is tantamount to complicity in the torture chambers of these nations. It is a complete disgrace, and that your despicable organization aligns itself with such blatant hypocrisy is nothing short of shameful.

Deborah wrote: "Even if we ignore completely (which I think we shouldn't) Israel's responsibility as "the chosen people" (in the true sense), it should be pointed out that Israel claims to be a Western liberal style democracy and does indeed have many elements of democracy (fast being eroded by the growing fascism of the extreme right wing government). So its people are able to protest and demonstrate against their government's policies, but they don't, at least not in large numbers. This makes the people of Israel accountable in a way that the people of Burma or Iran - who are oppressed themselves under dictatorships - are not."

Deborah I'm glad you've shared you views candidly.

Israel has a "responsibility" as the "chosen people"? No, Israel does not have any such responsibility. The State of Israel has a responsibility to protect its own people from murder and (as a liberal democracy) to do so in as compassionate a fashion as possible - just as any other country does. It doesn't always succeed in that lofty aim, but it tries as hard as any other country - the UK included.

The Israeli government is extreme, right wing, fascist? That you can make such a statement, using terminology that equates the Israeli government to the Nazis, beggars belief. Please cite examples of this. A speech, a law, ANYTHING which demonstrates that this is even remotely true. The current government of Israel is a centrist coalition, and Netanyahu is anything but extreme. Have you read any of his books? He understands the predicament that Israel is in far better than you do I suspect.

You say that the people in Israel are accountable - this sounds suspiciously like the arguments used by Islamists who use the same rationale to incite hatred and murder against Jews and infidel Muslims in Israel. Do you agree with them? Or do you just like copying their arguments?

How can you, as a Jew, think it is right that Jews should be barred from living in Judea and Samaria? And then cite international law as some sort of justification for such an immoral opinion?

How can you, as a Jew, think it is right that Jewish businesses in Judea and Samaria should be boycotted?

How can you betray your own people so viciously, systematically, and publicly?

How do you live with yourself Deborah?

mattpryor
In response to the "useful idiot" posting abouve, thank you for your excellent post and for your support.

Deborah,

I love your comments. They are so classic, and so anti-semitic, that they defy belief. The following is absolutely priceless, and I thank you for posting it:

"its people (Israel's) are able to protest and demonstrate against their government's policies, but they don't, at least not in large numbers. This makes the people of Israel accountable in a way that the people of Burma or Iran - who are oppressed themselves under dictatorships - are not."

Dear Matt,

Re undemocratic laws, look at this Comment is Free piece by Miri Weingarten, on the JfJfP website:

http://jfjfp.com/?p=14890

It is about three proposed laws which if passed would amount to loss of freedom of speech in Israel - one of them prohibits advocacy of boycott! Let's hope they are not passed but surely the very fact that they are proposed is deeply troubling.

I have actually read Netanyahu's book "A Place Among the Nations", and it did not strike me as the work of a moderate (though I suppose that, compared with Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli equivalent of Jorg Haider,he does seem moderate, but then that would be true of many people who, judged by most standards, are extremists). Netanyahu not only insists in this book that the entire West Bank belongs to Israel but believes that Jordan too should have been part of Israel and is very bitter against the British for taking it away. He compares the Arab demand for the West Bank to Hitler's demand for the Sudetenland. No doubt you would agree with him. You too have been candid about your views and you too do not strike me as a moderate. As a Jew, how can you think it is right to crush the legitimate national aspirations of another people by planting and expanding Israeli Jewish colonies that preclude the possibility of a viable Palestinian state and take vital resources, such as water, away from another people - all in defiance of international law?

Amber, I don't want to get into a slanging match - I have been trying to engage in dialogue here - but I do have to say that it seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy to call, for example, Israel's brutal and unnecessary onslaught against Gaza last year - which killed hundreds of civilians, including 300 children -"compassionate counter-terrorism".

best wishes,

Deborah

Amber, I've just realised that it was Matt, not you, who used the phrase "compassionate counter-terrorism" - though you probably agree with him.

