Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Why does the Church of England hold Jews in contempt?

There was no appeal for reflection; no pause to consider the hurt which may be caused if the motion were passed, as there was over the Synod vote on women bishops. There was no apprehension; no consideration of how the Jewish minority might feel alienated or offended, as there was over black and Asian minorities over the Synod vote to proscribe the BNP.

No, without so much as a glance at the Psalmody, the General Synod of the Church of England has passed a motion endorsing the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), which is nothing but an insidious front for a pro-Palestinian campaign to propagate the partisan lie that, while Israel is besieged by child killers, infiltrated by suicide bombers, surrounded by Islamist propagandists and endures almost daily missiles launched at civilian areas, she is the aggressor, the terroriser, the occupying force.

The declared vision of the EAPPI is to bring ‘internationals to the West Bank to experience life under occupation’. Its mission is to ‘accompany Palestinians and Israelis in their non-violent actions and to carry out concerted advocacy efforts to end the occupation’. They ‘support acts of non-violent resistance’ in order to achieve this and, since Israel is the ‘occupying force’, it stands to reason that the EAPPI’s raison d’être is to criticise and delegitimise Israel, a country which contends daily with concerted efforts to wipe its people off the face of the earth.

The EAPPI creed is very simple: Palestinians are victims; Israelis are aggressors; Zionists are evil; the IDF are terrorists. It was spawned by the World Council of Churches which, over the years, has passed motions calling for ‘an international boycott of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories’; lauded Yassir Arafat as a hero for ‘bringing the Palestinian people together’; and called for ‘the right of return of Palestinian refugees’, despite this posing an existential threat to the Jewish homeland. The WCC unashamedly declares: ‘The EAPPI is a central element of the Ecumenical Campaign to End the Illegal Occupation of Palestine.’

Notably absent from their statements on the Middle is explicit condemnation of Palestinian incitement to hatred of Israel and Jews, much of it directed at Palestinian children. Neither is any blame for Palestinian suffering laid at the door of Palestinian leaders who have squandered $billions of aid on bribes and terrorism over decades. Nor do human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority, including the rights of Palestinian Christians, attract much WCC attention.

No, the EAPPI ascribes Palestinian misery to apartheid Israel alone, consistently turning a blind eye to Palestinian aggression, corruption, rejectionism and incitement (not to mention Islamism, homophobia, racism and the oppression of women). The EAPPI is blind to anti-Semitism and deaf to the numerous overtures to peace which have been offered. They are ignorant of Israel’s need for security, and oblivious to the fact that she alone in the entire region is a vibrant, tolerant, multiracial, multi-faith society.

Islamist persecution, widespread throughout the Middle East, is the primary cause of the haemorrhage of Christians from the region. Yet the Church of England myopically concerns itself with Israel. There was no Synod motion to discuss the human rights violations of North Korea, Iran or the Sudan.

Canon Andrew White, who knows a thing or two about the region, is a self-declared friend of Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Christians and Muslims. He called on the Synod to reject the motion calling for endorsement of EAPPI. He wrote a month ago:
The motion is unjust and has caused deep pain in the Jewish Community. It neglects the wars against Israel's very right to exist. It overlooks the persecution of Jews in the Middle East that preceded the establishment of the modern State of Israel. Israel-like all countries-is not perfect, but she sincerely wishes to find peace.
It is not clear why Synod is being asked to adopt a one sided "NAKBA" narrative against Israel while our fellow Christians are dying in Iraq, Sudan, Egypt and Syria. There are many wonderful peace-loving people in the Palestinian territories who are entangled in a conflict they do not endorse, but the culture of incitement against Jews and Christians as well as the continuing rocket bombardments on Sderot are factors that Synod is being asked to ignore or at best discount.
Yet the Synod ignored him, indifferent to the ‘deep pain’ caused to Jews the world over. In the final vote, the bishops voted 21 to 3 in favour (with 14 abstentions), clergy 89 to 21 (44 abstentions), and laity 91 to 30 (35 abstentions). In total, the motion received 201 votes, while only 54 members voted against.

The President of the Board of Deputies has issued a strongly-worded statement on behalf of British Jewry, condemning utterly the decision to adopt the motion. ‘The Jewish community does not need lessons from the Anglican Church in justice and peace, themes which originated in our tradition’, it concludes.

Imagine the remorse which would have been published the next day in the pages of the Guardian if such a statement had been made by Peter Tatchell on behalf of Britain’s gays. Imagine the sermons delivered by dissenting vicars, bishops and archbishops all over England if the Synod had ‘ridden roughshod over the very real and legitimate concerns’ of women or black and Asian sensitivities.

The Board of Deputies noted that the EAPPI has recently issued a publication, 'Chain Reaction', which calls on supporters to ‘stage sit-ins at Israeli Embassies, to hack government websites in order to promote its message and declares EAPPI's support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel’.

Vice President of the European Jewish Congress, Vivian Wineman added: ‘To hear the debate at Synod littered with references to “powerful lobbies”, the money expended by the Jewish community, “Jewish sounding names” and the actions of the community “bringing shame on the memory of victims of the Holocaust”, is deeply offensive and raises serious questions about the motivation of those behind this motion.’

A spokesman for the Israeli Embassy said: "We are deeply disappointed that General Synod has endorsed the work of a highly partisan organisation. Christians face rising persecution across the region and yet, by supporting this group, the Church of England has chosen to amplify one-sided voices and to single out Israel – the only country where Christian rights are enshrined and the Christian population is growing.

"We share the concerns of all those within the Church of England who opposed this resolution as being misguided and undermining hopes for genuine understanding and reconciliation."

So, there you have it. In today’s Church of England, the equal right of women to be bishops is worthy of serious reflection; the equal rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and the transgendered are to be respected; the equal rights of black, Asian and minority ethnic groups are to be advanced.

But sod the Jews. They can be ‘dismayed’, ‘completely dismissed’, and ‘ridden roughshod over’. Even after they have ‘suffered harassment and abuse at EAPPI meetings’ and have many ‘legitimate concerns’, the General Synod doesn’t give a damn.

As long as they’re happy about their progress on matters of gender and sexuality, and are secure in the eradication of BNP-sympathising vicars, Anglican-Jewish relations are of no consequence at all.

108 Comments:

Blogger Matthew Forkins said...

No mention of the Jews that support EAPPI and that were in support of the motion?

11 July 2012 at 09:29  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

The general synod seems almost indistinguishable from the party conference of the Socialist Workers Party. The CofE curses itself with these pronouncements - and worse still, it doesn't seem to know or care.

The church of Ichabod.

11 July 2012 at 09:29  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

And the fact that the Synod would ignore the wisdom & insight of someone like Canon White - a man who has earned the right to be heard by 'walking the talk' and risking his life for the gospel - and instead listen to armchair commentators & 'activists' says it all for me.

If there's anyone here who still pays their tithes into the CofE, or has their name on the electoral roll, then I'm afraid I consider you guilty by association.

11 July 2012 at 09:36  
Blogger Matthew Forkins said...

Oh dear... to think Palestinians deserve human rights makes you a member of the SWP? Really?

11 July 2012 at 09:37  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"Hurt and offence"? Does that good old British bulldog Cranmer now concern himself with "hurt and offence", like some lily-livered, namby-pamby, Guardian-reading, Liberal Democrat pinko? You really have been in coalition too long, Cranmer. Or is worrying about causing "hurt and offence" when the truth needs to be spoken only unmanly when the other guy does it?

11 July 2012 at 09:38  
Blogger Arkracer said...

Wow. A headline that misleading would be better placed in the Daily Mail. You could maybe make the case that they are 'holding in comtempt' Zionists, but not all Zionists are Jews, and not all Jews are Zionists.

Furthermore, the conflict is not nearly as one-dimensionally a case of 'good v evil' as you paint it here. Yes, there obviously are very bad things being done by terrorists and certain nations that surround Israel: but I am merely pointing out the obvious whe I say that Israel's approach to foreign policy is utterly psychotic. They are a bunch of paranoid gun nuts playing with American toys they shouldn't have.

11 July 2012 at 09:41  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Arkracer, you've said something which could be construed as critical of Israel; you know that it automatically follows that this means you're a vicious anti-Semite and worse than Hitler, don't you?

11 July 2012 at 09:48  
Blogger Joywol said...

The tragedy of this vote is that I do not believe for one minute that it reflects the views of the majority of practising Christians here in the UK.
Thank goodness for the voice of reason of people like Archbishop Cranmer and the Bishop of Manchester who base their views on reality, not biased bigotry. I doubt if many of the people who voted for this awful policy and support of the virulently anti Israel EAPPI have ever visited Israel and seen the reality of the mutual respect and tolerance that is so evident there. With the way Christians are treated in other parts of the Middle East and their holy places are defiled or destroyed it is time those who raised their hands against Israel in Synod saw the true picture and realised that Israel is the only true friend of christians in the Middle East. Hopefully as the implications of this misguided vote filter through there will be people who will stand up and be counted to try to get it rescinded

11 July 2012 at 10:13  
Blogger conchovor said...

'Furthermore, the conflict is not nearly as one-dimensionally a case of 'good v evil' as you paint it here. Yes, there obviously are very bad things being done by terrorists and certain nations that surround Israel: but I am merely pointing out the obvious whe I say that Israel's approach to foreign policy is utterly psychotic.'

