While Americans have successfully fought back against the attempts of Israel-haters to get mainline Christian churches here to support boycotts of the Jewish state, their English cousins are not as successful. As Miriam Shaviv reports in the Times of Israel, the Church of England not only refused to back off its endorsement of a biased program that sought to indoctrinate Christians visiting the Middle East to support the Palestinians against Israel, many of its members took offense at the efforts of English Jews to get them to change their minds.
This controversy showed the level of animosity for Israel that is entrenched in the culture of the state-supported Anglican hierarchy. But it also may betray the barely disguised anti-Semitism that runs through European and English discourse about Israel and Jews. This story may sum up in a nutshell the starkly different predicaments of American and English Jews. As one bishop pointed out, the problem wasn’t just that the Anglican bishops, clerics and laity are predisposed to think ill of Israel. It was also that they were offended by the lobbying efforts of Jews to get them to look at the issue differently. Apparently, the spectacle of Jews standing up for themselves rather than keeping quiet or, as is the case with a vocal but not insubstantial minority of British Jews, joining the chorus of Israel-bashers, was too much for them to stand.
As Shaviv writes, the Bishop of Manchester pointed out that the defeat was at least partially the fault of the Jews:
“A few people said that all the lobbying from the Jewish side led us to vote the other way,” said the Rt. Revd. Nigel McCulloch, who is chair of the Council of Christians and Jews (CCJ), the UK’s oldest Jewish-Christian interfaith group. “There was over-lobbying by some members of the Jewish community. The CCJ actually warned against this, as we know how the Synod works and it’s not a good way to get things done.”
Though McCulloch denies that anti-Semitism was in play, he admitted the debate about the issue and his attempts to forge a compromise included references to the influence of a “powerful lobby,” which is an allusion to Jewish efforts to persuade the Church not to take sides against Israel.
What’s curious about this excuse for the victory for Israel’s foes is everyone admitted that the pro-Palestinian forces were lobbying just as hard as the Jews, only no one seemed to mind that or to think there was something sinister about their efforts.
So while Israel-haters in the United States allude to the supposedly all-powerful “Israel lobby” immortalized by the conspiracy theories floated by authors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, their counterparts in Britain are a lot stronger. While Jews were rightly disappointed by the narrow margin by which a BDS motion was rejected by the Presbyterian Church USA last week, McCulloch thought the fact that some English clerics actually voted against the anti-Israel measure there was encouraging.
But the real difference is that while most Americans see nothing wrong with Jews assertively standing up for Israel (a stance in which they are joined by the vast majority of their countrymen), many English seem to think there’s something wrong with them doing so.
While we don’t doubt English Jews and their representatives will continue to speak up whenever possible about anti-Israel bias, the political culture in which they are forced to operate works against their efforts. In the United States, the efforts of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups are not only more successful but widely admired by all but those marginal groups steeped in hatred of Israel and the Jews. The episode is one more proof that American exceptionalism is no myth.
Is it really true that, as Tobin writes, "most Americans see nothing wrong with Jews assertively standing up for Israel (a stance in which they are joined by the vast majority of their countrymen)"? n nI ask this question in light of the following fact. In six of the seven state representative districts in Massachusetts in which voters were asked (in 2008 and 2010) to vote yes or no on the following question, a majority voted yes, and in the only district that didn't 48% voted yes. Here's the question they voted yes on: n n"Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a nonbinding resolution calling on the federal government to support the right of all people, including non-Jewish Palestinian citizens of Israel, to live free from laws that give more rights to people of one religion than another?" n nA pro-Israel organization's lawyer argued to the state's attorney general that the question should not be allowed on the ballot, on the grounds that it asked two separate questions, one about "all people" and another about "non-Jewish Palestinian citizens of Israel." Attorney General Coakley replied that the latter was merely an example of the more general former question, and she allowed the question to be on the ballot. n nSince Israel defines itself as a Jewish state of the Jewish people, rather than a state of all its citizens equally, Americans are wondering if Israel really does reflect their values. n nAn example of the kind of law the ballot question was about is the State Education Law, arts 2, 4, Laws of the State of Israel, vol. 7, p. 113 (1953), which says that the purpose of elementary education is to teach 'the values of Jewish culture' and 'loyalty to the State and the Jewish people.' This purpose covers even 'non-Jewish educational institutions,' whose curriculum is prescribed by the minister of education. The state funds an Orthodox Jewish private school system but does not fund schools for other religions, according to Izhak Englard's "Law and Religion in Israel," in the American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 35, p. 201 (1987). This law gives Jewish citizens of Israel the right to have their children educated in conformity with their religion with state financial assistance, and denies this right to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. n nThe six districts voting yes on the ballot question are ones covering parts of the following towns in Massachusetts: Watertown, Arlington, Jamaica Plain (part of Boston), Somerville, Cambridge and Medford.
