Breaking News: Methodist Ministers React To Pro-Israel Jewish Criticism

Remember how I drew attention, a couple of posts ago, to a duo of blogging Methodist ministers' extraordinary joint denunciation of their pro-Israel Jewish critics? A denunciation that remains inexplicable?

Well, the ministers have now reacted to the pearls of wisdom I cast:

Another Methodist minister, who has a blog of his own, adds:

The above testimony to Christian charity, concern for Jewish-Christian relations, sensitivity towards the mainstream Jewish position regarding Israel, and (vide my post) compassion for Christians suffering the most heinous Islamic persecution abroad, is taken from here

Methodist Ministers Denounce Their Pro-Israel Jewish Critics

"There are many paradoxes in the propaganda war against Israel," observed South African writer Steve Apfel earlier this year in a must-read article:

"The most puzzling of them perhaps would be the way many Christian groups and Churches side with the Palestinians. On the evidence one would expect the opposite. Believing Christians have every logical reason to be pro-Israel, where alone in the Middle East Christendom’s holy sites are protected; where Christians may pray openly; and where Christian followers face no pressures to convert.

 On the Palestinian side of the fence none of those freedoms exist.  How in that case to explain groups like the Presbyterians, the World Council of Churches, Christian Aid and so forth aiming their missiles at the Jewish state?  It is the wildest of peculiarities: anti-Israel Christians.

 Population movements tell half the story, though not nearly the absorbing half. In 1949 Israel had a Christian population of 34000; today the number is 168000, and growing. From the Palestinian side the arrows point the other way. Christians have poured out; perhaps 70 percent who once lived in the West Bank now live abroad. Bethlehem, Christianity’s cradle, provides stark confirmation.

 In 1950 the city was 80 – 90 percent Christian; today that fraction is down to no more than 20 percent. So in Palestine Christians run the gauntlet, while in Israel they practice, while in Israel they practice their faith freely. Yet churchmen aim their missiles where?

 .... Christianity under the whip, yet people of the church clamber to help Christian persecutors and punish Christian-protecting Israel. Can men of the cloth, even pooling their faith, justify the perversity? Can they square the circle of anti-Israel activism mixed with indifference to Christendom’s plight hard on Israel’s borders? What if, in good faith and without bad conscience, they cannot? And if goaded to action what would matter most to men of the cloth: attacking Israel or defending Christians?"

 Two years ago, influenced by their conference report which cited such Israel-bashers (advocates of a single state for Jews and Palestinians among them) as Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Robert Fisk and Anglican cleric Stephen Sizer while studiously ignoring mainstream Jewish voices, Britain's Methodists voted to boycott goods from the "Occupied" (i.e. Disputed) Territories, and also voted to review whether Zionism is compatible with their beliefs.

Reflecting mainstream Jewish communal opinion as a whole, the Board of Deputies stated:

"This outcome is extremely serious and damaging, as we and others have explained repeatedly over recent weeks. Israel is at the root of the identity of Jews and of Judaism, and is an expression of Jewish spiritual, national and emotional aspirations. Zionism cannot simply be ruled as illegitimate in the way that the conference has purported to do. This smacks of breathtaking insensitivity, as crass as it is misinformed. That this position should now form the basis of Methodist Church policy should cause the conference to hang its head in shame, just as surely as it will cause the enemies of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines."

Very recently, the Board's vice-president, worried that the Methodists at this year's conference would abolish the posts of Secretary for External Relations and Inter-Faith Officer, noted the fragility of relations between the Jewish community and the Methodists and recalled:

"In 2010 the Jewish community reacted with hurt and anger as the Methodist Church accepted many of the provisions of the Justice for Palestine and Israel report.  This document presented a highly selective account of the history of the conflict, misrepresented Zionism and sought to reintroduce the discredited theology of supersessionism, abandoned by mainstream churches because of its ugly legacy of millennia of anti-Semitism. It was hardly helped by the fact that the motion that started this process in 2009 explicitly and deliberately excluded the addition to the document of any views, either from internal voices or external sources, that would have given it some accuracy and balance.

The report, as well as the shameful manner in which it was produced shattered the good relations between the Jewish community and the Methodist Church.  The Board made it clear that normal relations would not be resumed until we saw specific signs that the church was prepared to listen to other views and take them seriouly...

 The resolutions that received and sought to implement the report caused serious damage to the relationship that breeds mistrust even to this day.  The hurt in our community was echoed by anger and surprise among other Christian denominations."

A few days ago, at their conference, the Methodists reiterated their position:

"In view of the continued building of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied land, as well as the repeated condemnation this has received from the UK Government, the Conference:

 Notes that these settlements are illegal under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as confirmed by the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

    Joins with the Quakers in Britain in welcoming the June 2012 Parliamentary Briefing of Christian Aid which calls on the Government to introduce legislation to end the trade in products from illegal Israeli settlements.

   Continues to work and pray for peace and justice for all the peoples of the Holy Land"

Among the persistent critics of Israel within the UK Christian blogosphere are two ordained Methodist ministers who not infrequently post denigratory material regarding Israel on the blog of one of them; over the past week to fortnight alone there have been a number of such posts on that blog.  Several Jews, disturbed by this trend, have during the past year or two leapt to Israel's defence as commenters on posts of this nature. One of the ministers (the blog owner) is invariably courteous if sometimes a tad stiff in replies to opponents; the other (who also blogs elsewhere) is apt to temper courtesy to these defenders of Israel with a barbed, sarcastic wit that seemingly substitutes for a more considered or appropriate response on occasion.  For instance, below a post, perhaps best described as ill-conceived, that his colleague had written regarding the Fogel murders, this man of the cloth observed of me: 

"Daphne huffs and puffs. I’d say she lives in a Manichaean universe, but she’s probably not bright enough to know what that means."