Er,

a) I think Cranmer's point was that EAPPI's view of the conflict was one-dimensional i.e. Israeli Jews bad, Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians good and

b) you've kind of demonstrated his point by calling Israel's 'approach to foreign policy...utterly psychotic', as has

c) corrigan, by describing that as being merely 'critical of Israel', when, in fact, in constitutes the kind of demonizing of Israeli Jews' goals and intentions which certain sorts of Christians were happy to do for diaspora, and indeed ancient Judean, Jews, long before any modern state of Israel existed.

One thing I found odd about Rowan Williams' Yad Vashem-checkpoint quip is that it is not 70+ year old Nazi Germans Israel has to fear, but her neighbours, including Palestinian and other Arab Muslims and Christians who have resisted Jews living in Palestine/the land of Israel in above the tiny numbers historical imperial Christian and Islamic apartheid allowed or decreed, for most of the last 100 years or more: in the case of the P.L.O. until at least 1988; in the case of Hamas, until today.

It also disturbs me how many pro-Palestinian Christian activists conveniently forget what has actually been Christianity regarding Jews and the land for most of Christian history i.e. that the Jews are an ethno-national group that God the Father has ethnically cleansed as a punishment for their crucifying Jesus Christ God the Son. And yet they are happy to say that Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian dispossession entitles them to a right of return, but cannot bring themselves to say the same for Jews.

In my experience, pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian, but anti-Jewish, nationalist Christian activists tend to have blind spot to the crimes, sins and misdemeanours in their fellow Palestinian Arab Christians, and by nationalist extension, Muslims, which they happily see in the Jews concerned.

Which bespeaks a willingness to see evil in the Jews concerned which Arkracer has just demonstrated nicely (or horribly).

Such a tendency to relatively blacken the Jews concerned, while whitening the Christians and Muslims concerned, common among such activists, in my experience, suggests an unconscious tendency, I think, to view the conflict in terms of the Passion, though this time with Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians as a kind of Christ in national incarnation, Christ-like in essential innocence, if not virtue, crucified anew by the evil, alien 'Zionists' (again).

The conference title 'Christ at the Checkpoint' of course means, not 'the historical Jesus of Nazareth at the checkpoint', rather 'Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims at the Checkpoint'.

Great neo-Christian neo-antisemitic theology. Bad history.

And, worse, a form of pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian, but deeply anti-Jewish, nationalism, that dresses itself up as universal justice and +inter+nationalism.

i.e. hypocrisy

11 July 2012 at 10:34  
Blogger Atticus Finch said...

I should imagine most practicing Christians in the UK denounce both acts of Palestinian terrorism and excessive violence against civilians by the IDF. Isn't that the position taken by EAPPI?

11 July 2012 at 10:52  
Blogger conchovor said...

'They are a bunch of paranoid gun nuts playing with American toys they shouldn't have.'

If Israel weren't strong, Israel wouldn't exist.

You talk as if Palestinian and other Arab Muslims and Christians were only welcoming to Jews to live in Palestine so long as they weren't 'Zionist'.

In fact, they resisted Jews living there in above the tiny numbers imperial Christianity and Islam, to two apartheid regimes that ruled Palestine between them for most of the last 2000 years, allowed or decreed.

Remember that thing called Christianity, of the New Testament and Church Fathers? Which said Jews were exiled into captivity for rejecting Christ, and that was how they were to stay, at least until 'the times of the gentiles were fulfilled'?

I bet you don't think Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians were exiled for their sins. More like for Palestinian or Israeli Jews' sins! Heads they lose, tails you win!

Unsurprisingly, Palestinian Christians held to that very traditional belief, and, if you actually read the earliest Palestinian Arab Christian and Muslim nationalist literature, from the late 19th and early 20th century, that the Jews are a people dispossessed for their sins is an absolute assumption and given.

Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians successfully lobbied to ban all Jewish immigration into Palestine in 1882, all land sales to foreign Jews in 1892.

Which meant that the only way one could then settle in Palestine from thereon in was against the wishes of Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians, and with imperial protection, until such times as Palestinian Jews could defend or preserve themselves.

The Jewish state of Israel grew naturally from the Mandate Jewish community, the Yishuv, which organized itself as a de facto, proto-state, for its own defence and protection.

In 1947, the Palestinian Arab Muslim (and to an extent Christian) leadership was openly expulsionist or eliminationist towards Palestinian Jews.

That was the P.L.O. 1968 charter's position, which disqualified post 1917 Palestinian Jews from Palestinian citizenship, only effectively, if not actually, rescinded in 1988. It remains Hamas' position.

Israeli Jews have faced expulsionist or eliminationist hostility for over 100 years. And they regard the erasure of that history, the 'forgetting' of it, by such as you, as also a threat.

The 'Israel=apartheid state' brigade profess to insist on forgiveness and reconciliation.

Well, that is only possible if both parties are willing to remember. If you choose to forget or not to know the crimes, sins or misdemeanours of your own side, your profession to adhere to that principle is bogus.

11 July 2012 at 10:53  
Blogger conchovor said...

'I should imagine most practicing Christians in the UK denounce both acts of Palestinian terrorism and excessive violence against civilians by the IDF. Isn't that the position taken by EAPPI?'

Indeed.


Which is fine.

The problem is with issues over final status agreements and negotiations, the bottom line being that, by 1988, which is when the P.L.O. first agreed to the principle of partition, it was too late to go back to 1947 or 1967: all developments subsequent had to be negotiated, including the settlements and the Old City/East Jerusalem.

That was the purpose of Oslo-Camp David II; the Geneva Accord assumes Israel will keep some settlements, the Old City will be divided, in return for territory from Israel elsewhere.

The problem with EAPPI bods like Robert Traer, for instance, is that they push, essentially, a pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian, but anti-Jewish, nationalist line i.e. essentially of Palestine Crucified.

That ideology-theology finds it difficult to impossible to see the nuances necessary for a Geneva Accord type agreement: all settlements are illegitimate in its eyes, and have to go, Israel cannot retain any part of the Old City i.e. even the Jewish Quarter or Western Wall, Israel must grant full Palestinian ror.

With that attitude, no negotiated settlement is possible. And if the P.A., for instance, chooses to take unilateral steps to statehood, based on the exact 1967 lines, Israel will unilaterally annex the settlements.

Which will only lead to war.

That kind of uncompromising ideo-theology, of Palestine Crucified, is just as responsible for entrenching the conflict as any gun. And it works in lock-step with openly militant groups like Hamas.

11 July 2012 at 11:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Another peculiar issue for the General Synod to be addressing. No doubt the Holy Spirit guided them as the two thirds majority was achieved!

That said, Vice President of the European Jewish Congress, Vivian Wineman commented:

"To hear the debate at Synod littered with references to “powerful lobbies”, the money expended by the Jewish community, “Jewish sounding names” and the actions of the community “bringing shame on the memory of victims of the Holocaust”, is deeply offensive and raises serious questions about the motivation of those behind this motion."

Why is it that any criticism of Israeli actions automatically raises "serious questions" about the motives of those voicing it?

11 July 2012 at 11:12  
Blogger conchovor said...

EAPPI claims to seek a just solution.

What I don't see from EAPPI is this:

2 states, for 2 peoples, with 2 rights of return, division of Jerusalem, old and new, borders on the 67 lines, or with territorial swap.

I don't see a fundamental endorsement of Jewish national rights alongside Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian national rights, on which partition and international law was premised.

It is that absence that should be a cause for concern, as Canon Andrew White, who knows something about the region, has said.

11 July 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger conchovor said...

'Why is it that any criticism of Israeli actions automatically raises "serious questions" about the motives of those voicing it?'

'Any criticism'?

Frankly I think that only antisemites would say that 'any criticism' elicits such a response and only an antisemite would call Arkracer's characterising Israeli foreign policy as 'utterly psychotic' as mere 'criticism'.

The historical antisemite has always bigged up his opponent into a Goliath against which he is the courageous, taboo-breaking David.

11 July 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger conchovor said...

You don't have to bear guns or explosive to exacerbate a conflict. You don't have to wage war to be a warmonger. That is the fallacy of all too many 'peace' activists.

Prof. Norman Finkelstein said that the goals of PSC and the BDS movement are essentially, ultimately the end of Israel. The fact they profess to seek this 'peacefully' is ultimately irrelevant. They endorse a Palestinian position with which Israel cannot negotiate or compromise. And, taken to its logical conclusion, can only end in war.

Orwell said that a British pacifist in WWII was a de facto ally of the Nazis.

In a similar vein, if you seek out in Israeli Jews the crimes, sins and misdemeanours (be they racism, expulsionism or eliminationism, past or present) to which you are largely blind in Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians, you are no longer an impartial seeker after justice, you are a direct participant or partisan in a conflict. Your profession to 'peace- or justice-making' is rendered problematical, at best.

11 July 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger carmen et error said...

@conchonor

You are right that His Grace was trying to rebut the idea that it is simply a case of 'good V evil'. The problem is that all he really did was swap around the sides he was calling 'good' and 'evil'. It's obvious that both sides in that conflict are pretty deranged and it's very, very unwise to favour either of them.

11 July 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Corrigan1, Arkracer, Matthew Forkins et al ...

Nobody has argued that it is unreasonable to criticise Israel - as Canon White pointed out in his own statement.

