EAPPI and the Church of England: "Jewish Over-Lobbying" was to blame...!!!


By Jonathan Hoffman
July 11, 2012
Share

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-lobbying-with-the-church-of-england-...

"A few people said that all the lobbying from the Jewish side led us to vote the other way,” said the Rt. Revd. Nigel McCulloch, who is chair of the Council of Christians and Jews (CCJ), the UK’s oldest Jewish-Christian interfaith group. “There was over-lobbying by some members of the Jewish community. The CCJ actually warned against this, as we know how the Synod works and it’s not a good way to get things done.”

So let's get it straight..............:

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/69693/church-synod-vote-support-eappi-...

First the Synod rides roughshod over the concerns of Jews (though hardly overwhelmingly: 55% of the Bishops approved EAPPI and 58% of the Clergy and the Lay members). Moreover those who voted for EAPPI cannot be called to account because (to the best of my knowledge - I would welcome correction) no breakdown of the voting by name is published.

Did Rowan Williams vote for EAPPI for example? We will never know. He can hide behind anonymity it seems.

Second - just to twist the knife - we are told that some of the Synod members said (anonymously again of course) that they voted for EAPPI just to spite the Jews who wrote to them (incidentally how do they know which of the representations they received were from Jews? Have these clerics been taking lessons from Richard Ingrams?)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard...

"Naughty Jews - you tried too hard..."

Seems to be the same old story:

Jews Can't Win

The Synod members who supported EAPPI should be hanging their heads in shame. But of course they aren't.

And their actions place the Queen (the Head of the Church of England) in an impossible position with regard to the vast majority of her Jewish subjects who find the Synod decision repugnant.

Postscript #1:

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishFeatures/Article.aspx?id=277177

Rowan Williams abstained.

Postscript #2:

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/69840/board-cancels-meeting-archbishop...

Rowan Williams said “There are some people, in their uncritical assumption that the government of Israel can do no wrong, who are clearly going to be very irritated by information being disseminated of the kind that EAPPI does.”

Shame on him. This is the kind of moronic comment seen on 'Guardian:Comment is Free'. However he is ever silent about the main threat to Christians in the Middle East:

http://www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com/2006/12/a-challenge-to-dr-rowan-w...

He also said “Half an hour at Yad Vashem will persuade you, if you need persuading, why the state of Israel needs to exist securely. Half an hour at a check-point will persuade you, if you need persuading, that there are forms of security that are indefensible and unsustainable.”

Another appalling comment. Israel has the same right to exist securely as any other country. It does not depend on the Holocaust! And the checkpoints are there to stop suicide bombers - does Williams know nothing? And the juxtaposition of Holocaust and checkpoint references borders on the antisemitic.

Postscript #3:

Melanie Phillips is spot-on:

http://phillipsblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/07/the-synods-shame-.html

Jonathan Arkush's on-the-spot account of just how nasty the Synod debate was:

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/69849/jewish-stereotype...

Ruth Gledhill apoologises to JC readers on behalf of the Church of England:

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/69845/my-church%E2%80%9...

COMMENTS

J.Clifford

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 11:11

Rate this:

2 points

RRZ Could you tell me what the excuse was before 1967 when there were no territories occupied or not please? How about the infant state when Arab countries invaded in 1948 and the other wars following it was this because of brutal occupation? Then again 1929 Hebron where murder, rape, torture, mutilation to defenseless Jews when there was no Israel? Your position is clear it adopts the narrative of our enemies it's about time you and your fellow trolls study real subjugation and pray that you never experience it.


Goldie G. Tobin

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 11:12

Rate this:

-1 points

Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.


J.Clifford

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 11:16

Rate this:

1 point

No burst bubble it is on Facebook right now I have taken a screen shot and another little amnesia episode I've seen your facebook account I have seen your David Bowie photographs tut tut.


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 11:24

Rate this:

-2 points

Goodness " Janet " you are in a tizz.