Deborah

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/why-do-the-deluded-self-haters-and-anti-se...

DeborahMaccoby quoting Miri Weingarten there's an "authority" for you!

What is their fixation with the "Jewish Chronicle"?

Deborah,
You write: "I have been trying to engage in dialogue here".

So let's engage..

Where do you live? Have any people from a nearby town, been firing missiles into your garden? Or is your garden a missile-free zone?

Now if your house was under attack, what would you do? Would you phone the council?..

"Hello. This is Deborah Maccoby. I'm a Methodist and I go to church. But can you believe it?? Some people are trying to blow me up! Is there anything that you can do about it?"

The council replies:

"Mrs Maccoby. This is Mr Jones. Mr Brown from our envirionmantal department has transferred your call to me. Look... if its just the odd few missiles, I really wouldn't worry about it. After all, your ok, aren't you? You say that your shed has been hit but not your house?"

Dear Deborah.

Israel is a vibrant democracy with a PR system which means that Knesset members represent all political shades. Any MK can propose a bill. To use proposed bills which don't get passed as an example of the Israeli government being "right wing, fascist, extremist" is ridiculous.

The French and Belgians are currently in the process of restricting what clothing Muslim women can wear. The Swiss are discussing banning minarettes. Is Israel doing anything like this?

R.e. Netanyahu. Yes he does argue the case for Judea and Samaria being part of Israel, and he's entitled to his personal beliefs isn't he? I don't see that position as particularly extreme given Israel's history, strategic position and vulnerability to outside attack. The fact is that while in government he has advocated for an independent Palestinian state, he has called for direct negotiations repeatedly for the last 12 months, he has removed more checkpoints than any previous government, and has worked hard to encourage growth in the Palestinian economy. Again, how can this be described as extremist, right wing or fascist?

Compassionate counter-terrorism, by the way, means protecting ones civilians from terror attacks whilst taking all possible measures to avoid the loss of life of uninvolved civilians. Do you dispute that Israel did this during Operation Cast Lead? How would you compare the IDF's rules of conduct during that conflict to say that of the US in Fallujah or Sri Lanka against the LTTE? I'm sure you must have made a balanced, careful comparison before using such incendiary words as "brutal" to describe Britain's allies.

And thank you for the complement Deborah, but I'm not Jewish. When it comes to territorial negotiations I have no interest or opinion regarding who is right and who is wrong, but I do at least recognise that there are two peoples each with an apparently reasonable claim to the disputed land and it is up to them to come to an agreement. However it strikes me as profoundly unjust that the proposed Palestinian state must be Jew free, but that seems to be what the "international community" wants. Boycotts and divestment are a nasty, vindictive way of fanning the flames and encouraging yet more extremism.

One more question. why does your group not also put pressure on the Lebanese and Jordanian governments, who treat their Palestinian populations with appalling neglect? Why does your group concentrate on vilifying the State of Israel when the Israel and the Israeli public are already the subject of so much irrational hatred and ill intent around the world?

You strike me as a compassionate and caring person Deborah, but I think you are very misguided and your group's methods are damaging the peace process rather than helping it, increasing Israel's sense of isolation and danger, and weakening Israel and the West against our enemies.

Matt, good points, all of them.

Maccoby, you don't want a slinging match, you just wish to air your propaganda unhindered by the inconvenience of fact and reality.

It is you who is the hypocrite. You have refused time and again to respond to the points put to you - the hypocrisy of singling Israel out, the lack of criticism of the Palestinians in both Fatah and Hamas, the tyrannical neighbours, every one of which is a police state...your blindness and refusal to engage on these points demonstrates the shallowness of your selective "concerns". You clearly regard Israel's action to defend itself against genocidal enemy as "unnecessary". That's rich coming from someone living in North London. Live in Sderot for one year - one year Maccoby, then write that sentence again.

Shameful. Your treachery to fellow Jews in distress is disgusting.

...then again, history is littered with Jewish turncoats who wished to ingratiate themselves with the enemies of the Jews - it never turned out well for them.

amber,
Is Deborah Maccoby, Jewish turned Methodist?