It seems from a post he made elsewhere that this minister regrets the Balfour Declaration and labours under the misconception that the Palestinian Arabs were "forcibly expelled" during Israel's War of Independence:

'In 1915, during the First World War, Britain made a deal with the Sharif of Mecca: in exchange for an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, Germany’s ally, the promise of British support for an independent Arab kingdom when the war was over. But then, in 1917, Britain reneged on the deal and issued the Balfour Declaration, promising to support the establishment of a Jewish state – in Palestine.... It was a formula for a catastrophe. Fast-forward to 1947-48, the UN partition plan, and the blessing of the establishment of the state of Israel for the Jewish people becomes a curse for the Palestinian people – 700,000 uprooted, evicted. Palestinians themselves call this massive dislocation the Nakba, which is Arabic for – “Catastrophe”. Over sixty years later and one generation of homeless, refugee people has become three. There is no reason to be optimistic that it will not become four.'

Some of the latest pro-Israel comments on the several posts regarding Israel that have in rapid succession  appeared on the blog in the past week or so have considerably riled the two ministers, to judge by the tone of a rare joint  "editorial" that they have posted:  

'... "being Jewish" is a complicated, not a monolithic concept, and ... there is no such thing as the Jewish view of things, including, indeed especially on the vexing and volatile issues of Zionism and Israel.  [So much for those Board of Deputies' statements, then!]

... Yet there are a few folk who comment on this blog who only show up only when the post is on Israel [well, they are Jews, after all, and unlikely to be concerned with the finer points of Methodist practice and belief], and who act as if Christians who disagree with them are anti-Semitic at worst, and egregiously misinformed and wrong-headed at best. They also seem to act as if fellow Jews who disagree with them are, at worst, disloyal or self-loathing, a disgrace to the cause of Israel, if not Judaism, and, at best (like said Christians), are egregiously misinformed and wrong-headed, and therefore dismissible with due condescension and even contempt....

 The ministers added, with what might be considered delicious, presumably unwitting, irony

Churchill said that "a fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.".... Personally, we find "fanatic" or "maniac" unduly provocative epithets, but we are certainly dealing here with people who are obstinate, belligerent, apparently inerrant, and certainly lacking both a sense of humour and the willingness to empathise with another point of view.'

What, I wonder, could have got under the ministers' skins sufficiently to provoke that outburst comprising their joint editorial?  Was it this response of an always impeccably polite Anglo-Jew, to this report from the Independent newspaper (like the BBC and the Guardian, not known for its friendliness towards Israel) that the blog owner reproduced:

'If this were being done to little children, it would indeed be cruelty. But the ‘children’ referred to here are great big wallops of 15 or 16, strong enough to kill a grown man and old enough to know what they’re doing. While they might be children according to English law, in Hamastan they are treated as fully fledged footsoldiers. If there’s any abuse going on, it’s the brainwashing of these teenage boys by their cynical masters in an echo of the notorious Lord’s Resistance Army....

 A 12-year-old boy has about 75% of the physical strength of his adult self: combined with the lack of empathy common in boys, this makes him an excellent weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous. The treatment described is necessary to shock them out of their feelings of impunity and invulnerability: the detention is vital to stop them from attacking Israel. They need to understand that their enemy has no respect, but just contempt, for their attempts to become jihadis and shahids. You could call it a form of de-programming.

.... Supposing the Israeli authorities contacted the parents of these teenagers and told them that, as parents, they were responsible for their children’s actions. Do you think the parents (as in a civilised society) would say: “Yes, they’ve been very naughty, we’ll accept responsibility for whatever they’ve done, give them to us and we’ll make sure they never do that again.” Or is it more likely that they would say: “Allahu akbar! Khaybar ya-yahud! My son is a glorious shahid, and I am only sorry that he did not manage to kill you!”

My point: the Palestinian Arabs cannot disclaim all responsibility. Nobody has a right to demand that Jews not defend themselves against physical attacks. Israel will not be a nation of humble martyrs.'

Was it this response from a feisty Jerusalemite, a long-serving IDF member and veteran of the Six Day War as well as of many a verbal skirmish on the blog in question?:

'''every Palestinian child is treated like a potential terrorist" – as far as I am concerned, this is the way the Arab children are brought up. I’ve seen it myself. During the 1st Intifaddah as a reserve soldier I was driving a jeep at the end of a patrol when I suddenly saw a 12-year old standing and holding something bright and shiny. I realized what it was just a second before he was about to throw it at the jeep - and at me. A Molotov cocktail!

....Your consistent attacks on the State of Israel place you in the camp of enemies of Israel. You’ve done this too often, which is why I and other Jews appear here from time to time.

As for “Palestinian children are treated differently than Israeli children”, how many “palestinian” children have been murdered by Israeli suicide-bombers and other Arab terrorist acts? In fact, I would be correct in saying that “Israeli suicide-bombers” is an oxymoron! You have a rebuttal for that?....

 Richard .... Your tone is always moderate, I have never felt anti-semitism in your words, and you allow me a lot of leeway on your blog.

But when I see time after time that you publish attacks on Israel, I must draw from this a statistical conclusion.