What is unjust, prejudiced & down-right dishonest is to single Israel out as a pariah state. Of all the conflict in the world, of all the oppression, injustice, and occupation that is present in huge swathes of the middle-east and around the world (the vast majority of it inflicted upon Christians & Jews), guess which nation is singled out? Forget the fact that Jews really are being ethnically cleaned from many nations (particularly the "Palestinian Territories"); forget the fact that Israel gives the Palestinians more rights than most of their Arab neighbours do; forget the fact that Palestinians receive more aid per head than pretty much anyone else in the world; forget the oppression that the Arab leaders put their own people under; forget the injustices & corruption of the PA against their own people; forget the much larger & more horrific events happening in Africa or other parts of the Middle East.

No, the one state that must be singled out by Synod is Israel. The nation that is mercilessly provoked by it's neighbours; a nation the size of Wales - most of it arid dessert; the nation that is explicitly under threat of annihilation by it's sworn enemies.

Why this pre-occupation with Israel? Of all the people that should understand the spiritual and religio-political forces at work in this situation, surely the Church - with our shared spiritual ancestry - should.

11 July 2012 at 12:07  
Blogger Stuart Cunliffe said...

Well said, Archbishop Cranmer.

Well said, Joywol.

11 July 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger conchovor said...

'Why this pre-occupation with Israel? Of all the people that should understand the spiritual and religio-political forces at work in this situation, surely the Church - with our shared spiritual ancestry - should'

Well, Israel-Palestine is different because it is the Holy Land. It's not wrong for Anglo-Christians to feel a spiritual kinship with Palestinian Arab Christians, and a sense of empathy or compassion with or for them. One cannot fault EAPPI on those lines.

I accept I may have jumped the gun on EAPPI.

The trouble is when that sense of kinship and empathy becomes, as I said, pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian, but anti-Jewish, nationalism. Which can can only see the conflict as, essentially, Palestine Crucified, rather than as two national movements with very similar claims for the same land, necessitating partition and compromise, until such time as both could allow, for instance, two rights of return for both peoples to a single state.

And if I have misjudged EAPPI in this, I apologise. But, like I said, Christianity is not merely 'not doing evil', whether that be violence or inciting violence, it has also to be 'doing good'.

And 'doing good', in this instance, would be something like, acknowledging the essential symmetry between Jewish and Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian national claims.

That would be true 'peacemaking'. Seeking justice cannot be merely seeking justice for your own i.e. 'loving your own/philoi'.

I have yet to see that.

11 July 2012 at 12:18  
Blogger Kiwi said...

Well said Rebel Saint.

11 July 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger J.Clifford said...

Motions calling for ‘an international boycott of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories’ Firstly they are not illegal secondly they are disputed not occupied territories and thirdly boycotts. In Hitler’s Germany there were signs saying, “Kauft nicht beim Jude” (“Don’t buy in Jewish shops” - the Holocaust followed. In Poland Boycotts of Jewish businesses preceded the death of 98% of the Jewish population (approximately three million souls amongst them members of my family. So I make no apology for considering Synod's support of EAPPI viciously anti-Semitic bcause history and experience has shown me that it is.

11 July 2012 at 12:38  
Blogger Atticus Finch said...

No one has said do not buy all Israeli goods but have said do not buy produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Incredible use of Godwin there...

11 July 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger Stephen Foot said...

Your Grace,

One of the things that dismays me the most is that good people are entering a complex arena with the best of intentions but with no idea how damaging their efforts may be. The only outcome such one-sided engagement can have is to deepen and widen the conflict. The ensuing ruckus which will surely follow the Synod's decision will only prove my point. I can understand how the romance of getting involved in such work in the "Holy Land" draws Christians in, but it's just too easy to forget that most lay members of the Church of England are not actually stakeholders. Conflict Tourism is a better way to describe the work of EAPPI.

11 July 2012 at 12:43  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I support Rebel Saints post 12:07
I would like to add that the execution of Jesus was the result of the abrogation of responsibility and a travesty of justice committed by a non Jew,a Roman magistrate called Pontius Pilate.
To my knowledge no blame has ever been attributed to Rome or its descendants for this crime.However Jews have been scape goated and held entirely responsible as Christ killers.The time of the Gentiles has come with the Catholic Church making an apology to Jews.
There have been rotten apples in the barrel of Christianity over time but the barrel itself will always remain in tact.

11 July 2012 at 12:54  
Blogger conchovor said...

'No one has said do not buy all Israeli goods but have said do not buy produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Incredible use of Godwin there...'

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that provided you recognised that at least some Israeli settlements, primarily the suburbs of Jewish East Jerusalem, will become part of Israel as per the Geneva Accord.

But I doubt you do, which means you have no interest in a real peace agreement in the real world.

If you say the exact 1967 lines, and no other, that Israel cannot retain the Jewish Quarter or the Western Wall, never mind a full Palestinian right of return, you are as bad as a warmonger, since you are insisting on what Israel cannot accept. Your profession to peace or justice making is bogus.

11 July 2012 at 13:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Now, this is what happens when an organisation (…there will come a time when it is no longer worthy of being called a church, you know..) ‘reaches out’ to Islam in this country. All in ecumenical union you know. It stops car bombs outside of Lambeth palace, but only for now.

It’s called sticking your Christian nose into something that doesn’t concern you, CoE. You lose integrity, you are compromised, and you play directly into the Devils hands.

All this so an imam or two will be a happy to turn up to a Christian service in the UK.
When you break bread with these people, you feel obliged not to offend.

You damn fools…

11 July 2012 at 13:12  
Blogger conchovor said...

'No one has said do not buy all Israeli goods but have said do not buy produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Incredible use of Godwin there...'

That is precisely my point about a final status agreement: the settlements issue has to be negotiated. Some will go, some will remain. The clock cannot go back to 1967, since the P.L.O. only accepted the principle of partition in 1988, whereupon all developments subsequent to 1967 had to be negotiated.

I wonder, Atticus, whether you able to take such a nuanced view. If not, and you are typical of EAPPI, I rather fear you evince some of my concerns.

11 July 2012 at 13:12  
Blogger Matthew Forkins said...

I see nothing nuanced about a failure to recognised some territories are occupied illegally.

11 July 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger Atticus Finch said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 July 2012 at 13:21  
Blogger conchovor said...

If you insist on any kind of boycott, you have to say precisely to what end. 'Until international law is fulfilled' is meaningless, since there are many interpretation as to what international law means in this case.

If you say 'Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 lines', that is a non-starter, since it is not something Israel can do.

It took 10 years for Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to come up with the Geneva Accord. Olmert offered it to Abbas in 2008, but Abbas didn't reply. Now that Netanyahu is receiving Olmert back into government, I think Netanyahu is going to make a similar offer.

But if EAPPI insists on no settlements being allowed over the Green Line, then it precludes such an offer, and any kind of peace deal.

11 July 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger Matthew Forkins said...

Why can't Israel withdraw to the internationally agreed line? Can't or doesn't want to?

11 July 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger conchovor said...

'I see nothing nuanced about a failure to recognised some territories are occupied illegally.'

Because such a failure fails to recognise the circumstances of that occupation: when virtually all Israel's neighbours, including the Palestnian national movement, still threatened her ultimate end or destruction.

It was only occupying that territory that Israel was able to preclude those threats, and it is only by occupying said territory that Israel has been able to bring its enemies to any kind of recognition of and negotiations with her at all.


Also a time when the Old City was occupied by Jordan, and no Jew allowed access.

Yours is a very simplistic narrative Matthew: a Palestinian and Arab nation crucified by alien, Zionist interlopers.

In fact that Palestinian and Arab nation was far from Christ-like in its threats and attitude to Palestinian then Israeli Jews.

From the way you tell it, you'd think otherwise. That's what I mean by pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian, but anti-Jewish, nationalism, dressing itself up as something entirely other

i.e. hypocrisy.

11 July 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger conchovor said...

'Why can't Israel withdraw to the internationally agreed line? Can't or doesn't want to?'


a) it's not 'agreed': Res. 242 says that Israel only need withdraw in the context of a comprehensive regional peace agreement

b) the P.L.O. only gave up its war to extinguish Israel in 1988, not 1967. 20 years later, and 40 years after rejecting Res. 181 in 1947.

You can't fight international law for 40 years and expect the clock to go back to the last, best opportunity you missed.

The way you tell it, Matthew, you'd have to conclude that the P.L.O. and Arab states agreed to recognise Israel in return for the territory occupied.

They didn't, in the famous Three Noes of Cairo, in 1967.

Frankly, your ignorance is spectacular, albeit not uncommon, alas.

11 July 2012 at 13:34  
Blogger Matthew Forkins said...

Abuse eh? Nice...

11 July 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger Ariadne said...

The "internationally agreed line" is an armistice line from 1948. It was never intended as a border.
The "green line" was merely green ink on a map.

It is quite clear from Palestinian Authority speeches and sermons translated from Arabic that the Arabs claiming Israel's land don't want peace. They want Israel. Look at their maps.

11 July 2012 at 13:40  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

@ Conchovar above

Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians successfully lobbied to ban all Jewish immigration into Palestine in 1882, all land sales to foreign Jews in 1892.

Which meant that the only way one could then settle in Palestine from thereon in was against the wishes of Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians, and with imperial protection, until such times as Palestinian Jews could defend or preserve themselves


Did you actually read that passage before you posted it?

