Why are some Methodists dishonest with themselves?

I was also active on that blog, and can verify that Adam1 has told it exactly as it was, and I concur entirely with his conclusions.

Fortunately, the Methodists themselves say that they are numbered in the 400k region, which is AFAIK a bit larger that the UK's Jewish community. So their influence isn't too much of a 'danger'.

But the hypocrisy - as Adam1 reported here - was really blatant, and without any sense of shame!

Ah, the Methodists in their Madness

(I've been wanting to use that for some time, LOL)

They claim that Palestinian Christians have told them about the conditions they have to suffer because of the Israelis, and have begged them to boycott Israeli settlements, but I have read that many Christians are being ethnically cleansed by Muslims from former majority Christian towns and cities such as Bethlehem. In Gaza they are a hunted endangered species. Where is the anger about that?

We often talk about how Jews have and still face persecution in Muslims countries, but spare a thought for other demoninations who are also subject to threat. Christians in Baghdad are leaving in droves. Where do we hear the Methodists complaining about that?

Why are they so selective? Anti-semitic? I always hesitate to accuse, but maybe they are but just don't realise it.

As Avraham implies, their posturing is more symbolic than effective.

Interesting to note that in Anthony Julius's new 800-page book "Trials of the Diaspora - A history of Anti-Semitism in England", the name "Methodist" does not appear at all in the extensive index. I looked, because the subject 1st came up just about when I got the book.

My impression is that a Dr. Stephen somebody relied on general apathy to pass a resolution which he personally wanted to be passed.

I know that in my shul, towards the end of a long AGM, a motion that the world is flat would be passed with a large majority.

We did meet some unpleasant people on their blog - one I remember was a Kim, and Richard himself is no great friend of Zion - but on the whole I think that apathy won out, and that our job is to point out how far astray it led them.

But as Adam1 so correctly pointed out, Richard's refusal to acknowledge irrefutable historical facts, says something about the man's opinion of Jews/Israel.

This is precisely the same method that the Stalinists use to infiltrate the trade unions. They rely on the mass of members being apathetic and they brook no dissent.

Support David Hallam who is fighting the likes of Ben White from within:

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2010/10/british-methodist-boycott-of-isr...

Those particular Methodists seem fixated on Israel, in a most unhealthy and suspect manner.
Thanks for exposing them, Adam.

A lot of people seem fixated on Israel, Yvetta, from the stone-worshippers, through the Israel-first and -only-crew, to the philosemites who place Jews qua Jews on a pedestal and believe that Jews should all act the same.

Red herring, m'lad - the question is why are these people fixated with doing Israel down? Why don't they try boycotting China or other nasty regimes - do they ever squawk about the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries?

Yvetta, whataboutery. It's the other side of the same coin.

As usual, it is just a small minority of vociferous nutters. The likes of Richard Hall, Kim Fabricius,Steven Hucklesby along with their hero and mentor Ben White who have all mis-used the platform of the Methodist Church to attack Israel - what has the politics of the Middle East to do with Methodism? You may well ask - in my opinion, nothing.

It is a shame after so many years of good relations with the Jewish Community that due to the actions of the vociferous minority that the Methodist Church has now sullied it's name amongst the Jewish Community.

What is true that many Methodists reject the report "Justice For Palestine and Israel" adopted by the Methodist Conference as "Policy" and David Hallam in particular must be commended for standing up to the blatant anti-semitism shown by the other members of the Methodist movement in trying to overturn the policy.

>> "This isn’t an honest debate."

That much we can agree on. I accept that you don't think much of the answers I've given and that I felt obliged to snip some comments. However, I'm sure you'd accept that this occurred after several days of toing-and-froing, during which I allowed every comment that was posted (and many of which were bordering on the abusive). I asked people to refrain from simply repeating what had already been said and from trying to make the thread about Ben White. Those who didn't, got edited. It's my blog. If you don't like the way I run it, you don't have to visit.

But the other bit of context that's relevant is that the terms it was conducted in were not always honest. There's at least one instance of a commenter pretending to another's identity (and I suspect more). When I raised it -- privately and politely by email -- I was ignored. When I posted it in a comment, again I was ignored. So perhaps my lack of patience had some excuse?