.... As for criticism and its intentions, I think that you’d have to get far more involved in understanding the super-complicated structure that is today’s Israel and the pressures under which it exists, if you really wanted to assist it as a friend. You – or anyone – can’t just pick a headline from an anti-semitic newspaper – and publish it as “friendly criticism”. Doesn’t work.

Regarding ‘turn the other cheek’ .... In today’s world this would be regarded as a Leftist policy.

That is not the Jewish way. The basic Jewish command is to stay alive. Hence the Talmudic instruction “He who comes to kill you, get up and kill him first”. Meaning we show no understanding for those intent on killing us.

A case in point is the Western, Christian world’s weak, Leftist fumbling around with pre-nuclear Iran, more or less giving in to it, while (unfortunately non-religious) Israel is preparing to meet Iran in the Tamudic sense. And of course, to survive it.

That’s why we’ve been around for 3,500 years.'

    Or was it this response of mine?:

Christian victims in Iraq; below: in Egypt, Pakistan, and Nigeria

"Significantly, Richard, you have omitted the part of the [Independent's] report in which an Israeli spokesperson explains his country’s policy regarding these detentions. That really isn’t cricket, you know.

As for the delegation, there would appear to be some usual suspects among them.

Ah! If only certain Christian clerical bloggers devoted as much time drawing attention to the savagery in the Islamic world against Christians - their fellow Christians! - as they do in itemising the faults, real and imagined, of the little Jewish State struggling to survive.

This, for example:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3135/muslim-persecution-of-christians-may-2012

To say nothing of attacks on Coptic persons & property

.... How very sad that the Copts, as well as people in parts of the world who were introduced to Christianity by European missionaries (colonialists, some might call them) and are cleaving fast to the Christianity they imbibed, are now left to their fate by Christians in the West, people who not only through ties of faith but through obligation and duty should be publicising their plight and pleading on their behalf. People who, I repeat, are quick to condemn little Israel for misdeeds real and imagined, yet stay shtum when innocents are slaughtered by rapacious Islamists determined to oust Christianity wherever they encounter it....'

In the course of  my remarks, I included a reference to the Barnabas Fund, which fights on behalf of persecuted Christians worldwide but which has been condemned by such leftist organisations as Hope Not Hate for stoking Islamophobia.  To quote the Fund's International Director, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo:

I've shunned bloodier graphics of anti-Christian crimes

"We have been deeply saddened that some Christians regard Barnabas Fund as preaching hatred when we raise the plight of the persecuted Church, and the growing influence of Islamism and its impact on the Church and the Christian heritage and liberties of Western society. We are unshakably committed to our stated goals and will continue to pursue them with vigour, for the sake of our Lord’s persecuted people at home and abroad."

Indeed, in a much earlier post (on which none of us three made a comment) entitled "Responding to the 'counter-jihad'," the minister whose blog it is opined:

 'Hope Not Hate has compiled a worryingly long list of organisations and individuals that make up this ‘counter-Jihad’ movement....

....Fear and hatred of others are a continuing temptation. The desire for a scapegoat on whom to pin the world’s ills is never very far away, especially at times of economic uncertainty.....

.... What I do see is a nasty alliance of fear-mongering bigots who are stoking up resentment and hatred. The fact that there are "christian" groups involved in this is an affront to the gospel.'

Now,  in response to those aforesaid remarks of mine and related ones by me, the other minister, Kim, observed: 

'Islamic crimes against Christians — Richard doesn’t need to raise his voice in outrage because the condemnation is tacit. Nor, in any case, do Christians have any theological warrant for privileging themselves when it comes to criminal behaviour. Crimes against children, however — some people seem to be defending them, so the condemnation must be explicit.

Sadly, there are graphic examples more horrific than these

.... [A]lthough the UK’s Charity Commission ruled that the Barnabas Fund “does not appear to be inciting racial hatred” ... a quick read of its widely dissiminated booklet Slippery Slope: the Islamisation of Britain suggests to me that it is an alarmist little piece of work with a whiff about it of that kind of anti-Semitism known as Islamophobia. About Barnabas abroad I do not know and therefore will not comment. If it’s working for reconciliation and peace, and counselling Christians to love their Muslim neighbours and to maintain a non-violent witness at all times, that’s great.'

 As for me:

'Daphne ...  does more than appear to be inciting religious hatred …'   

Later, picking up on a theme of minister Kim's, I observed:

'I would like to point out to Kim that – desirable though peaceful solutions to conflicts undoubtedly are – in some circumstances negotiations, as Neville Chamberlain found, are useless. What, for example, would be the basis on which Israel would negotiate with Iran, whose leaders, like Hamas’s, want the Zionist Entity extirpated? And want it extirpated they certainly do, by some means. For militant Islam, bent on re-establishing the Caliphate, the very existence of a non-Muslim state in the region – even one as tiny as Israel is (the size of Wales, remember) – is an outrage. That is the reality of what Israel faces.

    I would also draw to your attention the many videos on the web in which Islamist clerics inveigh in bloodthirsty and antisemitic terms (”the descendents of apes and pigs”) against Israel and Jewish Israelis.

    And see this example of poisoning tender young minds – since you inveigh against Avraham’s supposed militarism, inveigh against the choice example of militarism exposed here:

    http://challahhuakbar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/palestinian-kindergarten-promotes.html

His response, as I'm sure he would agree, was fatuous.