11 July 2012 at 13:45  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Matthew Forkins, Atticus Finch ...

Let us accept then - for the sake of argument - that certain minuscule pockets (for they are indeed minuscule) of land are "illegally occupied". My question still remains: why is it that people get so exorcised about this particular piece of injustice to the exclusion of all others? Where was the debate about the large scale injustices and human rights abuses going on in Sudan, in Syria, in Zimbabwe, in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia, in the Palestinian Territories, in Tibet, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in China, in Somalia, in North Korea, in ... well you get the picture? Where is the outcry about the systematic ethnic cleansing and/or oppression of Christians & Jews in many of these nations? Where are the calls for international boycotts, for blockades, and sanctions? Where are the 'educational' visits to these places; where are the 'peace convoys' & 'aid flotillas' to these regions?

There seems to be a large body of people who seem to think this conflict around Israel/Palestine began less than a century ago - or in 1947 to be precise. They are ignorant of the fact that this is a spiritual & ideological battle that started around 6,000 years ago. It has very little to do with land, and everything to do with who will submit to who (or is it whom?!).

The fact that secular politicians are ignorant of this is one thing, but that the Church of England Synod should take such an ignorant, narrow, political viewpoint is indefensible.

11 July 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger conchovor said...

'Abuse eh? Nice...'

OK, Matthew, I apologise for attributing to you ignorance. Care to get to grips with any of the substance of what I actually say?

'Did you actually read that passage before you posted it?'

Corrigan, yes. What's wrong with it?

Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians successfully lobbied the Ottoman centre to formally ban all Jewish immigration and land sales to foreign Jews in 1882 and 1892 respectively.

That's just just a fact.

Likewise it's just a fact that that meant that, if Jews then wanted to settle in the land, they had to do so against the wishes of the Arab Christian and Muslim majority, and under the protection of a greater i.e. an imperial power, until such time as Palestinian Jews could protect themselves.

What's wrong with that, or stating that? Is it incorrect in some way? If so, how? Please say.

11 July 2012 at 14:13  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

What makes the Israeli problem so special, Rebel Saint? The fact that the Israelis like to make it so personal, I think. With the Chinese, for instance, there's no pretence of being the great friend and ally of the west in our death struggle against those nasty Tibetans, is there? No, the Chinese just take what they want because they can, and they make no apologies for it. We know them for the barbarians they are, and they know how far they can push us; there's a kind of dark respect at work.

Unfortunately, the Israelis have no respect for anyone, even (and perhaps especially) their supporters in the west. In short, they insult my intelligence, and while I can forgive a lot, that's definitely offside.

11 July 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger Matthew Forkins said...

I know of few who are incensed by this issue to the exclusion of other human rights abuses.

11 July 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Conchovar, what's wrong with that passage is that you're saying that the will of the indiginous population of the country was to count for precisely nothing if it didn't accord with your wishes. It's ok to bulldoze them out of the way, presumably because they can just jump up on their camels and trot off to some other Arab country. I mean, that IS what you're saying, isn't it?

11 July 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger conchovor said...

'Unfortunately, the Israelis have no respect for anyone, even (and perhaps especially) their supporters in the west.'

in other words, Israeli Jews are mad and bad i.e. the old antisemitic trope about Judean and diaspora Jews transferred to Israeli Jews.

'Conchovar, what's wrong with that passage is that you're saying that the will of the indiginous population of the country was to count for precisely nothing if it didn't accord with your wishes.'


In which case, you're saying the wish for Jews to return to the land and live their in above the numbers traditional imperial Christian and Islamic apartheid allowed or decreed counted for precisely nothing.

'It's ok to bulldoze them out of the way, presumably because they can just jump up on their camels and trot off to some other Arab country.'

I think you are transposing the bull-dozing of homes in the West Bank which is a comparatively recent phenomenon, certainly post-1967, into the early 20th century, which is magical thinking.

Before 1948, most Jews settled in Palestine perfectly peacefully, buying land at some of the highest prices in the world. In the 1948-49 war, Palestinian/Israeli Jews certainly committed some acts of ethnic cleansing. But ethnic cleansing or worse was threatened, and periodically executed, against Palestinian then Israeli Jews, by Palestinian and other Arab Muslims and Christians, as early as 1929, when Jews were essentially driven out of Hebron; and from East Jerusalem in the 1930s, and certainly the Old City in 1948.

'I mean, that IS what you're saying, isn't it?'

No. I think that is what you're saying.

11 July 2012 at 14:29  
Blogger conchovor said...

'What makes the Israeli problem so special, Rebel Saint? The fact that the Israelis like to make it so personal, I think.'

I think you're projecting.

11 July 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger conchovor said...

'It's ok to bulldoze them out of the way, presumably because they can just jump up on their camels and trot off to some other Arab country.'

Even the P.L.O. 1968 charter banned Jews resident in Palestine after 'the Zionist invasion', which in contemporary Arabic discourse meant 1917, from becoming Palestinian citizens, which begged the question of what would happen to most Israeli Jews. That charter remained in force until 1988.

The Palestinian Arab national leadership was openly expulsionist towards most Palestinian Jews throughout the Mandate period, before and after Israel's birth.

You can't blame Palestinian Jews for making jolly sure their enemies didn't succeed. And, unfortunately, the record of Palestinian Arab Christians in this period, is more or less accord with their fellow Arab Muslims, in this regard.

11 July 2012 at 14:37  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

No, they didn't settle peacefully on land they bought. It was "bought" from the effendi class, who were supposed to be essentially holding the land in trust under the Ottoman Land Code for the use of the Palestinians who lived on it. What we are talking about is something akin to the Highland Clearances in Britain, when clan chiefs who were supposed to be looking after clan land betrayed their own people and sold them out. The Zionists then moved in and forced the "clansmen" out at the point of a gun, pretty much the same way the British Army did the Highlanders centuries before. There was absolutely no question of peaceful settlement in an empty land, because the land was not empty and the people who held the land under what the law calls "communal usufruct" (ie, collectively, as the Scottish clans did) did not want to leave. Read the history and stop patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself on your superior morality.

11 July 2012 at 15:00  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

By the way, Cressida, how did your trip go?

11 July 2012 at 15:02  
Blogger Jock de la Staffie said...

Another pogrom by the confused and emasculated CofE.

Oh well. Not such a big deal, really, because since 1948 we can defend ourselves. And we will. Hear that Corrigan et al? We will.

But thanks to YG, and all our dear Christian friends who do get it.

We will not depend on you - ever again - but you have no idea how much we love you for what you are doing.

11 July 2012 at 15:35  
Blogger Ariadne said...

There were laws in the Ottoman empire and one allowed landless peasants to acquire land they had cultivated after a period of some years.

The land then had to be registered and I believe that registration carried a fee. Those who did not register and pay up therefore did not acquire their own land. Such a system exists in some part of the East to this day but people make jolly certain that they register and pay up.

It is of course ignored by certain people that immigration of Muslim Arabs into the Holy Land vastly increased after Jews purchased, cleared and worked land for agriculture.

It is further ignored that numerous travellers wrote of the decrepitude and abandonment of the land under Ottoman rule.

11 July 2012 at 15:43  
Blogger conchovor said...

'No, they didn't settle peacefully on land they bought. It was "bought" from the effendi class, who were supposed to be essentially holding the land in trust under the Ottoman Land Code for the use of the Palestinians who lived on it.'

a) that is peaceful

b) most land bought didn't evict anyone. It was mostly part of land sometimes tilled by others, but rarely all of it.

c) I dispute the landowner was obliged to keep their/that land for the exclusive use of Arab Muslims or Christians.

In other circumstances, such as you call that apartheid.

'What we are talking about is something akin to the Highland Clearances in Britain, when clan chiefs who were supposed to be looking after clan land betrayed their own people and sold them out.'

Rubbish. No comparison. The numbers of those who suffered complete land loss were very few.

'The Zionists then moved in and forced the "clansmen" out at the point of a gun, pretty much the same way the British Army did the Highlanders centuries before.'

They defended their property against Arabs who often resorted to arms, yes.

Remember, under Ottoman rule, Jews had been forbidden to bear any arms in their defence until the Capitulations, least of all against Muslims.

Hence the Palestinian Arab Islamist-nationalist chant:

Filastin biladna, W'al Yahud kalabna: Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs.

Before the Capitulations, Jews could do nothing to protect themselves from Arab Muslim marauders or stone-throwers. Even to raise one's hand against the throwing of stones was liable to be interpreted as an intention to strike a Muslim, in Ottoman and Sharia law, a capital offence.

From an early period, one issue with which Palestinian Arab Islamists such as the Mufti of Jerusalem took issue, was allowing Jews to bear arms in their own defence.

'There was absolutely no question of peaceful settlement in an empty land, because the land was not empty'

a) most settlement was perfectly peaceful

b) since 1922, most of Palestine was closed to Jewish settlement. Even in West Palestine, the British put increasing strictures on where Jews could settle. But even the 1937 Peel Commission found that accusation of widespread Arab dispossession through land sales to Jews vastly exaggerated. And the British offered land in compensation in most cases.

'and the people who held the land under what the law calls "communal usufruct" (ie, collectively, as the Scottish clans did) did not want to leave.'

Usually they didn't have to. They had to till the rest of the land left to them.

'Read the history and stop patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself on your superior morality.'

I have and I don't. I suggest you take your own advice.