"Since Israel defines itself as a Jewish state of the Jewish people, rather than a state of all its citizens equally," nFirst, that has nothing to do with citizens having one religion or another. Anyone who knows the first thing about the history of the modern state of Israel knows that it was founded by atheist and even anti-religious Jews, who saw Jewishness solely as an ethnicity and had little or no use for the Jewish religion. The idea that Jews are solely are a religion is a lie, and the resolution you cited is fundamentally dishonest, designed to appeal to the prejudices of the uninformed (of which you may or may not be one). n nSecond, both in law and in fact, Israel protects the rights of citizens of all religions. To the extent that anyone faces religious discrimination in employment or public accommodation, it is more likely to be an observant Jew rather than a non-Jew. n nThird, the resolution's decision to criticise Israel of all the nations of the middle east, when Israel is the only nation in the region that protects the religious rights of minorities and non-Muslims, makes the motives of the organizers highly suspect at best
And yet, the Israeli law I cited does give more rights to Jews than non-Jews. And Americans seem not to support that, based on how they voted Yes for the ballot question I cited. Strange that the pro-Israel camp cannot embrace the concept of equality when it is applied to non-Jews inside Israel, and they accuse people who do embrace it of being "anti-Semitic." Seems to me this is giving quote "Anti-Semitism" unquote some pretty good public relations, equating it with support for equality. Are you sure that is what you really want to do? Why don't you, instead, say that if there are any Israeli laws that discriminate on the basis of religion then they are wrong and should be repealed? Is that so hard for you to do? Or are you afraid that this would end Israel's status as a "Jewish state"? If so, then you are faced with a problem: Zionism or Equality, one principle or the other, but not both because they conflict with each other. Your call.
the call is zionism n nIn the Middle East, and with moslams, the concept of democracy is 'one vote, one time' n nand then sharia takes over n nWhy don;t you go and suggest these things to one of the 57 OIC countries, and see how far you get n nBesides, nothing Israel or the JEw can do will make them more popular – see the violence and contempt directed t Christians in Europe by moslems, and how helpless and supporting they are. n nNothing like teasing the Jews with, YOU ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT, to ensure their enemies, who play by their own rules, prevail. n n
Don't worry. Prince Charles favors disestablishment.
I find consistently that the worst attacks against Israel are from Britain. Clearly, there is something going on there. The country appears to me to be steeped in deep negativity where Israel and Jews are concerned. Something about Israel gets many Brits going into a holy indignation. They seem infuriated about something which, at the very least, they know little about, which means what the BBC has reported to them. It's completely irrational and has an element of "we're going to show those Jews". I believe this can honestly be described as a deep-seated anti-Semitism. But I also believe they have no idea of the origin of their animus.
The British church would do well to focus on the actions of their own country, most recently in Northern Ireland but especially during eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Their behavior toward India and China alone in prosecuting the opium trade and subsequent wars should provide the church with much opportunity for contrition. The Anglican nobility may also want to revisit Matthew 7:3-5 as the behavior of Israel toward their neighbors is admirable compared to that of the imperious British.
Whilst I deplore the Israel-bashing that goes on in my country, I really think you need to update your references. Should the Church of England be contrite for actions that happened before any of its' members were born? All countries have actions in their past that shame them, without exception.
Okay, in the case of the British not a hard assignment, try this one – the Ottoman Empire collapsed during WWI. The British occupied part of the Mideast as mandated by the League of Nations in the decades that followed. As expained by Efraim Karsh in his book "Palestine Betrayed" the British played a central part in creating the mess that is the Arab/Israeli conflict that still persists to this day. Sitting in London and preaching about what Isreal should or should not do, and how they should do it, when Britain made the mess can only be attributred to insufferable arrogance, a common calling card of the British in their treatment of other countries. Although much has improved in China and India, the populations of those countries suffered decades of poverty and instability in the aftermath of British presence. It can be argued they have not yet completely recovered. The British should be contrite until the messes they have made in the past no longer exist.