Meanwhile, the erudite Anglo-Jew had observed in response to a comment from the blog-owner:

'Thank you, Richard, for the link to that instructive expatiation of the meaning of that section of the Sermon on the Mount. It highlights one of the central problems that we Jews face when trying to explain our position to you Christians. From the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE until 1947, we Jews have in fact turned the other cheek, trying to awaken your conscience by appealing to your better nature. That might have worked if there had been hundreds of millions of us to sacrifice and all the time in the world to wait until your consciousness was raised. But Hitler and his millions of willing helpers gave us the definitive answer. Our enemies do not have a better nature. Would that it were otherwise.'

 And the feisty Jerusalemite observed on the post that Kim proceeded to add to the blog, a post also critical of Israel:

'There should be discussion between Jew and Christian – we both inhabit the same world, and meet at many and varying tangents. But the Christian world has yet to come to grips with the concept of the new, independent Israeli Jew, who is the anti-thesis of everything Christianity has taught since its inception.'

For a joint Jewish-Christian rally in Rome against Islamic persecution of Christians see here where it is noted:

'While the West is now endlessly focused on “Islamophobia,” a potential genocidal Christianophobia is spreading through Islamic lands. And as the rally in the Coliseum has clearly shown, it pairs up with another kind of hatred: Judeophobia.

Today there is only one country in the Middle East in which Christian numbers are not declining but continues to increase: Israel. The Jewish State hosts a multitude of Christian creeds, confessions and cultures.....

Christians should see Israel as the first line of Western defense in the battle for non-Muslim survival and prosperity in the world....'

 (For the Board of Deputies and the Church of England see here)

Pro-Israel British Methodists On The Offensive

Hot on the heels of Britain's University and College Union, which on the motion of leftist diehards at its annual conference recently voted to change the defintion of antisemitism contained in the European Union Monitoring Centre (EUMC) Working Definition of Antisemitism to suit their own vicious Israel-bashing ends, motions by pro-Israel elements within the BDS-committed British Methodist Church might effectively  deter any copycat move by anti-Israel colleagues.

Writes staunchly pro-Israel Methodist preacher David Hallam on his blog (hat tip: reader Ian G):

 'It is heartening to see that three circuits have submitted resolutions (or "memorials") affirming Methodist opposition to anti-Semitism and expressing concern at the impact of the disastrous 2010 report and resolution purporting to about "justice" for the Israelis and Palestinians.

The charge is led by the  The Barnet and Queensbury (35/35) circuit which has the highest percentage of Jewish residents in the UK.... 

Their memorial M32 outlines the growing difficulties facing the Jewish community in the UK and asks conference to reaffirm our formal opposition to anti-Semitism. Possibly the most significant sentence in the memorial is the inclusion of the [EUMC Working Definitism of Anti-Semitism].

This however will create difficulties for the British Methodist Church. For example at last year's conference a guest speaker Naim Ateek accused Jews of using the Holocaust as a Zionist tool, with the Holocaust used as an "industry" which is "exploited for financial gain". This speech was applauded by the very people ... who are now running round boasting that we are involved in interfaith engagement with the Jewish community...'.

Read more: http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2011/06/methodist-conference-to-be-pressed-to.html

Dipping into the Trough of Antisemitism: The Methodist Church of the UK

The British Methodists, hijacked by leftists into a political agenda that is marginal to its mission and anathema to many of its members, and seduced by Sabeel into infection with Boycott Derangement Syndrome, has thought fit to comment on the death of that odious monster of our time, Osama Bin Laden.  Its politically-charged statement begins :

“We cannot rejoice in the death of another, even if that person is regarded by many as a threat. Proverbs 24:17 says ‘Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble’". 

In his blog http://www.methodistpreacher.co.uk/, the pro-Israel Methodist preacher David Hallam outlines what is objectionable about this statement in the context of the Methodists' obsessions.
 
But there is far, far worse.
 
In a background document "Jewish and Muslim Perspectives on the Land of Israel-Palestine" (http://pdfcast.org/pdf/methodist-church-jewish-and-muslim-perspectives-on-israel-palestine) the British Methodists appear to be dipping into the trough of antisemitism.
 
The esteemed Elder of Ziyon has the grubby details and a masterly critique: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/05/outrageous-uk-methodist-church-document.html

Update: The Methodists have been shamed into removing the document (hat tip: reader Ian G.)  See David Hallam's blog for details.

Children of the Martyr Race

Harrowing photographs of the Fogel Family following their cold-blooded slaughter – reportedly at the hands of members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, a wing of the supposedly moderate Fatah, Israel’s “partner for peace” – were made available by the victims’ relatives and have been widely reproduced.

I chose not to use these photographs, believing that to do so was disrespectful to the victims, preferring to show the family members as they were in life – and unwilling to give satisfaction to any sick individuals who might gloat at the sight of dead Jews.

In common with many other bloggers, David Hallam, a philosemitic Methodist preacher in the UK, has reproduced two of the pictures on his website, in a post calling for his church – which is nowadays in the forefront of the BDS movement – to condemn their killings. One shows the three-year-old boy, Elad, stabbed through the heart, lying on the floor in a pool of blood; the other shows his eleven-year-old brother, Yoav, who had been reading in bed when the demons struck and slashed his throat, slumped diagonally across the blood-stained sheets, one of his bare feet on the blood-soaked carpet. http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2011/03/church-must-condemn-itamar-killings.html

Richard Hall, another Methodist minister – one who is continuously critical of Israel and who certainly supports the Boycott – soon posted a thinly veiled response on his own blog:

“Their [the Fogels’] murders are being put to most cynical use. Photographs of the Fogels’ bloody bodies lying where they died have been released to the internet, provoking outrage and revulsion, as any such act should. Unfortunately, much of the reaction has gone beyond revulsion at the killings and has become an outpouring of hatred not merely towards the individuals who carried out this dreadful crime but also towards the community from which they are presumed to have come. Israeli Minister of Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein said on Sunday, “Only these ghastly images can show the world what and who the State of Israel has to deal with,” and many bloggers have been even more strident. This message is reprehensible and dishonouring to the Fogels, feeding as it does the racist lie of uniquely Arab savagery.