I end by simply repeating the facts about what happened at the Methodist Conference. The boycott was commended because it is the position of the Methodist Church that the Settlements are illegal under international law. That's a position shared with many others, including the British government. The boycott is only of the Settlements, and links with Israel were encouraged by the Conference resolutions. The Methodist Church has affirmed the right of Israel to exist in peace and security.

Richard, this isn't an honest debate because the hypocrisy of your position isn't honest. Selective boycotts aren't honest. And your refusal to engage in detailed discussion on any legal or historical matters isn't honest. The comments which you cut were not simply repeating the same old...you tried to direct the discussion your way. that's not honset. And you bent over backwards to protect the hater Ben White. Indeed, you claim to hold such a man in high regard - the same man who shares a platform with Azzam Tamimi. And you refuse still to answer whether you disagree with Ben White about a total boycott. That isn't honest either, Richard.

It's clear that you yourself feel that you were unable to answer the point about this double standard applied to Israel. That is why you had to go away fro a few days and, with another selective boycott supporter, come up with an "answer".

At least be honest with yourself.

It was the position of the Methodist Church that the settlements are illegal because Stephen Leah said so.
How was that for a deep and meaningful investigation?

What a shower!!!

I can't help but recall a book I read about 4 decades ago: Orwell's 1984.

As I remember, there was a national minute of HATE every day, during which a picture was broadcast on TV, of a man who was suposed to be the subject of that hate. His name was Goldstein.

Was Orwell by any chance a Methodist?

I did in fact laud Richard for publishing views to which he was opposed; intellectual integrity, I called it at the time.

But the very essence of the arguments I put forward there - very simple historical facts - Richard was not able to refute, and he ignored them with a generalization that 'history can be viewed in different ways'. That was not intellectual integrity. It was a refusal to face and revise a decision based on lies.

In Jewish law we have an axiom: "he who wants to lie will distance his evidence" - 'distance' meaning that he will distance himself from specifics upon which he can be pinned down, and will resort to generalizations (from which there is always some kind of escape-hatch.

The exchange was almost pointless, because the other 'side' was not open to honest re-evaluation of his arguments in the face of new evidence. I say almost pointless, because the Methodists are now aware that there's a new type of Jew on the block, and what Christianity did to us for 2K years, just doesn't wash any more, and we can give even better that we get.

If some Methodist tries in the future to propose yet another anti-Semitic decision, they are now aware that they should prepare in advance for image-damaging counter-attacks.

And next time, I suggest that we up the ante, some.

>> "The exchange was almost pointless, because the other 'side' was not open to honest re-evaluation of his arguments"

Whereas you came with a completely open mind and ready to be persuaded? Yeah, right.

I notice there's been no word about the deception involved in commenters taking false identities.

Adam, this is your turf and I'm not going to argue. I'd just like to note (one last time) that I wouldn't tell the story of our exchanges exactly as you do.

Avraham, was it just me, or were you making a threat at the end of your comment. Very nice.

Richard, anything but address the central issue - your selectivity and double standards when it comes to boycotts.

I had nothing to do with any deception, so I don't know why you raise it to me. The real deception is in your refusal to say why you disagreed with the history presented to you. You have done a good job at destroying Jewish Methodist relations, but then perhaps that was your intention.

I think Avraham is right, I don't think Jews should be kicked around without complaining about it. And perhaps we should boycott the Methodist Church.

Enjoy your hatred. it seems to give you sustenance. And rest assured, we haven't forgotten about this infamous decision.

Well, given that this post is in part about my integrity, I think deception in the comments is relevant. Since this is your first comment in this thread and your name has not been mentioned, I'm wondering why you should think this is directed at you? Seems a tad defensive?

Look, if we can't even agree on the facts of what happened in a mere blog thread that occurred only a few days ago, what chance is there of us being able to discuss a complex history about which we have already made up our minds?

I don't hate anybody and I wish you well.

Richard,

Given your summary of the conflict here...

http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=8978

...I don't think you view it as complex at all, but rather simple, which is why you and fellow Methodists have chosen to take sides in it with very little debate.