11 July 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger conchovor said...

'The Zionists then moved in and forced the "clansmen" out at the point of a gun, pretty much the same way the British Army did the Highlanders centuries before.'

Utter nonsense. You could by and large stop Zionist colonizing by refusing to sell to Jews. The British further restricted the area of land Jews could buy.

But the greatest stoppage to Jewish settlement of Palestine was when the British banned all Jewish immigration into what became Transjordan, over 70% of what was then Palestine.

Had they not done so, Jews could have settled throughout the region, the populations far more dispersed and interspersed, the area of land available for cultivation far more, the friction less, and the possibility of an equitable bi-national state far more likely.

As it was, most of what was then Palestine was utterly excluded to Jews.

11 July 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Ariadne said...

You have a tour de force of understanding here, Your Grace.

How often are Jews granted feelings not only for themselves but for the country they live in?

It really is reminiscent of those so-assimilated German Jews before Hitler's rise to power. No one was more part of Germany, they thought. Some converted to Christianity to be accepted.

After the length of time Jews have lived here, thanks to the CofE they now know that they are lesser beings than some groups you mention - to the Established Church.

I was very pleased to see that Ruth Gledhill was despairing concerning these utterly despicable votes but thanks also to the horrible antisemitism in this country Jews here are not so surprised at all.

And to be thought 'uppity'? We all know where that concept comes from.

11 July 2012 at 16:18  
Blogger Thermblog said...

Matthew Forkin: No mention of the Jews that support EAPPI and that were in support of the motion?

Fair enough. In fact most attacks on Israel make use of data that comes from Jewish sources. If this makes them extra believable then we must also examine the evidence of Arabs and Muslims that support Israel. We will notice that this is rarer despite their superior numbers and that the individuals are usually under dire threat. We have to conclude that within the “Judeosphere,” dissent of any kind is permissible but the opposite is true on the other side; ergo the Arab / Muslim dissenter opinions have to carry the most weight.

11 July 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger IanCad said...

Cressida @ 12:54.

You wrote, in reference to Pilate;

"To my knowledge no blame has ever been attributed to Rome or its descendants for this crime."

If you are implying that the blame for Our Saviour's death lies chiefly at the hand of The Prefect of Judea then you are denying not only Biblical prophecy but also the fulfillment of it.
Isaiah 53:1-4 and Psalm 118:22,23 both predict Christ's death at the hands of his own. A reading of the latter chapters of the synoptic gospels attest to the consummation of these prophecies.
Pilate, (I'm not denying his weakness) gave Israel a choice. They chose Barabbas. Perhaps therein lies the sternest biblical teaching against the perils of democracy.

11 July 2012 at 16:34  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you yet again, Your Grace and all brave and good Christian friends out there. Don't be dismayed; your thoughts, your anger and your words do matter; the Synod's resolution doesn't.

Really. Take it from someone who's seen a near-unanimous international condemnation of Israel from all sectors of societies right at a time while Jews were being shot down, torn apart, beheaded, blown up in buses, at clubs, family celebrations and schools. Those were tough times, we were scared and while we knew that the truth would win out in the end, some of us worried about whether we could last out. And Israel did and the Disapora did, because we've got no choice.

This event encouraging because the obvious need to rush-through the vote, the secretiveness, lack of debate, and high number of vote abstentions confirm an obvious trend: The recession of political antisemitism, tarted up as "anti-Zionism," in democratic nations and among people who matter. Look at my country Canada, where such farces are now routinely condemned by the public and all the federal parties. Here too the puppets who live in their own echo-chamber mis-timed their "message" and eventually got pummelled.

What is astounding to me is that the C of E Synod forgot that this is not the 1990s when they could depend on having such lies be unanimously underwritten by a compliant media and passively accepted by an uninformed public. Observe how all the happy hooting and hollering now only comes from the shrinking unsavoury sectors; the Islamists, the fascists, the handful of self-hating Jewish poltroons, third-rate academics, the old and new antisemites, the lunatic fringe and the plainly stupid. They were all there before, but now that's all there is and it shows...and reeks. That matters too.

Shalom and cheers!

11 July 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger Nortal said...

A few days ago, I had e-mailed the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, expressing my views regarding the EAPPI motion. I got some sort of standard reply from his Secretary for Public Affairs. I now sent her the following message:

“Dear Ms. Brock,
Thank you for your reply.
I have meanwhile learnt the results of the debate on the “private members’ motion” regarding EAPPI. I had also the opportunity to get a much better understanding of the the Archibishop’s own views from his contributions to the debate — and especially from the following “inspired” passage:

QUOTE
Half an hour at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial, will persuade you, if you need persuading, why the state of Israel needs to exist securely. Half an hour at a checkpoint will persuade you, if you need persuading, that there are forms of security which are indefensible and unsustainable.
UNQUOTE

Incidentally, every member of my maternal grandmother’s family (parents, grandparents, siblings) has been gassed at Auschwitz — she was the only one who survived. As for myself, I am an ex-IDF soldier who has served at numerous checkpoints during the “intifada”.

So please convey to the good archbishop my heartfelt thanks for his kind juxtaposition of these two comparable evils: being “exterminated” in a Nazi concentration camp and being made to wait at an Israeli checkpoint. I would also like to assure him of my deep gratitude (and that of the vast majority of the Jewish people) — I am sure we all appreciate very much his suggestion that our right to live securely in our ancestral homeland arises from the fact that our relatives were butchered in the Holocaust.

It takes a truly good clergyman to exhibit such wonderful sensitivity towards human suffering and such flawless sense of justice. Indeed, I am sure that the good archbishop would also appreciate an equally valid remark by the Chief Rabbi of Israel comparing the recent Synod with the Wansee Conference.

Please convey the Archbishop my best wishes, in the same spirit of inter-faith understanding.”

If anyone else wishes to send the Archbishop his views re his insensitive & revolting statement, the man’s e-mail address is contact@lambethpalace.org.uk .

11 July 2012 at 16:40  
Blogger Jesuestomihi said...

Stupid, foolish, naive and shamefull. Look around. The time of the gentiles is ending and the Church of England is now doomed to living under a curse.
Decline and irrelevance are to be expected. How sad.

11 July 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I am implying that Pilate is complicit in the death of Jesus without suffering any consequence.
It is unarguable.

Anyone who has an understanding of mob hysteria even without a psychology degree could have easily predicted that the Jews would have chosen Barrabas as would have the Persians Syrians or Greeks in the same situation. It is a text book human behavioural response in this type of situation. It is biblical teaching against the cowardice and basic
primeval instinct of the herd which alligns itself with the perceived strength at the time.

I question and do not accept some of the OT. Firstly the Jewish translations and the Christian translations of the same material are often very different.Any linguist will tell you that translations are a minefield for error ... it is very subjective. HG wrote a brilliant article on it some time back.

Ian I do not subscribe to a Christian faith which requires blind acceptance, where one does not continually question and places one's brain into a holding pattern.

11 July 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Corrigan you promised me a grovelling apology for maligning me by accusing me of being Avi Barzel's sock puppet...and you Catholic boys wonder why we end up with Anglicans and Jews.

I am still en route and will reach my final destination on Friday evening. I am having a road journey adventure and I must say until I met Avi just recently I have never paid much attention to truck drivers before...it is amaz ing to see a number of them reading Dostoevsky and the Talmud at the truck stops:)

11 July 2012 at 17:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida. The Inspector has nothing but the deepest sympathy with Pilate. What did this man do to deserve the worst posting in the Roman empire. He was know to be a ruthless type, so in many ways he was the ideal candidate for the job.

He found it convenient to put to death a man the Pharisees wanted rid of. He did it because there would be less strife in the city. How many of us on this site, if placed in the same situation as him, would not have done the same…

11 July 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Cressida, come to think of it, it wouldn't be so bad if you were my sock puppet? I do all the work; you get all the fame while gallivanting about the countryside discussing the laws of the jubilee year and Russian clinical depression with my truck-driving brethren.

But I think Corrigan, in one of his meltdowns, thought that I'm you under a false IP...as in I am you and you are me and we are all together, or something like that. Sounds nuts, but sure beats screaming at the snakes on his wall.

Btw, if you're going to be cavorting with Jews and serve as my sock-puppet, we have to have some ground rules. You can't drive on the Sabbath eve and no more beans and bacon, please.

11 July 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

There are a couple of aspects of this action by the CoE that should be explored.

1. Israel represents western civilization, and so liberals hold it to a different standard. There is a fair degree of soft bigotry in this attitude because it amounts to "Well, we can't expect Arabs to behave like civilized western people, now can we. But the Israelis should know better." It's almost as if the Israelis have been assigned the 'adult' role in the conflict and are expected to make concessions because that is what adults do.

2. Liberals tend to see relative differences in strength as the cause of conflict. The Israelis are strong relative to the Palestinains, and so the Israelis are assigned blame. The proposed liberal solution is for the Israelis to voluntarily assume a position of weakness. This will eliminate the threat felt by Palestinians and [insert waving magic wand here] the whole conflict goes away. In essense, they presume that co-existence is the natural state of man, and that relative inequality in strength is the distabilzing factor that makes co-existence impossible.

Liberals don't live in the real world, of course. That's why they are liberals.

carl

11 July 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

An obvious, but rarely articulated point, Carl. Methinks our liberals would be shocked at the source of their differential treatment of the two parties: The Noble Savage, White Man's Burden soft racism that underneath all the lofty declarations permeates the liberal classes in their two-car all-white neighbourhoods with their "good" schools.