Sadly, the bitter truth is that these deaths do not change anything. If the settlements were illegal before , they remain so now. And while this killing is shocking, it is not unique. It stands as one more link in a chain of violence and injustice which has been forged in this conflict for generations.”  Read more: http://theconnexion.net/wp/#ixzz1Ghaqcp8B

A like-minded colleague of Hall was soon fulminating about “Hallam’s despicable use of them [the pictures]” and before long that well-known defamer of Israel, young Ben White (you can read about him here http://cifwatch.com/2010/07/02/ben-whites-latest-anti-israel-analysis/ and here http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/there-is-no-such-thing-as-anti-semitism/ ) was putting the boot into the Jewish State – cynically using the murders to make squalid political points, in fact.

To the blogger himself I commented:

‘I think the best response from you to the cold-bloodied murder of the Fogel Family would be silence, Richard, in view of the fact that you have cynically used their butchery to inveigh against Israel yet again.

That the settlements are illegal is, in fact, a matter of dispute.

But what should not be in dispute is the fact that babies and children of “settler” parents cannot be held accountable for the “illegal” choice of their parents.

There have been 123 deliberate murders of Israeli children by Palestinian terrorists since the First Intifada commenced in 2000.

By contrast, Israelis do not kill children in cold blood, nor do they rejoice when children are murdered.

Please do not demonise the mourners and the bereaved; it ill becomes a Christian minister.’

Commented an indignant Israeli from Jerusalem:

‘The photographs were published after great public discussion, which I have been following for 2 days on Israel radio; they were published with the consent of the nearest relatives of the massacred family.

They were published exactly because of people like you: people who can still write “This message is reprehensible and dishonouring to the Fogels, feeding as it does the racist lie of uniquely Arab savagery”, and can find it in their hearts and minds to turn the event into yet another attack on Israel, meaning JEWS.’

Another outraged commenter noted:

“The pictures were released at the express wish of the children’s grandparents. For years Israel has refrained from using such emotive and distressing pictures, such as the 12 month old baby killed by a sniper, the two children murdered in their beds as their mother read them a story, or the two boys bludgeoned to death when they were out on a hike.

Did I hear any objection from you when the notorious man in a green helmet carried round the same allegedly-killed Palestinian children to different sites where they could be photographed and then went around strategically placing toys among rubble to set a false picture [?].”

And another pointed out:

“... it is chuffing rich of your to suddenly develop a sense of propriety over the use of images of dead children when these are de rigeur on anti-Israel rallies/riots - sometimes even the same child used on multiple occasions.”

The above is an excellent point.

Here, for example, is the singer-cum-activist Annie Lennox at an anti-Israel rally in London, showing child casualties of Operation Cast Lead, for which, although obviously tragic and regrettable, there is of course no moral equivalence with cold-bloodied acts of terror:

And here, courtesy of Richard Millett’s trusty camera, is “Michael,” a bloke who regularly pickets the Ahava shop in London, always carrying this photo montage, apparently:

This list of atrocities by Palestinian terrorists before the Six Day War, some of them involving the deaths of children, gives the lie to the oft-heard claim of Israel’s detractors that Palestinian terrorism came in response to “Occupation”:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+before+2000/Which+Came+First-+Terrorism+or+Occupation+-+Major.htm


It was with the Ma’alot massacre of 1974 – in which 22 children were killed and 68 injured – that the deliberate murders of Jewish children by Palestinian terrorists reached its nadir.

And as Daled Amos (from whose blog I've copied these two composite photos, directly above and below, of child victims) explains in detail, since the start of the First Intifada 123 Israeli children have lost their lives at the hands of terrorists. http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2006/08/123-israeli-children-killed-by.html

Things really have got to a shameful state when posting photographs of dead Israeli children provokes more condemnation than do the monstrous acts of evil men that caused those children to lose their lives.

Update: Another must-read from the great Melanie Phillips: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6786364/a-terrible-resonance.thtml

Methodically Maligning Israel – Leaders of Britain’s Methodist Church

In an essay entitled “Christian Theology and the New Antisemitism,” which appears in A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st-Century Britain, a book of essays published in 2003, Melanie Phillips quotes Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute of Islam and Christianity, as saying that since September 11 the issue of the Palestinians has had what Ms Phillips terms ‘a major distorting impact’ on practising Christendom.

Explained Dr Sookhdeo to Ms Phillips:

“Those who blame Israel for everything don’t realize that, for Islam, the very existence of Israel is a problem.  Even a Palestinian State would not be sufficient. Israel may be behaving illegally in a number of areas, but she is under attack. But white liberal Christians find it deeply offensive not to blame Israel for injustice.”

In the same book both Ms Phillips and Edward Kessler, in his essay entitled “Jews, Christians and the New Antisemitism,” discuss, inter alia, the powerful influence “replacement theology” has had in shaping much Christian hostility towards Israel.