Can we see this screen shot ? ( this is fun )


J.Clifford

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 12:26

Rate this:

1 point

COULDN'T MANAGE TO PASTE IT HERE BUT CUT AND PASTE HEREWITH.

Joe Millis At the end of the day, though, how big a deal is this really? After all, not too many people care what the synod says or does. What's CoE attendance nowadays? 3% and falling.

Joe Millis Im not dismissing. I think, however, things need to be kept in proportion.

TUT TUT NOT AMNESIA AT ALL YOU ARE A GREAT BIG NAUGHTY FIBBER AREN'T YOU JOEY?


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 12:44

Rate this:

-2 points

Thank you Janet 0))


AlistairClark

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 13:15

Rate this:

-2 points

Here's my input --- Israeli settlers have been bringing their supporters for a long time (fundamentalist Christians and of course like minded Jews) all there to keep up the pro occupation side. We also know for a fact that Israel sends in stone throwers to protests like bil'in as it was admitted in court by senior Israeli officials.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.It's possible to be like me and be pro Israel by being anti occupation.Israel needs our help by forcing its hand to withdraw from occupied territory's contrary to what the righty nutjobs think.Observers make it really hard for the extremists and the B.S-ing Hasbaraists .Israel is its own worst enemy and the wrongs need to be exposed for Israel to survive because Israel's extremists think they have the god given right to occupy and do what ever they like,it has to stop.


Harvey

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 13:25

Rate this:

2 points

Skovronek
People are not finding the reports ' scary ' as you put it .
They are finding them disingenuous in that they wholly fail to address the cause and effect of Israels actions on the West Bank . Historical context for the so called occupation has been effectively airbrushed out so that members of the Synod are led to believe that Israel suddenly decided to march into the West Bank and Gaza whereas no mention is made of the existential war promised by Nasser in the weeks leading up to June 67 .
The security fence is condemned as being a land grab when in reality it represented a last ditch desperate attempt by Israel to prevent the murder of its citizens by waves of brain washed Palestinian homicide bombers .
No Intifada no fence . Yes there are check points and movement across the West Bank is difficult but it was no always so . Again the Palestinian terror apparatus has a lot to answer for the hardship incurred to Palestinian civilians .
The Synod cannot address these points if they have no experience and little understanding of what life is like in Israel in particularly for those living in the South .
Perhaps the greatest concern should be reserved for the lack of condemnation of Palestinian brutality especially at the height of the second Intifada .
To my knowledge there were no synod missions to Jerusalem or tel aviv at that time
Perhaps it was just too damn dangerous for the parishioners !


happygoldfish

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 14:24

Rate this:

2 points

AlastairClark: We also know for a fact that Israel sends in stone throwers to protests like bil'in as it was admitted in court by senior Israeli officials.

that's not true

the evidence of the commander of the Israeli Prison Service's elite "Masada" unit (during the trial of mk mohammed barakeh) has been misquoted on numerous anti-israel websites, eg http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=483441

the commander did not admit that israel sent in stone throwers

he admitted that israel sent in (under his command) undercover soldiers, who as part of their cover (the genuine demonstrators were already throwing stones) did throw some stones "in the general direction" of idf soldiers …

ha'aretz 7/5/2012 "An enormous demonstration began, coming down from the village. It seemed that the army was losing control. Some 500 demonstrators came down and ignored the orders of the deputy battalion commander, who was in charge of the operation, and simply passed by him without blinking. The army forces swiftly lost their ability to effectively control the situation," the officer continued.
"At a certain stage the deputy battalion commander told me he had lost control and requested that we act to stop the demonstrators. We used equipment for dispersing demonstrations and managed to stop them. When the undercover unit reported, it identified 'quality' targets - that is substantial activists who led the demonstration, hurled stones and constituted a danger to the forces. I ordered the undercover forces to carry out arrests."