11 July 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps. Can’t let a discussion about what it is to be liberal happen without pointing out a blinding weakness of them. Because of the way they are, they hold no fast tenets of belief. Be it system, or religion. Theirs is one big compromise. Our current ++Canterbury is an excellent example. You really can’t take anything a liberal says literally, because, when the wind blows from the opposite direction, he’ll lean with it.

So ,when certain Islamists say they want to capture Israel and put the Jews to death, the liberal can’t find it in himself to believe this is exactly what he’s going to do. To the word. Simply inconceivable to the liberal mind, in his cosy liberal house, surrounded by his cosy liberal possessions…

11 July 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger Telemaque said...

"Oh dear... to think Palestinians deserve human rights makes you a member of the SWP? Really?
"

Oh dear... to think Jews deserve human rights makes you a Likudnick? Really?

Way to dodge, sir.

11 July 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...

"Observe how all the happy hooting and hollering now only comes from the shrinking unsavoury sectors; the Islamists, the fascists, the handful of self-hating Jewish poltroons, third-rate academics, the old and new antisemites, the lunatic fringe and the plainly stupid."

Sir, you are talking about the General Synod, show some respect. Aferall, the Church of England is supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit. Same with the choice of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Some interesting comments above and plenty of food for thought. However, I still maintain that being critical of Israel's history and current political responses is not tantamount to antisemitism.

11 July 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger Alissa1989 said...

Thank you, Your Grace. I agree with you entirely.

11 July 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh, blow it out your ear with your posturing, Dodo, as if you've ever shown anything but contempt for Anglicans and Protestants. Synods, like rabbinic and other religious councils get challenged and replaced when their decisions dissatisfy. You know that.

As for your "I still maintain that being critical of Israel's history and current political responses is not tantamount to antisemitism," find another orifice to blow this pompous posture from, Dodo. I covered this topic with you only yesterday or the day before when I opined that most of the criticism is biased and selective is usually expressed by uninformed people who utilize standard antisemitic accusations because they don't know any better. You, on the other hand, know better, because you play silly-buggers with me at every Israel post. Have some integrity; anyone can look at older posts and see what a slippery tool you are in a discussion.

11 July 2012 at 20:03  
Blogger peter roberts said...

Spot on, Cranmer. There's little real interest in the real welfare of Palestinian children or their future, amongst their own leadership or their so called advocacy groups, as a little time browsing Palestinian Media Watch very amply demonstrates.

11 July 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi
The General Synod? Do they not 'do' irony in Canada? It's a very Jewish thing too, so I'm surprised at you.

As for the rest of your post, man up for goodness sake!

"I covered this topic with you only yesterday or the day before when I opined ..."

Yes, master and I disagreed then and do now.

" ... that most of the criticism is biased and selective is usually expressed by uninformed people who utilize standard antisemitic accusations because they don't know any better."

That's a sweeping statement and something of a generalisation, possibly even a prejudice, dare one opinion?

"You, on the other hand, know better, because you play silly-buggers with me at every Israel post."

So, I'm a knowing antisemite, am I? Because I question you about your religious traditions and current Iraeli politics?

"Have some integrity; anyone can look at older posts and see what a slippery tool you are in a discussion."

Would that be a roundhead or a cavalier?

A dishonest and knowing antisemite! The worst sort
Frankly, I'm not sure what my actual position is on the Middle East today. Am I not permitted to explore this on a blog? Surely, that's part of what they're for.

One thing I'm learning from this blog it is that when accusations are thrown at Catholicism before I react I should try to understand what its based on. I'm not saying I've succeeded but it's a lesson I'm learning.

I do have an insight into Judaism. From my time at University in the 1970's I've had a keen interest in Jewish religious and mystical writings and their impact on Jewish culture. And excuse me if I've come to understand this from a Christian and Catholic position. Originally I was interested in the effect it had on the early ideas of Karl Marx (not communism). Progress, what?

As for the politics of Israel today and the Palestines, well God alone knows how it will work out. All of us not directly involved can do is the best we can to try to understand what's going on and why. As an autonomous State Israel has the responsibility to do what it sees fit within the framework of standards its agreed to and as laid down by an organisation that supported its rebirth.

11 July 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo.
I believe that I am filled & led by the Holy Spirit & I'm not CofE.
Let's look at the Holy Spirit for a minute.
He descended on Jesus (a Jew) at His baptism by John, (also Jewish).
Jesus taught about Him, accredited healing, miracles & raising the dead to Him.
Promised Him to the founders of His Church, including Peter (Jewish) & the disciples (all Jewish) received Him at the Jewish feast of Pentecost. So why do you keep on mocking Him solely as a CofE delusion?.

Personally I find the Holy Spirit essential in my daily walk with the Lord, & I'm nonconformist.

By my reckoning, there would not be any Christian faith if it wasn't for the Jewish people.
It is worrying that many churches are teaching 'replacement' theology as truth.
The Jewish people are not all saints, neither is any race. But they are the root from which the Christian faith grew. Therefore they are family & deserve our love & support, not our rejection.

11 July 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Preacher

Who's mocking the Holy Spirit?

And, yes, I do know Jesus Christ was a Jew, the Messiah promised to a Chosen People who had God's Will and Law revealed to them and they were prepared for Him.

As for Supersessionism, don't you believe the Covenant with Moses at Sinai has been superceeded by the New Covenant at Calvary? It is not a negative comment on the Jews or their 'right', legal or Divine, to Israel, but the grounding theological position of Christianity.

12 July 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger John Magee said...

Rebel Saint. Are you aware of the miserable plight of black African economic refugees and political asylum seekers in Israel today? These unhappy people have rioted in Tel Aviv because they are unable any longer to endure discrimination and racism from individual Israeli's as well as total neglect of their needs by the Israeli government. They are clearly not wanted in "tolerant" Israel. The Israeli government is literally rounding them up and shoving them on planes and sending them back to their country of origin. Imagine if European governments or the USA followed a similar policy to expell their hordes of illegals. The Western liberal press and especially liberal Jews in the media would be howling about the injustice of it all. RAUS SCHWARTZER'S!

12 July 2012 at 00:54  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Avi thanks for the offer but I will not be cavorting with Jews
because I am gavotting with an Anglican and being any kind of puppet/popette is not my bag/purse:)

12 July 2012 at 02:22  
Blogger Gnostic said...

More proof that the Church is unfit for purpose. How come they aren't wringing their hands over the horrors visited upon the Copts? Or comment on what Hamas is doing to its own people? Is every dead Palestinian man, woman and child down to Israeli Jews? Israelis the world must hate because that is what the Islamic fundamentalists and their apologists demand of us unconditionally? Is it because Islamists are incapable of committing murder to further their cause? Are we to swallow the line that they are all gentle, sorely put upon lambs? Are we to believe Palestinian kids aren't being turned into Jew hating psychopaths via indoctrination from the cradle to detonation?

Jews are wicked baby killers and, Palestinians are helpless innocents? It's not just the stupidity, it's the f***ing hypocrisy.

12 July 2012 at 08:08  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@ Corrigan1 (14:14)
Oh, well as long as your malevolent prejudice is based on such rational reasons as that...!!!

@ John Magee (00:54)
er... Israel is exporting lots of rioting, illegal immigrants ... is that meant to make me hate them?!!! If so, I think you may have just achieved the entirely opposite of your intended effect.

12 July 2012 at 10:07  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
An interesting Blog Your Grace that brings to light the mysteries of modern day Christianity.

The Churches leadership is as a result of an influx of left wing liberals into the ministry in the 70's or there about. May be earlier. They were concerned by the social welfare of the post war state and weighed heavily on the social aspects of Christ's ministry.

Now that they are the Bishops, they have failed to mature to a broader view of Christianity as a whole and act according to their indoctrinated perceptions.

It amazes me how Christians can have such differing views on subjects. Rather than seeking God's view on subjects, they allow their thinking to be subject to their preconceived or imposed views by biased persuasions.

There is never a black and white position on any subject but there is always a Godly way based on Biblical Integrity.

12 July 2012 at 11:00  
Blogger IanCad said...

Gnostic @08:08

"from cradle to detonation"

I'm going to steal that phrase. Love it!

12 July 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo.
It grieves me to see how often you refer to the Holy Spirit in a negative way, & seem to connect Him only with the perceived wilder elements of Protestantism.
I know that there are many 'Charismatic' Catholics, have they in your esteemed opinion received a different Holy Spirit?.

With regard to replacement Theology, I don't agree with it. Jesus said that He had not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it.
The New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament. You can't read a book from the middle to the end & understand the story Fully.
I have many friends who are Messianic Jews & many who are not & I pray that they & many more may come to know Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah.
Salvation is from the Jews. WE have been grafted in to the vine by God's Grace, Love & mercy. Not the other way around.
Replacement Theology is being used as a tool of some elements in the Church to promote Triumphalism over love & this is not the way taught by Jesus.

12 July 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oh the wickedness of replacement theology.

Israel/Church, 2 different origins and destiny's.

"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem,
Let my right hand forget her cunning.
Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
If I remember thee not;
If I set not Jerusalem Above my chiefest joy."

Amos 5:15
15 I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.

SHA-ALU SHALOM YIRUSHALAYIM / PRAY FOR THE PEACE OF JERUSALEM.