Part of Christian theology for the past 2000 years, and a potent factor in antisemitism, “replacement theology” is based on the premise that the Church has replaced the Jews as the People of the Covenant,  that the idea of Israel, meaning the Chosen People, the Jews, has been superseded by a new, enlarged spiritual Israel – Christianity and its adherents. Thus the idea of the Jewish People’s special relationship with Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) has been compromised if not voided. Indeed, it has been voided in the radical liberation theology of the Palestinian Christian leader Naim Ateek, founder of the Sabeel organisation, which seeks to delegitimize the unique claim of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and to indoctrinate the world with the idea of Palestnian victimhood, with the reqirement that Christians must fight the oppressor, the State of Israel.

“Over and over again, “ writes Ms Phillips,

“I was told of the great influence in Britain of the Palestinian canon Naim Ateek. Yet his book, Justice and Only Justice, inverts history, defames the Jews, and sanitizes Arab violence. Modern antisemitism gets precisely one paragraph; Zionism is portrayed not as the despairing response that it was to the ineradicable antisemitism of the world, but as an aggressive colonial adventure. Courageous Jews are those who ... say that Judaism should survive without a state ...”

Indicative of the influence of Naim Ateek and Sabeel is a joint blog in which the President and the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference, Reverend Alison Tomlin and Deacon Eunice Attwood, have given their impressions of a visit they made to Israel and the disputed territories. http://methodist-presandvp.blogspot.com/2011/03/visit-to-israelpalestine.html

Their account is largely lachrymose, an account of Palestinian victimhood at the hands of villainous Israel. They have swallowed the Palestinian narrative wholesale, and have seemingly made no account to discover the feelings and attitudes of mainstream Israelis. Rather like the BBC and other leftist media outlets, they appear to think that “balance” means speaking to a handful of Israeli dissidents rather than to people across the political spectrum, let alone to persons on the political and religious “right”.

That Arab rejectionism, aggression, and terrorism have contributed in no small measure to the plight of the Palestinians is of no or trifling avail for these leaders of a Boycott-happy church. They have scant regard for the difficulties facing Israel; the security fence is called, apartheid- and BDS-style, a “separation barrier”:

‘One of the most heart-wrenching experiences during our visit (Alison described it as gut-wrenching) was to go through the Bethlehem check-point at 6am as the Palestinian community leave to go to work. Some of the men in particular sleep outside near the check-point so they can be the first people in the queue. We travelled though wire cages and scanners presenting our documents on several occasions. Whilst we acknowledge security is important, it seems deeply de-humanising to treat people in this manner.’

(But of course not as dehumanising as blowing people to smithereens with a suicide bomb, something not acknowledged by the pair.)

And, nauseatingly, the claim is repeated, with no attempt at verification, that “settlers” in Hebron pour noxious substances over Arab produce.

“Hebron is very much a divided community with Jewish settlers and Palestinians living with different laws and access rights. Below [photo in original] is a street of shops, the metal grids are to prevent the objects which are thrown down by Jewish settlers from hurting Palestinians. Apparently urine used to be poured out of windows but currently bleach is preferred thus destroying the goods for sale below.

Blockaded streets in Hebron dividing the Palestinian and Jewish community, since Jewish settlers returned. Over 2,000 soldiers permanently guard the 400 members of the Jewish community.”

The place of Hebron in Jewish history, its sacred status in Judaism, the long tradition of Jewish residency in that city, the bloody Arab massacre of Jews in 1929 there which led to Hebron being judenrein until after the Six Day War – none of this is mentioned, as the pro-Israel, anti-Boycott Methodist preacher David Hallam has pointed out in his admirable blog on the subject: http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2011/03/methodism-new-best-friends-no-2.html and see also http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2011/03/methodists-are-not-anti.html which is the subject of attack from another Methodist minister, Richard Hall, who doesn't seem to like Israel very much at all: http://theconnexion.net/wp/#axzz1G88G2uPH

It might be tempting to dismiss the opinions of church leaders as irrelevant, but to do so would be a big mistake.  To quote from Melanie Phillips's essay again:

"The attitude of the churches is extremely important.  Contrary to the popular belief that Britain is now a post-religious society and so what the churches say doesn't matter, it does matter greatly.  The churches stll have a great deal of influence in helping create a climate of opinion.  Church leaders not only set a tone, but they legitimate attitudes that might otherwise be regarded with suspicion.  Moreover, what they say seeps deeply into the wider culture; at a time when government spokesmen have lost the trust of the media and general public, statements by priests or Christian non-governmental organizations are treated as unchallengeable truths."

That's why we should be grateful to David Hallam for so resolutely countering the present received wisdom of the Methodist Church in Britain, and to other stalwartly pro-Israel Methodists like reader Ian G, who often posts comments on my blogposts (and has done so on David Hallam's latest post).  Chazak, chazak, gentlemen!

Methodist Boycotters Try Some Cyber Warfare – and Boycott Challenger David Hallam Holds Fast

You’ll probably remember that at their conference this summer – in obedience to a call from the World Council of Churches – Britain’s Methodists, on the motion of Rev Nichola Jones seconded by Dr Stephen Leah, voted to boycott Israeli goods from “illegal settlements” in the Disputed (aka “Occupied”) Territories. The Methodists, whose lengthy conference report on which the vote was taken heeded such serial Israel-defamers as Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Robert Fisk and Anglican cleric Stephen Sizer, but studiously ignored mainstream Jewish voices, also voted to review whether Zionism is compatible with their beliefs.