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 14:29

Rate this:

-2 points

AlastairClark: We also know for a fact that Israel sends in stone throwers to protests like bil'in as it was admitted in court by senior Israeli officials.

that's not true

he admitted that israel sent in (under his command) undercover soldiers, who as part of their cover (the genuine demonstrators were already throwing stones) did throw some stones "in the general direction" of idf soldiers …

BLINK


Advis3r

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 14:38

Rate this:

2 points

I see all the usual suspects are out in force.

Harvey personally I think you are wasting your time. The reasoned arguments you make have been rehearsed time and again.

Those who hate Israel do so with such a passion that they are blind both to reason and the truth which they denigrate by calling it "hasbara". Frankly we should not have to be on the defensive all the time and forever explaining why we take the action we do.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury does not know what effective security is and why that sometime means detaining people at a checkpoint however inconvenient that may be then maybe he should spend half an hour in a rehabilitation clinic for the child victims of Arab terror who are maimed for life and then perhaps maybe he will understand.


Advis3r

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 14:52

Rate this:

2 points

Being undercover is disguising one's own identity or using an assumed identity for the purposes of gaining the trust of an individual or organization to learn secret information or to gain the trust of targeted individuals in order to gain information or evidence. Traditionally it is a technique employed by law enforcement agencies around the world and a person who works in such a role is commonly referred to as an undercover agent. So blending in is what undercover agents do. However in Mr Clark's twisted world-view the Jews should not be allowed to do this.
Maybe he is not aware that in Britain they go even further see for example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-children-acti...


Advis3r

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 14:53

Rate this:

0 points

RRZ: Please tell us whose territory is it that Israel is purportedly occupying?


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 15:49

Rate this:

-1 points

Jose do you live in Israel ?


Chris Tucker (not verified)

Mon, 07/16/2012 - 09:57

Rate this:

-1 points

Another bad day at the BOD I see, Hoffman. This live streaming is brilliant.


Hannah

Mon, 07/16/2012 - 10:06

Rate this:

-2 points

I enjoyed it too. What a performance by the amazing Mr. Wineman, a man clearly focused on outcomes with no seeming interest in being the one who shouts the loudest or worthless point scoring.


Advis3r

Mon, 07/16/2012 - 11:17

Rate this:

0 points

RRZ: Please tell us whose territory is it that Israel is purportedly occupying?


Chris Tucker (not verified)

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 09:44

Rate this:

-2 points

http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/international-affairs/north-afr...

Once again Hoffman backs a loser. What a dope.

Who was it that authorised Ruth Gledhill to apologise ON BEHALF of the Church?


Mary in Brighton

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 16:51

Rate this:

-2 points

Give me a clue?


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 16:58

Rate this:

2 points

The only thing RRZ has a propensity for is getting threads closed down because he will insist on calling people Judeofacists. I gave him a link to a report that a someone who had been living in the UK since he was three was deported after being convicted for drugs dealing and he sounds off about facism. If a country obtains sovereignty over territory it has the right to grant citizenship. Jordan illegally claimed sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and granted the Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. When it lost that territory during the 1967 Six Day War after attacking Israel and gave up cliams to the territory it then withdrew citizenship from those Arabs living in Judea and Samaria. When Israel annexed Jerusalem it gave Arabs living in the part of Jerusalem illegally occupied by Jordan the right to Israeli citizenship. It is noteworthy that when in 2007 talks about the re-division of Jerusalem were on the table the number of Arabs living in east Jerusalem seeking Israeli citizenship soared obviously despite the libels put about by the trolls they would rather be living under Israel's liberal and democratic rule than anything else. See http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-reports-jump-in-jerusalem-arabs-seeki...

RRZ may get some perverse pleasure in calling me names but maybe once he should get the facts before making outrageous and untrue claims either about Israel or me.


happygoldfish

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 16:16

Rate this:

2 points

Chris Tucker: This is interesting:

once again chris tucker, for no apparent reason, is linking to a website (i won't link to it) which is deliberately run with the sole purpose of publishing lies and half-truths to disparage an invited jc.com blogger …

this time by trying to make a comparison with hitler


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 07/18/2012 - 16:52

Rate this:

-2 points

Happy disengenuity is you. That is a general treatise on demagogary. Hitler appears as just one example among many of a demagogue.You surely wouldn't deny Hitler was a demagogue.