If they stand up for their principles, they're pushy, and they don't like 'em. n nIf they work quietly behind the scenes, they're secretive and nefarious, and they don't like 'em. n nIf they seem indifferent to Israel, they are spineless and without principles, and they don't like 'em. n nTrying as hard as he could to lave English Society's nether regions, even Rabbi Sachs couldn't get anywhere. n nAt least the English are too polite to actually say 'f*ck off and die'. But you know they want to. n n n n
"At least the English are too polite to actually say 'f*ck off and die'." Although that's more or less what BillPatriot said on one of the other threads, right before someone told him to rot in hell.
the church of england does not have to invent anything new in seeking support. nit knows full well the massive advantage that jew and israel bashing provides. nIt is a tried and well tested old glue that can unite any disparate causes and to top it off it is cheap and very effective. npropaganda and lies trump facts and truth when it comes to israel and the forever suffering nhapless palestinians , so why look any further? nthat old stiff british upper lip and the queen who shuns israel say it all. ni say to england go to hell and don't let the steel door hit you on the way out
The time is swiftly approaching when everyone will have to choose which side they stand with. I stand with Israel.
It should be recalled that England engaged in the world's first state-sponsored ethnic cleansing, in its 400-year pogrom against the Jews that ended only at the point of Oliver Cromwell's gun. The English, if not the British, are as endemically anti-Semitic as the continental Europeans. Yes, there's the ennobled Nathan Rothschild; yes, there's Benjamin "He's still a Jew" Disraeli, yes, there's the Balfour Declaration, and yes, there's the philo-Semitic Winston Churchill. Alas, for every Churchill there was an Ernest Bevin. n nAnd no, there is no wanton slaughter of Jews by Brits — those 400 years got it out of their system. I suppose they can be proud of that. But it does not in the least mean that the sentiment of anti-Semitism doesn't reside, as I said in a previous post, in the marrow. n nThe shrill and obnoxious primate of England, Rowan Williams, who thankfully steps down at year's end, is a not-so-closet anti-Semite and apologist for Islam. It is Williams who, while supporting the introduction of Sharia into English jurisprudence, declared that Israel, along with the United States, is the greatest threat to world peace. The dismal reality is that Williams reflects a general perception of Israel and of Jews extant at all levels of English society, including the Church of England hierarchy. n nI'm afraid that when it comes to Israel hatred and Jew hatred, there is no English exceptionalism at all.
" the world's first state-sponsored ethnic cleansing" nNot unless you add "in European history." Otherwise you would have to go at least as far bacl as Sancheriv. Actually, earlier, to the time of Sichon, King of Cheshbon.
Conservative Sir Alec Douglas-Home was secretary to Neville Chamberlain during the Munich era and his attitudes carried forward. Harold Wilson would not help Israel in the 1967 War and his Conservative successor Edward Heath would not even allow American planes with supplies for Israel during the Yom Kippur War to refuel at American bases in East Anglia. "Sunny Jim" Callagahan was a total waste, then came the bright beacon of Margaret Thatcher, the friend of the Jews the leftists love to hate! Tony Blair wasn't too bad but his wife and sister in law are anti-Semitic, period! Gordon Brown is a nobody and nothing and Conservative David Cameron's hostility to Israel is palpable. n n
Since you mentioned Ed Heath, it should be noted that not only was Heath hostile to Israel as PM but afterwards serving as an MP he vociferously opposed in Parliament every single attempt to either investigate or deport former foreign Nazis living in Britain.
Why shouldn't anyone be surprised?
didn;t his sister in law conver to Islam?
Sad to say that the only postwar British Prime Ministers who were pro-Israel were Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. Clement Atlee and his Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin were sickening anti -Semites! According to his biographer Atlee learned his Jew hatred while active in the Labor Party's East End communities–he didn't like the fact that Jewish Labor Party people were "internationalists" and not focused on local issues. Anthony Eden was no anti-Semite but was "anti-Zionist" as was Harold Macmillian (who, commenting on all the Jews who were close to Margaret Thatcher said, "The Conservative Party was once the Party of Etonians–now it's the Party of Estonians [eastern Europeans or Jews although there were very few if any Jews in Estonia]).
The alarms are again sounding all over Europe. Who will hear them? Jews must leave before it is too late.