Ernst

12 July 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Your Grace,

I have no bones about this issue and where I am with it - Go Israel, Go Israel!

What a dark day for the Anglican Church and yet another nail in the coffin as far as I am concern with adhering to the Church of England.

Rowan Williams should be personally ashamed of himself for making that remark about the concentration camps and should formally apologise.

12 July 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger conchovor said...

John Magee,

there are over 120 000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel, and near 20 000 African Hebrew Israelites.

I too detest the racism that has been shown against Sudanese refugees and economic migrants, but this country deports illegals +all the time+: 45 000 a year; the U.S., 400 000.

12 July 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger John Magee said...

@Rebel Saint. I am not asking you or anyone else to hate anyone. I hate no one. All I ask is that Israel be held to the same high moral standards for it's hypocrisy that are applied to Western nations. I am no fan of the Palestinains, Hamas, or any other Islamic lunatic organizations. As far as i am concerned the Koran is a book of hate and Islam is a cult of evil. Reread what I posted: if the UK or any European country or the USA did what Israel is doing to it's illegals from Africa by packing them into planes and sending them back home the liberals in the West would be howling and screaming RACISM!

12 July 2012 at 16:45  
Blogger John Magee said...

@conchovor... Here is a quote from THE GUARDIAN UK May 24, 2012:

Israelis attack African migrants during protest against refugees.

An African migrant in a car with shattered windows after a protest against African refugees and asylum-seekers in Tel Aviv turned violent. Photograph: Ariel Schalit/AP


Demonstrators have attacked African migrants in Tel Aviv in a protest against refugees and asylum-seekers that indicates an increasingly volatile mood in Israel over what it terms as "infiltrators".

Miri Regev, a member of the Israeli parliament, told the crowd "the Sudanese are a cancer in our body". The vast majority of asylum-seekers in Israel are from Sudan and Eritrea.

Around 1,000 demonstrators took part in the demonstration on Wednesday night, waving signs saying: "Infiltrators, get out of our homes" and "Our streets are no longer safe for our children." A car containing Africans was attacked and shops serving the refugee community were looted. Seventeen people were arrested.

A reporter for the Israeli daily Maariv described it as an "unbridled rampage" and explosion of "pent-up rage".

"Suddenly one of [the protesters] noticed that in one of the cars waiting for traffic to move were two young dark-skinned men, apparently foreign workers. For the hundreds of inflamed and enraged young people, that was all they needed. Within minutes, they dismantled – there is no other word to describe it – the car and its passengers. Some of them smashed the windows with their hands and rocks, others kicked the car, bent the plastic parts and tried to attack the people inside. 'I'm not from Sudan, I'm not from Sudan,' the driver tried to tell the assailants, but nobody was listening at that stage."

The protest followed a claim on Sunday by the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, that "illegal infiltrators [were] flooding the country" and threatening the security and identity of the Jewish state. "This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity," he said

Please note that it was Israeli's who attacked the black Africans.

As far as the USA goes. Doesn't that country have almost 30 million illegals? How could that be possible if the USA was deporting them in enormous numbers?

12 July 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger Stephen Foot said...

I think we need Rabbi Sacks a bit longer in his job:

"I have argued for some years that an assault on Jewish life always needs justification by the highest source of authority in the culture at any given age. Throughout the Middle Ages the highest authority in Europe was the Church. Hence anti-Semitism took the form of Christian anti-Judaism.

In the post-enlightenment Europe of the 19th century the highest authority was no longer the Church. Instead it was science. Thus was born racial anti-Semitism, based on two disciplines regarded as science in their day: the "scientific study of race" and the Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel. Today we know that both of these were pseudo-sciences, but in their day they were endorsed by some of the leading figures of the age.

Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life -- on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state -- must be cast in the language of human rights. Hence the by-now routine accusation that Israel has committed the five cardinal sins against human rights: racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, attempted genocide and crimes against humanity. This is not because the people making these accusations seriously believe them -- some do, some don't. It is because this is the only form in which an assault on Jews can be stated today."

Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks - Europe's New Anti-Semitism

A must read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chief-rabbi-lord-sacks/

12 July 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger len said...

No wonder the Church of England is dying on its feet.If it continues to self destruct it will soon be the 'Church of nothing'an empty shell with just a few memories of' what might have been'.
The Church of England is like a vehicle with no fuel, the vehicle is still there but useless for the purpose for which it was constructed.
There will still be a few 'guardians' polishing the paintwork and buffing up the chrome but for all intents and purposes an utterly useless exercise.

Unless the Church of England gets behind the Will and Purposes of God preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ (without fear or reservation)and stops trying to 'please man 'and starts trying to 'please God' instead and start praying and supporting Israel then the ongoing decline of the C of E is inevitable.

The predators are already circling the C of E like vultures awaiting a meal but the only way to restore Life to the C of E is to repent for its mistakes and ask God to empower them with His Holy Spirit.

Will this happen, can the eyes of the governing body of the C of E be opened?.Only God knows..... pray for them.

12 July 2012 at 20:40  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@John Magee ...

Are you being serious? I think you might be so I shall respond as if you are.

We should support this move of the Synod and generally think ill of Israel because of their domestic policy towards illegal immigrants [which happens to be a very sound one IMHO]? And this is a sound reason to support those who want to see the country exterminated ... who refer to Jews as apes & pigs ... who indoctrinate their children to become suicide bombers to kill & terrorise their sworn enemies?

Are there any other domestic political policies you object to? What about their system of proportional representation? Or their taxation policies?

Presumably you applaud the Palestinian Authority for their use of capital punishment (& summary "justice"); for their attitude to equality & diversity; for their policy towards immigration etc

Face up to it ... you hate Israel because it a Jewish state. Don't make up some cock & bull story that it's because of their treatment of illegal immigrants. [Just out of interest how many other countries treatment of illegal immigrants do you know ... Chile's? Bolivia's? Kenya's? Frances? Australia's? Maybe you should check them out sometime!]

I really think you should get yourself along to the nearest branch of AA ... Anti-Semites Anonymous

12 July 2012 at 20:47  
Blogger St Bruno said...

Jews angry over Church of England anti-Israelism
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishFeatures/Article.aspx?id=277177

The following is a comment made to a post on Eldersofzion that I thought sharp and to the point in an answer to all the border senseless political correctness floating around. Now even the Co-op are boycotting produce from the 'West Bank'. It seems to me to be so very one sided with Israel as the source of things to be changed, when we know that is not the case.

There were no borders demarcated by the United Nations in 1948.

The UN proposed a partition resolution where a Jewish State would exist alongside an Arab State in 1947, but that resolution was never implemented as it wasn't accepted by any Arab nation, who decided to destroy Israel instead. That resolution is not international law. Israel's legal basis is not UNGA 181 but the fact that Jewish nationalists survived and won a war waged against them meant to exterminate their presence in Palestine. (This is without going into the legal basis of the League of Nations' action in 1922 supporting a Jewish homeland in all of Palestine west of the Jordan, partitioning off eastern Palestine into the new entity called Transjordan for the Arabs.)

The lines that became what is incorrectly called "Israel's 1967 borders" were armistice lines that were agreed upon between Israel and the Arab nations, under UN oversight, in separate negotiations in 1948 and 1949.

In fact, UNSC 242 notes this by saying that there must be "secure and recognized borders" between Israel and the Arab world.

From: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2012-06-29T14:10:00-04:00&max-results=20

12 July 2012 at 21:11  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Wow, not very good internet service out here in Bodmin, but just to say the man of the match so far is Rebel Saint!

12 July 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger uk Fred said...

This report explains to me why I see the church of England as a sub-Christian or even anti-Christian sect which is cause problems for this land (England). Too many of the hierarchy appear to be far more interested in political posturing than bringing the Gospel to the people of England by their actions and words.

12 July 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Preacher said...
"Dodo.
It grieves me to see how often you refer to the Holy Spirit in a negative way, & seem to connect Him only with the perceived wilder elements of Protestantism."


Then you do not understand me at all. It is the way some "born againers" use their understanding of the Holy Spirit in salvation to exclude other people that hacks me off - not the Holy Spirit.

"I know that there are many 'Charismatic' Catholics, have they in your esteemed opinion received a different Holy Spirit?"

By their fruits you shall know them. There is only one Holy Spirit and one has to be cautious what others think He says to them or even with what we think he has said to us.

"With regard to replacement Theology, I don't agree with it."

Then you've either not understood it or are not a Christian!

What is supersessionism? It is the traditional Christian belief that the covenant between God and the People of Israel, established through the mediation of Moses at Mount Sinai, has been superseded by the 'New Covenant' of Jesus Christ.

This signifies that the Mosaic covenant, with its ritual and dietary requirements, Sabbath observance, is no longer valid for the Jewish people, since God’s revealed will is for Jews, as well as Gentiles, to enter into the New Covenant by baptism and faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah.

Read Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ.

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Jewish people themselves are effectively irrelevant in terms of eschatology and Biblical prophecy.

For the Catholic Church, the Jewish people are a reminder that the "gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church recognizes an ongoing and unique relationship between the Jewish people, God and the Church. Additionally, the Church teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture.

In Lumen Gentium (1964), the Church stated that God "chose the race of Israel as a people" and "set up a covenant” with them, instructing them and making them holy." However, "all these things . . . were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant" instituted by and ratified in Christ. In Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism (1985), the Church stated that the "Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer of all."