When you say " it " you presumably mean me. But you don't have the courage to identify one example of a " lie" or " half truth" that you accuse me of.You are able to do this publicly ( here ) or privately. You are an intellectual coward.


happygoldfish

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 09:03

Rate this:

2 points

Real Real Zionist: That is a general treatise on demagogary. Hitler appears as just one example among many of a demagogue

that webpage clearly has no purpose other than as a comment on the only person the whole website is aimed at

hitler is prominently in the opening paragraph

hmm … chris tucker's post (immediately before my last one) has evidently been removed by the jc.com webmaster, and it looks as if chris himself has been either suspended or banned

rrz, i hope you will not attempt to link to that other website, nor encourage me to repeat its contents


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 09:16

Rate this:

-2 points

happygoldfish, that to which you refer is a serious and in my opinion, a brilliant account of demagogary and demagogues by Trish Roberts-Miller of the University of Texas.I particularly like the parts in which she shows how demagogues invariably are suffering from a severe personality disorder.

The opening paragraph was a quote from Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler. I think Hitler was mentioned once or twice subsequently in a very long essay in which many other people were referred to.In no sense is it " about Hitler" . To suggest that a " comparison is being made with Hitler..." is extreme disingenuity and might be regarded as a classic example of what Roberts-Miller is talking about.

I have realised that there are others around that are as lacking in discernment as you and might think, or more likely choose to regard, the essay as being about Hitler. I am therefore arranging for the opening paragraph to be taken out.

".........lies and half truths." I am assuming that is aimed at me, if not I apologise. But on the assumption it was, you persistently accuse me of lies and half truths yet equally persistently fail to produce one single example of either.I don't especially mind, I have been called worse by better people than you. On this point I am thinking of you, not myself. Your own sense of self respect ( if any ) surely requires that you either.....

a) Provide examples of what you claim, either publicly ( here ) or privately. Were you to do so publicly I would respond publicly. Were you to do so privately I would respond privately and any communications would remain private at least from my end.

or

b) quit making the claims

I am not averse to having inaccuracies pointed out. Quite a few minor inaccuracies have in fact been pointed out and the text has been revised accordingly.


Mary in Brighton

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 09:29

Rate this:

-2 points

Happy Goldfish ?


Advis3r

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 10:44

Rate this:

2 points

This is closely connected to the above, and it is one of the qualities of demogogues I find personally fascinating. The best way to explain it is that they live in a world of double standards—something that is wrong for the out-group is okay for them and the in-group, and something that is okay for them and the in-group is wrong for the out-group.

Thus, (to paraphrase) for instance, the same people who criticized Israel's intervention in Gaza claiming war crimes etc and bang on about an illusory "illegal occupation" are totally quiet when the Syrian regime committed war crimes against its own people or about the continued illegal occupation by Turkey of northern Cyprus or the illegal occupation by China of Tibet.

An exercise in double-standards that we have all come to recognise by the "Israel can do no right brigade" who insist on posting their demagoguery on this website.

Notice anything RRZ? Neatly defines you doesn't she?


zaheerayin

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 11:23

Rate this:

-2 points

Oh for goodness sake Advis3r....sit down.


Mary in Brighton

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 11:33

Rate this:

-2 points

The bit that I like the best is "the easiest way to restrict peoples' ability to criticise you is to make it dangerous to do so."

Eg by screaming "anti-Semites" at them?

Advis3r?


Advis3r

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 14:13

Rate this:

2 points

zaheerayin - after your exercise in demagoguery in gratuitously calling me a fascist or whatever you have little credibility. I note you did not do the honourable thing and apologize - why am I not surprised.

Mary if I ever called you an anti-Semite (which on the basis of what you post here - you probably are) I do not see that that has restricted your pathetic output on this website one jot - so what is your point?