For the past several years, hasn't Rowan Williams struck you as a secret Muslim? I suspect that when his tenure at the head of the CoE is up he'll come 'out' as it were. Probably as a Muslim, which is even more of a post public service career booster than suddenly coming out gay.
But wasn't he the same one who said he could never trust a man who had never tasted pork?
Could very well be. Who was his audience?
The Brits' animus toward pro-Israel lobbying is based on a realistic observation of where pro-Israel lobbying has taken the United States. They see that here in America, the fanatical pro-Israel lobby has become a potent, vicious force for the suppression of free speech and for the promotion of war. Slandering anyone who criticizes Israel as an anti-Semite, for God's sake! n nWhy on Earth would the Brits want to give an inch to any hint of the same tendencies in their country? n nI have personally been punched in the face and knocked down by a fanatical "pro-Israel" supporter while I was peacefully handing out leaflets in favor of a boycott. An example of Israel lobbying at the street level. These pro-Israel apologists are inclined to use words first, then violence when words fail them. Disgusting. Perhaps I'd be safer in Britain.
gee sad to hear that you have allegedly been punched in the face but from the international press it appears obvious that in the USA it is the left that is using fear and McCarthyist tactics to silence any opposition to the extreme anti-Israel policies. Their hypocricy in being one issue fanatics is what makes people on the right fear them as anti-Semites. No offence but you can blame us for everything that happens in the world but don't then expect us to take you sreiously. And that is the problem – here in the UK we are told to be good jews and behave AS YOU EXPECT US TO. BTW have you ever demanded a boycott against any other nation – if not you need to ask yourself why.
Bill "Patriot" rather than feeling slandered when called an anti-Semite, most certainly wears it on his sleeve as a badge of honor.
For someone who claims to be tired of hearing about Israel and does not care about its wars with the Arabs, you certainly take a keen interest. n nYes, give those damn Jews an inch and they'll take a kilometre. How dare they lobby in opposition to those who are lobbying for their natural right to slaugher every last Jew in the middle east (or in the case of Hamas and perhaps Hisbollah, in the world). n n"These pro-Israel apologists are inclined to use words first, then violence when words fail them. " Yes, that's exactly why we need to ban them from even using words, so that they can't take that first step toward violence. n nI'm glad that whoever punched you and knocked you down did not hurt you seriously. I hate to think of someone sitting in jail over harming genocide supporters.
I'm thinking if you become a citizen of a country, you owe all of your allegiance to that country, not to a foreign one. So the British are closer to being right about this. (signed as an Aussie)
you obviously do not live in Britain – i am an aussie and i live in England and my children went to a state school. Prejudice against Jews, Christians, English people, Black people was always an undercurrent. So I am unsure what point you are trying to make here. Tolerance usually starts with identifying with the host country as a standard, at least in a democracy. Then you celebrate your differences as in America. Here, in England, as a Jew, you are second class for all sorts of reasons.
if you are so righteous then i presume you are as vocal in your opposition to policies that hold back other slighted minorities as you are to Israel. There are over 160 different ethnic groups and indigenous people in Russia, the Arab world is riddled with persecuted minorities – if you really want to look at the death toll and the level of suffering you may want to explain why it is only Israel you see a need to deny either self determination or the right to a national homeland that is separate from those people who have a history of intolerance. If you realy want to be honest then theft of land is a topic to discuss with the Jews expelled from Jerusalem and the Etzion Bloc in 1948 and from all over the Arab world. The difference between propaganda and truth is not, as the left seems to believe, the creative desire of the identifying group. There is a name for that.
Hello, Bill…
Perhaps I could shed a wee bit of light, laddie. First of all, The Brits have an ax to grind with Israel because they, The Jews under English Occupation did not do as they were told by The Crown. Once Brit decided for a variety of reasons to quit the region, they disarmed the Jewish citizens and turned the Police Stations and weapons over to The Arab citizens. The presumption was that despite the United Nations having voted to recognize a Jewish State, the Brits were trying to create facts on the ground which would tip the scale in favor of The Arabs when The Arabs got it together and mounted a war against the newly declared State of Israel. In other words, the Brits did not wish to see the newly declared Jewish State survive. Please recall that at the same time,The UN granted recognition of Jordan occupying 2/3 of the area and for the first time ever, A “Palestinian” Arab State in what is commonly called “The West Bank and Gaza”. These are roughly what is being demanded by The PA.