The Board of Deputies reflected Jewish communal opinion as a whole in observing:

“This outcome is extremely serious and damaging, as we and others have explained repeatedly over recent weeks. Israel is at the root of the identity of Jews and of Judaism, and is an expression of Jewish spiritual, national and emotional aspirations. Zionism cannot simply be ruled as illegitimate in the way that the conference has purported to do. This smacks of breathtaking insensitivity, as crass as it is misinformed. That this position should now form the basis of Methodist Church policy should cause the conference to hang its head in shame, just as surely as it will cause the enemies of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines.”

“In the Bible we learn of the Chosen People”, said Rev Jones.

“Who are they and what are they chosen for? Genesis tells us again and again that God choose Abraham and makes a covenant with Abraham and his heirs. A covenant being a two-sided agreement with obligations on both parties, like marriage. God’s covenant with the Children of Israel, Abraham’s heirs, is that he will be their God and they will be his people if they walk humbly before God, obey God’s laws and are a light to the nations....Of course, Israel today is not the same as Israel in the Bible: in the Bible, Israel refers to the people of Abraham’s descendants, who are in covenant with God. Israel today is a modern, secular state, created in 1948”.

That, to most people’s ears, surely sounds like an endorsement of supersecessionist theology – avowing that Jews have been superseded as the Chosen People and a form of undermining the Jews' divinely-sanctioned entitlement to their ancestral land  – and yet another weapon of choice in the “soft war” (which I referred to in my last blogpost) being waged with odious intensity on all fronts against the Jewish State.

Dr Leah, who as well as being a Methodist minister chairs the York branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, is a lyricist on the side – his muse aroused by anti-Israel spleen, he penned alternate words to  “O Little Town of Bethlehem”, making that familiar carol a vehicle of invective against the Jewish State. Regarding the Methodist motion, Leah remarked: “I personally would like to have divestment going a little bit further into the full boycott of Israel, but I know how much I can get away with in the churches sometimes.... Churches are paranoid about being critical of Israel sometimes, they want to be balanced all the time, we must put pressure on church leaders.” (Hat tip: Seismic Shock).

Just recently, Terry Gallogly, Secretary of the York PSC, and also an advocate of a total boycott on Israel including its trade union movement Histadrut, suggested that anti-Zionists answer in the affirmative a Jewish Chronicle website poll regarding the far-right ostensibly Israel-supporting English Defence League (EDL) in order that it would appear that the Jewish community approved of forging links with the EDL: "People might like to vote in this poll if only to embarass Hoffie [Jonathan Hoffman] and the Zionist Federation”, advised Gallogly conspiratorially. As far as is known, and despite his calling as a man of the cloth, Leah has yet to distance himself publicly from Gallogly’s immoral tactics (hat tip: Harry’s Place & Seismic Shock)

In the wake of the boycott resolution, a Methodist Friends of Israel group has been formed, and, pro-Israel Methodist minister David Hallam – who on his blog (take a look at his many interesting posts regarding this sorry situation www.methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/ )calls upon Leah to distance himself from Gallogly’s vote-rigging proposal – has announced his intention to mount a legal challenge to the resolution.

As was said of the Bourbons, the Methodist boycotters have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Despite the protests of anguish that came from many Jewish leaders – including the Chief Rabbi – and from mainstream Jewish groups (who, significantly, are not given to crying “wolf” often) they continue to revel in their shameful stance. That Mr Hallam is putting noses out of joint is evident from some of the remarks Methodist Church members have been making of late, attempting to justify their singling out of Israel for obloquy and punitive measures and mounting a cyber warfare against Mr Hallam that is not entirely free from ad hominem attacks. His opponents are insisting – despite online challenges from myself and others, including the Zionist Federation’s feisty co-vice-chair and a highly articulate Orthodox Jew from Jerusalem who has not held back with some home truths – that opposing Zionism is not antisemitic. They have gone onto the defensive, trying to redefine antisemitism so that it sits comfortably with their anti-Israel rhetoric and reviving old blogposts about Israel and Jews. They have also, in their desperation, invoked the example of some of their anti-Zionist Jewish heroes to justify their own standpoint.

Thus, a  Methodist minister in North Wales scrapes the bottom of the barrel when on his blog (theconnexion.net/wp/) he posts a comment from a member of a marginal Israel-bashing organisation composed of “as-a-Jews” that hardly represents mainstream Jewish opinion regarding Israel. “As a Jew, I fully appreciated the Methodist’s resolution ‘Justice for Palestine and Israel’. I’m increasingly distressed by the unceasing determination of my fellow Jews in Israel, and in our diaspora, to never accept any criticism of their ill-treatment of Palestinians — who have historically been displaced from their lands by the Israelis in the name of their claimed God-given right”, wrote the habitual Israel-basher in question, claiming that “Israel is actually creating a world-wide anti-Semitism from which I and my fellow Jews will ultimately suffer.”

Evidently rankled by the fightback on the blog from Zionists, including yours truly, one boycott champion, who really doesn’t seem to like Israel or its champions very much at all, invokes the views of that well-known Jewish loather of Israel, Professor Avi Shlaim. ‘I was thinking of injecting a little Robert Fisk into the ongoing conversation on Israel-Palestine - though after the recent hurling of comment grenades by Hallam’s Army, I use the word “conversation” loosely - and I would no doubt have to jettison it altogether were I to cite Fisk. So I’ll try a little Avi Shlaim ...’ is the opening jibe, prompting one commenter to remark “it looks very much as if you want to showcase the Jews who support your argument to prove you’re not anti-Semitic. It reminds me of how the Mediaeval Church would wheel out its Jewish converts to participate in “debates” wherein Jewish religious communities were harshly denounced”.