Mary in Brighton

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 15:53

Rate this:

-2 points

Advis3r, my point is a simple one. There are some people that hang out around here that throw out "anti-Semite" at the drop of a bucket. It clearly is meant to be intimidating and indeed has that effect. You are one of those people. I was therefore interested in Trish Roberts-Miller's account of how it is meant to work. That is, debate is inhibited and kept polarised by making the expression of contrary opinions dangerous.

Now I know that no one ever died from being called an anti-Semite, but there are other dangers in addition to the danger of death eg emotional danger. I used to get very upset indeed at being called an anti-Semite, as I knew that that was the very last thing that was in my heart. I then decided that the very fact of my being upset was an inhibition of my personal freedom. I no longer get upset. I am extremely grateful to Roberts-Miller for clearly laying out how the process works, and the mendacious strategy of attributing to people attitudes and feelings that they don't own.

During the time that I have been reading these blogs, I have never ever seen anyone suggest that Israel should be destroyed or is in any way illegitimate. Yet, whenever the question of the occupation and its inherent ills are referred to, it always comes down to that person being a hater, anti-Semite, deligitimiser, or worse.

If the cap fits, Advis3r...


KatieCarslake

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 16:22

Rate this:

-2 points

Bravo, Mary!!!


happygoldfish

Thu, 07/19/2012 - 17:00

Rate this:

2 points

Mary in Brighton: During the time that I have been reading these blogs, I have never ever seen anyone suggest that Israel should be destroyed or is in any way illegitimate.

ohh!

so destruction and delegitimisation are the only anti-israeli motives that you regard as antisemitic?


Mary in Brighton

Fri, 07/20/2012 - 08:27

Rate this:

-2 points

Happy Goldfish

The motives I regard as anti Semitic are the motives that are antisemitic. Don't waste your time trying to bully me with your stupid emoticons. I find them for the most part very crass and very rude.


Advis3r

Fri, 07/20/2012 - 11:27

Rate this:

2 points

"Don't waste your time trying to bully me ..." as the pot said to the kettle.

Mary the malicious anarchist accusing Happy Goldfish of bullying - I have heard everything now.

The contemptible bullying thugs who harass and intimidate anyone, especially Jonathan Hoffman, who posts anything remotely supporting Israel now take on the role of victims - classic tactics.

Their posts consist solely of negativism and demagoguery. Now they pathetically claim they are the ones being intimidated because they are called what they are.

Well if you feel so insecure no one is forcing you to post your wretched and mendacious comments here.


Mary in Brighton

Fri, 07/20/2012 - 12:38

Rate this:

-1 points

blah blah blah


Advis3r

Fri, 07/20/2012 - 14:17

Rate this:

1 point

Incoherent mumbling as usual.


happygoldfish

Fri, 07/20/2012 - 15:00

Rate this:

2 points

Mary in Brighton: The motives I regard as anti Semitic are the motives that are antisemitic.

well that's clear!

but most people are happy to use the definition affirmed by the Interparliamentary Coalition for combating Antisemitism (http://www.antisem.org), see its Ottawa Protocol (november 2010) …

http://www.antisem.org/archive/ottawa-protocol-on-combating-antisemitism...
… Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour

  • Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong.
But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction – is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.

i hope that helps!

Mary in Brighton

Fri, 07/20/2012 - 15:57

Rate this:

-2 points

I don't need any help with the idea of antisemitism and if I did I wouldn't come to you. I own several dictionaries.