In Dominus Iesus (2000), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states, "There is only one salvific economy" and "God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. . . . The certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ"

Are you saying the Mosaic Covenant is still valid for the Jewish people? That they have no need of conversion? That there is a parellel route to salvation for them?

None of this is in obvious contradiction to what you have stated.

13 July 2012 at 00:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

conchovor said...

" ... there are over 120 000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel, and near 20 000 African Hebrew Israelites."

There are indeed. Do you know their history and the history of Karaite Judaism?

13 July 2012 at 00:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida

You've even stopped cavorting with your other supposed alter ego - a Catholic.

Anglicanism ... who can compete?

13 July 2012 at 00:50  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I am still in recovery from cavorting with a Catholic. There is a rhinocerous hide chameleon
bi weekly Anglican, featuring prominently on this blog, who in my opinion has reduced this site to a third rate cooking show and far better suited to being your alter ego Doddles.

13 July 2012 at 06:06  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Cressida

Who is this "rhinocerous hide chameleon bi weekly Anglican?" that has "reduced this site to a third rate cooking show".

Please do tell.

13 July 2012 at 10:51  
Blogger John Thomas said...

With acts like this one, the C of E has begun its descent (ECUSA-like) into irrelevance, marginalisation and eventual doom. This is a sad day for the C of E.

13 July 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida

I'm wounded; deeply wounded!

13 July 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Poor old Dodo- being accused of being some-one else. But who is this person Cressida refers to?

13 July 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I apologise Doddles...you did not deserve that gross insult to your intelligence.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

13 July 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Once again made it back in time to Toronto and an interesting quick read before rushing out for tonight's necessities including a bottle of Irish Jameson's, to break my alcohol-free regime of the road and to raise a glass to the growing group of brave souls in Ireland who are pushing back institutionalized hostility to Israel and antisemitism.

I'm impressed at the logic and knowledge of some here. Mr Ernst even transliterated from the Hebrew, but I'd love to hear him try to pronounce it. Just imagining his accent cheers me up :)

Dodo, glad to see you are still the master of the attempted deflection with the irrelevant non sequitur. Conchovor cited Israel's rescue of Black Africans, some of whom have debatable Jewish connections, but are admirably loyal to the Torah and their sense of Jewish peoplehood, as a counter to claims of racism. What do you do? Throw in the Karaites as a prelude to another session of pedantries and "poignant" questions. You and Magee should form a pairs...if you haven't already.

13 July 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

No, I actually 'threw in' the Ethiopian Jews who, like the Karaites, reject the authority of Pharisaical-Rabbinic based on the Talmud.

I would recommend people consider the experience of these followers of a more exclusively Torah based Judaism within Israel.

13 July 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

*Pharisaical-Rabbinic Judaism based on the Talmud*

13 July 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hi, Anna, way back in the had another one of his meltdowns, got frustrated with Cressida's views on Israel and accused him/her of being my sock puppet, which in urban lingo primarily means that he/she is a false online identity of mine. Cressida and I (and/or my RC alter-ego I'm unaware of) had some fun with that and chuckled over the roundabout way I would have had to do this by engaging in weeks of pro-Catholic arguments just to eventually "get" Corrigan, of all people, on Israel.

I agree with you about Rebel Saint; he gets to the point, delivers a knock-out blow and walks away, while the rest of us are still mud-wrestling.

13 July 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Here we go again, Dodo. Only you ...along with the usual suspects one finds on the Internet...can take the incredible and unprecedented rescue of the Black Jews of Ethiopia and poke at ways to turn it against Israel and Judaism.

Any word about when the Vatican-organized airlift of the hundreds of thousands of Catholics persecuted and stuck in the hell-holes of the world is happening? Or about all the Catholic countries chomping at the bit to welcome or absorb them? Lot of them are Black, but that wouldn't be a problem, right?

13 July 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

I was not referring to the rescue of black Jewish people from Ethiopia. One could expect no less from a country that regards itself as having formed to be the homeland for Jews across the world.

I doubt many refugees would fit within the confines of Vatican City and they have no planes at their disposal for airlifts.

The authority of the Catholic Church is spiritual, not temporal. However, I would stand by its record in bringing relief to millions, regardless of their particular religious affiliation or faith system.

I was referring to the hegemony of Pharisaical-Rabbinic Judaism within Israel and its influence.

And I think it is interesting and people should read about these things.

You gave your opinion on the Ethiopian Jews:

" ... some of whom have debatable Jewish connections, but are admirably loyal to the Torah and their sense of Jewish peoplehood."

What's debatable? Are they practicing Jews?

This thread is on race, I believe. The reason the Jewishness of the Ethiopian Jew is accepted is a rabbinic ruling from the 16th century that asserted the Beta Israel are descended from the lost tribe of Dan. Because of this, in April 1975, the Israeli government accepted the Beta Israel as Jews, for the purpose of the 'Law of Return' - allowing them to settle in Israel. They did initially have to undergo pro forma Jewish conversions, to remove any doubt about their Jewish status.

13 July 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, I thought you were heading in an entirely different direction and my hackles went up again. My apologies.

By the questionable groups I mean those claiming Jewish descent, in Africa, Asia and Latin America and even parts of Europe. They claim Jewish connections, mostly honestly, but are most likely native people who were Christianized by missionaries. These groups adopted Christianity quite superficially, but some adopted and internalized narratives from the Hebrew Bible after the under-funded, numerically few colonial missionaries left. The few groups in Europe, like the Sabbateans and the Donmeh of Turkey were originally Christians and Muslim respectively, who got caught up in the kabbalistic mania of the Shabtai Zvi and Jacob Frankist pseudo-Messianic movements and retain a few Jewish customs. Running into remnants of these people got a few modern Jewish vacationers overly excited about finding "lost tribes." A version of the Prester John excitement in modern times. But Israel's Law of Return applies to anyone persecuted for being even thought of as a Jew, so some individuals and groups have made their way there on those grounds.

The Ethiopians did not reject Rabbanism or what is commonly called Talmudic Judaism; they never encountered it due to their isolation and the distruption of the Jewish world after the Temple's destruction and again, after the Bar Kokhva rebellion. Neither were they Karaites, who were in competition with the Rabbanites, but were unable to hold course. The Pharisees who energed as the Rabbanites effectively saved Judaism from extinction by being the only ones able to withstand the pressure of Roman Paganism and later, Christyianity. They were the only group, apart from the Ethiopians, to survive the enticements, pressures and hostilities. But the Ethiopians too developed formalized customs and a teacher/leader class developed and so were able to withstand first the Christian, then the Muslim waves.

But I'm serious about the rescue of Christians and of course, the Vatican cannot take in refugees being tiny and all, but all the Catholic and of course other Christian countries can and perhaps should. Absorbtion is not easy, with wide cultural differences and prejudice haunting several generations, but the alternative is far worse. Imagine the sense of unity and purpose that could revive the Christian world. Everyone seems to have an idea about what Jews and Israel should or shouldn't do, so I thought I can throw some advice around too.

14 July 2012 at 01:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...

"The Pharisees who energed as the Rabbanites effectively saved Judaism from extinction by being the only ones able to withstand the pressure of Roman Paganism and later, Christyianity."

Your hackles do appear to be in a permanent state of arousal.

Interesting comment and it is impossible to prove or disapprove. Another form of Judaism may well have flourished, such as the Karaites.

As you know, Karaites maintain that all of the divine commandments handed down to Moses by God were recorded in the written Torah, without an additional Oral Law being given at Sinai. Karaite Jews do not accept as binding the written collections of the oral tradition in the Talmud. This belief in the completeness of the Torah, has survived for centuries and some argue the Karaites have been around since the second Temple era.

Many traditionalist Karaites maintain that Karaite Judaism is the form of Judaism practiced by the original Israelites under Moses. The Karaites would not have been significantly distinct from any other form of Judaism until the formation of the Pharisee sect after the return of the exiles in Babylon. They argue that Rabbinic Judaism, formed from the Pharisees, innovated the religion with the Oral Law. Karaite Judaism is primarily unchanged from Judaism's original form.

As for worldwide Christian airlifts, I can't see this being a realistic option any time soon.

14 July 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Your hackles do appear to be in a permanent state of arousal. Around you, mainly. Although I'm unconfortable with the word arousal in this context.

Another form of Judaism may well have flourished, such as the Karaites. But it didn't. Wherever there were no rabbis and synagogues, Jews simply melted away. Entire communities.

Karaite Jews do not accept as binding the written collections of the oral tradition in the Talmud. This belief in the completeness of the Torah, has survived for centuries and some argue the Karaites have been around since the second Temple era. There are very few Karaite Jews today, probably around 50,000 world-wide, but with the majority in Israel. The only evidence we have is that they emerged in Babylonia, probably in the 7th century.

"Karaite Judaism is primarily unchanged from Judaism's original form." Nonsense. This is a theological speculation, one which pretends to know what the "original form" may have been and one that assumes, a priori that all innovation and development are illegitimate. Emerging late on the scene, Karaites could only imagine and postulate what "original Judaism" may have been and they still cannot agree on some of the basics when trying to understand them from a purely scriptural analysis.

"As for worldwide Christian airlifts, I can't see this being a realistic option any time soon." Probably not. In accepting the rules of secular modernity as inviolable, Christian attempts to help only "their own" would be shouted down as prejudiced and racist.

15 July 2012 at 06:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older