Yet, In 1948, The “Palestinians” totally rejected their new state. Jerusalem was to be internationalized. Not acceptable to The Mufti of Jerusalem. If it was not acceptable then, it is unacceptable now, Bill.
The Jews upset the applecart, Bill, by defending themselves. Your so-called “Palestinians” with their brothers from all of the other surrounding arab states got their asses kicked,while trying to destroy Israel Bill. Jordan quickly invaded the West Bank and Egypt took Gaza. Funny, your “Palestinians” never complained about being occupied under Jordan. They only became “Palestinians” when in 1967 Jordan withdrew after getting it’s ass kicked while trying to destroy Israel.
I posted a fact in comment #7 of Mr Tobin’s
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/09/just-because-settlements-are-legal-doesnt-mean-peace-is-impossible-west-bank-international-la/
from a Senate commission to the region in the early 1950s which should help somewhat.
” the Church of England not only refused to back off its endorsement of a biased program that sought to indoctrinate Christians visiting the Middle East to support the Palestinians against Israel, ”
Which Desmond Tutu and his Palestinian Anglican pal, Naim Ateek, have been doing for years, even as Arafat’s thugs trashed the Church in the stand off with Israeli soldiers in Bethlehem and intimidated Christians in the West Bank, and with their Sabeel group tour of the US.
Anyway, way back in the late 1960s ex-pat Brits in Johannesburg, South Africa going to the Anglican Church where Bishop Tutu held sway, were “entertained” with his anti Jewish attitude even then.
"Supporting Israel is supporting racism and theft of other people's land." Yes, the Zionism is Racism screed is one of the most successful and long lasting bits of Soviet propgaganda. n nBut in fact, you (and the Soviets) have it backwards: saying that Jews alone of all the world's peoples should not have the right to self-determination and self-government in a democratic nation state is racism. n nAnd saying that Jews steal land by purchasing it is racist. n nLeaving aside, of course, that your assertions and my response all rely on an overbroad definition of racism, given that Jews are an ethnicity and not a race.
Some British Jews dared to contradict the anti-semitic policy of the BRitish Curch! British court Jews wrapped in the eucumenical stuff for many years wake up and try to shyly stop anti-semitic passages.
Reading these comments makes me even more thankful for my late parents who, having decided in 1948 to say goodbye to Britain, emigrated to Israel, to live as free Jews who do not have to be overly concerned by what various misguided non-Jews abroad may think of us. n nDavid Zohar (formerly Harris) nRetired Israeli Diplomat nJerusalem
American exceptionalism? Get real. I tire of reading about Americans (Jewish or Christian Zionist) mouthing off blind patriotism which acts like its country is whiter than white and bad old Britain blacker than black. n nYour host country has been making war against Israel for over 30 years now since Hamas lover Jimmy Carter forced Israel to pay for peace from Egypt with the Sinai which she should have had by right for free – all for the benefit of American power in the Middle East. And now with the Muslim Brotherhood in control what was the point? n nOr shall I start talking about the Oslo Accords which America forced upon Israel out of greed for oil to the cost of hundreds of lives and many more injured or traumatised? Or the pullout from Lebanon? Or worse Gaza? All of which has been the consequence of American pressure. n nShould I start talking about your State Department's long history of hate towards the only Jewish state? Or the continued incarceration of Jonathan Pollard for keeping tabs on American treachery? And what should be said about all the empty words and foot dragging over Iran's nuclear weapons program that even the UN sees for what it is? Not to mention how your Muslim loving Humanist President has allowed the least awful governments in the Middle East to be replaced by Islamic Fundamentalist ones? n nWhy do you think America is in 14 TRILLION dollars in debt? Hello? Annapolis? The USA has committed to dividing the Land of Israel which if enacted would destroy her. n nDo not think that G-d will treat America any better than He did Britain when it tried to prevent the restoration of Israel during the mandate period. And judging by Barak Hussein Obama's recent words about his regret at not achieving Middle East "Peace" as he sees it, things will only get worse. Frankly considering how bad Bush Senior was in his first term with Israel and Clinton along with W Bush were at the end of their second he is going to far outstrip them all and the USA will suffer for it. n nMark my words, your supposedly wonderful host country is not going to recover from its economic problems, and its hegemony over the planet will be usurped by China and India. n nGet off your high horse and stop crowing. And in your case get back to Israel where you belong and there is a future for our people.