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 07/20/2012 - 16:03

Rate this:

-1 points

"but most people are happy to use the definition affirmed by the Interparliamentary Coalition for combating Antisemitism (http://www.antisem.org)"

Don't be so ridiculous. What percentage of people in the world have even heard of the ICCA or its Ottawa protocol?
0.0000000 per cent? Probably not that many.


happygoldfish

Mon, 07/23/2012 - 08:01

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: What percentage of people in the world have even heard of the ICCA or its Ottawa protocol?

rrz, i never said they do use it, i said they're happy to use it …

when they hear that members of parliaments from all over the world have considered and endorsed the definition (and when they see the definition itself), they think "how sensible, that's what i would have said if i thought about it", and they're happy to use it

aren't you?

mary's reluctance to use it is probably the reason why (according to her) she keeps being called anti-semitic

Mary in Brighton: I used to get very upset indeed at being called an anti-Semite, as I knew that that was the very last thing that was in my heart.

… when according to her dictionaries she isn't!

Real Real Zionist

Mon, 07/23/2012 - 09:09

Rate this:

0 points

"rrz, i never said they do use it, i said they're happy to use it"

You mean most people don't use it, indeed have never heard of it, but most people are happy to use it?

Do you want to have another go at that or are you happy with it as it stands ?


Mary in Brighton

Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:54

Rate this:

0 points

"when according to her dictionaries she isn't!"

Exactly. A very fair summing up.


zaheerayin

Mon, 07/23/2012 - 11:00

Rate this:

0 points

I know lots of people who have never heard of the damn thing but are happy to use it.


Mary in Brighton

Mon, 07/23/2012 - 11:40

Rate this:

0 points

lol


Advis3r

Mon, 07/23/2012 - 13:09

Rate this:

0 points

This is what exercises the trolls so much because it defines what they post as anti-Semitic (my emphasis added) and of course they would have you believe that they have not got a single antisemitic bone in their bodies:

The London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism - Preamble
We, Representatives of our respective Parliaments from across the world, convening in London for the founding Conference and Summit of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, draw the democratic world’s attention to the resurgence of antisemitism as a potent force in politics, international affairs and society.

We note the dramatic increase in recorded antisemitic hate crimes and attacks targeting Jewish persons and property, and Jewish religious, educational and communal institutions.

We are alarmed at the resurrection of the old language of prejudice and its modern manifestations in rhetoric and political action -against Jews, Jewish belief and practice and the State of Israel.

We are alarmed by Government-backed antisemitism in general, and state-backed genocidal antisemitism, in particular.

We, as Parliamentarians, affirm our commitment to a comprehensive programme of action to meet this challenge.

We call upon national governments, parliaments, international institutions, political and civic leaders, NGOs, and civil society to affirm democratic and human values, build societies based on respect and citizenship and combat any manifestations of antisemitism and discrimination.