And then there is another Methodist minister who found my suggestion that the Methodist Church has been “hijacked” by leftists offensive, and took refuge in her own blog to have a conversation with the Almighty in which she observed:

“A very distressing and disturbed night. I have been following and participating in a blogged debate on the Church's report on Justice for Israel Palestine and the bizarre threat of one Methodist to take the Church to court over its contents.

There can be no doubt that the report has raised some emotive issues, but that is no excuse for the appalling lack of grace in some of the posts. When Christians slander one another, evil flourishes.

The charge being made against the Church and certain individuals is of Antisemitism.. a charge designed to raise the spectre of the Holocaust and shame us all into silence - regardless of what atrocities are currently being perpetrated. In a nutshell the argument is - Gentiles committed the holocaust therefore the Gentiles have forever forfeited the right to censor a Jew. Any and all criticism of Jews or of Israel by Gentiles is antisemitic.

This is, however, a shallow and dishonest definition of antisemitism. It mocks and makes a lie of the past by reducing it to a vacuous insistence that it is never politically, spiritually or socially 'correct' to criticize or question anything Jewish or Israeli....

It is not antisemitic to seek to be informed about the current plight of the ordinary Palestinian

It is not antisemitic to be offended by the wall

It is not antisemitic to question why human rights are being denied to Palestinians in Israel.

It is not antisemitic to ask what can we do to which might help Palestinians.

It IS antisemitic to not question or challenge any of these things, to hate the Jew so much that we would be prepared to stand by and watch whilst they perhaps commit crimes against You and against humanity which we know from our own bitter experience will only result in long-lasting spiritual, social and political damage.” (http://www.the-kneeler.blogspot.com/)

In the face of all this, the admirable and courageous David Hallam is holding fast. All praise and all power to him. Make no mistake: in his intention to take the Methodist Church to court he deserves all the encouragement and support (moral and practical) that well-wishers of Israel can muster. Much rides on his legal challenge to the Methodist boycott. If that challenge succeeds, the ruling could mean the end of other anti-Israel boycotts emanating from England and Wales. I’m not a lover of alcohol – but I’ll gladly drink to that!

Postscript: for those who remain determined to boycott Israel, here's a must-see video (hat tip: Avraham Reiss) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saeky9I5T9c/

British Methodist Boycott of Israel under Legal Challenge from Within

A reader of my blog, Ian G, has kindly alerted me to this development, reported on the London Telegraph website:

'A Methodist preacher [David Hallam] is preparing to sue his own church over claims it is using charitable donations to pursue a campaign of discrimination against Israeli Jews.

The legal dispute has been prompted by a controversial resolution passed at the Methodist Conference  which called for a boycott of some Israeli goods.

If the legal action is successful, it would likely bring to an end all similar campaigns that boycott Israeli goods and services.

Mr Hallam, 62, a former labour MEP, said: "What I object to is money which I am putting on the collection plate on a Sunday being used to fund a political campaign against the Jewish state. This is both discriminatory and a misuse of a charity's funds.

"The Methodist Church seems to think it has a God given right to tell Jews how to run their affairs. It is very disturbing we are getting involved in a territory where we don't have any members or churches."'

Read the entire report here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8038848/Methodist-preacher-to-sue-his-own-church-over-claim-of-anti-Israel-bias.html

Britain's Methodists in Meltdown

Many words have been expended on the British Methodists' decision last month to launch a boycott of all Israeli products from the West Bank and east Jerusalem, giving that church the dubious honour of being the first Christian denomination in the United Kingdom to do so.  Some delegates reportedly wished to go further, and launch a full-scale boycott of the Jewish State.  The Methodists are even considering whether or not to countenance the very concept of Zionism. 

Needless to say, no country except Israel was singled out for criticism.  The Methodists' decision has been widely seen as antisemitic, and had been condemned by a wide range of people and organisations within and without the Jewish community.  The Board of Deputies of British Jews, not renowned for speaking out lightly, issued a forceful denunciation.  Even Rabbi Danny Rich, head of Liberal Judaism, and hardly a  tub-thumping Zionist, was unhappy.  A masterly op-ed in the Jerusalem Post (4 July) by the magnificent Robin Shepherd was headed 'The banality of Methodist evil'.

 But here's the thing.  The Methodist Church in Britain  is a church in meltdown. Its 'Statistics for Mission 2005-2007' - the latest statistical report available - shows that between 2004 and 2007 its membership dropped from 294, 000 to 267,000 (a decline of 9% in only three years).  Every other statistic was in a state of absolute rapid decline, in some cases of breathtaking proportions.  The Methodists' average Sunday attendance figure fell from 280,000 in 2004 to 230,000 in 2007 - that's a decline of 18%.

The working- and lower-middle-class members who have traditionally constituted the church's core seem to be voting with their feet, leaving the church ripe for takeover by radical extremists. Indeed, throughout the English-speaking world churches with a left-liberal agenda are in decline.  Secular socialists are generally athiests or agnostics, and so belong to no church.  And within the leadership of those churches only leftwing activists, clerical and lay, remain.

 The good news for supporters of Israel is that, by contrast, the fundamentalist churches are growing - in Britain, in Canada, and in the United States.  And their adherents tend to be Christian Zionists.