We today in London resolve that;
Challenging Antisemitism
Parliamentarians shall expose, challenge, and isolate political actors who engage in hate against Jews and target the State of Israel as a Jewish collectivity;
Parliamentarians should speak out against antisemitism and discrimination directed against any minority, and guard against equivocation, hesitation and justification in the face of expressions of hatred;
Governments must challenge any foreign leader, politician or public figure who denies, denigrates or trivialises the Holocaust and must encourage civil society to be vigilant to this phenomenon and to openly condemn it;
Parliamentarians should campaign for their Government to uphold international commitments on combating antisemitism -including the OSCE Berlin Declaration and its eight main principles;
The UN should reaffirm its call for every member state to commit itself to the principles laid out in the Holocaust Remembrance initiative including specific and targeted policies to eradicate Holocaust denial and trivialisation;
Governments and the UN should resolve that never again will the institutions of the international community and the dialogue of nation states be abused to try to establish any legitimacy for antisemitism, including the singling out of Israel for discriminatory treatment in the international arena, and we will never witness – or be party to -another gathering like the United Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and other related Intolerances in Durban in 2001;
The OSCE should encourage its member states to fulfil their commitments under the 2004 Berlin Declaration and to fully utilise programmes to combat antisemitism including the Law Enforcement programme LEOP;
The European Union, inter-state institutions, multilateral fora and religious communities must make a concerted effort to combat antisemitism and lead their members to adopt proven and best practice methods of countering antisemitism;
Leaders of all religious faiths should be called upon to use all the means possible to combat antisemitism and all types of discriminatory hostilities among believers and society at large;
The EU Council of Ministers should convene a session on combating antisemitism relying on the outcomes of the London Conference on Combating Antisemitism and using the London Declaration as a basis.
Prohibitions
Governments should fully reaffirm and actively uphold the Genocide Convention, recognising that where there is incitement to genocide signatories automatically have an obligation to act. This may include sanctions against countries involved in or threatening to commit genocide, referral of the matter to the UN Security Council, or initiation of an interstate complaint at the International Court of Justice;
Parliamentarians should legislate effective Hate Crime legislation recognising “hate aggravated crimes” and, where consistent with local legal standards, “incitement to hatred” offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;
Governments that are signatories to the Hate Speech Protocol of the Council of Europe ‘Convention on Cybercrime’ (and the ‘Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems’) should enact domestic enabling legislation;
Identifying the threat
Parliamentarians should return to their legislature, Parliament or Assembly and establish inquiry scrutiny panels that are tasked with determining the existing nature and state of antisemitism in their countries and developing recommendations for government and civil society action;
Parliamentarians should engage with their governments in order to measure the effectiveness of existing policies and mechanisms in place and to recommend proven and best practice methods of countering antisemitism;
Governments should ensure they have publicly accessible incident reporting systems, and that statistics collected on antisemitism should be the subject of regular review and action by government and state prosecutors and that an adequate legislative framework is in place to tackle hate crime;
Governments must expand the use of the EUMC ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’ to inform policy of national and international organisations and as a basis for training material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies;
Police services should record allegations of hate crimes and incidents -including antisemitism -as routine part of reporting crimes;
The OSCE should work with member states to seek consistent data collection systems for antisemitism and hate crime.
Education, awareness and training
Governments should train Police, prosecutors and judges comprehensively. The training is essential if perpetrators of antisemitic hate crime are to be successfully apprehended, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. The OSCE’s Law enforcement Programme LEOP is a model initiative consisting of an international cadre of expert police officers training police in several countries;
Governments should develop teaching materials on the subjects of the Holocaust, racism, antisemitism and discrimination which are incorporated into the national school curriculum. All teaching materials ought to be based on values of comprehensiveness, inclusiveness, acceptance and respect and should be designed to assist students to recognise and counter antisemitism and all forms of hate speech;
The Council of Europe should act efficiently for the full implementation of its ‘Declaration and Programme for Education for Democratic Citizenship based on the Rights and Responsibilities of the Citizens’, adopted on 7 May 1999 in Budapest;
Governments should include a comprehensive training programme across the Criminal Justice System using programmes such as the LEOP programme;
Education Authorities should ensure that freedom of speech is upheld within the law and to protect students and staff from illegal antisemitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts.
Community Support
The Criminal Justice System should publicly notify local communities when antisemitic hate crimes are prosecuted by the courts to build community confidence in reporting and pursuing convictions through the Criminal Justice system;
Parliamentarians should engage with civil society institutions and leading NGOs to create partnerships that bring about change locally, domestically and globally, and support efforts that encourage Holocaust education, inter-religious dialogue and cultural exchange.
Media and the Internet
Governments should acknowledge the challenge and opportunity of the growing new forms of communication;
Media Regulatory Bodies should utilise the EUMC ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’ to inform media standards;
Governments should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the broadcast of antisemitic programmes on satellite television channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take action to prevent the transmission of antisemitic programmes;
The OSCE should seek ways to coordinate the response of member states to combat the use of the internet to promote incitement to hatred;
Law enforcement authorities should use domestic “hate crime”, “incitement to hatred” and other legislation as well as other means to mitigate and, where permissible, to prosecute “Hate on the Internet” where racist and antisemitic content is hosted, published and written;
An international task force of Internet specialists comprised of parliamentarians and experts should be established to create common metrics to measure antisemitism and other manifestations of hate online and to develop policy recommendations and practical instruments for Governments and international frameworks to tackle these problems.
Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism
...

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.