An online petition in support of the Church's recently adopted official position on Israel has closed after only ten days with just 279 signatories.
This combines with evidence from the south west to show how little enthusiasm among Methodists there is for a full scale vilification of Israel.
Methodist people are not anti-Semitic and many are horrified that the 2010 conference passed a deliberately biased report and resolution attacking Israel.
Despite a campaign on facebook, an email campaign, and the support of an external pressure group, the number of Methodists signing the petition remained statistically insignificant, no more than 200 out of the British Methodist Church's 400,000 strong community.
Originator of the petition, Richard Hall, a Methodist Minister in Wales, a widely read and influential semi official blogger claimed "It has served it’s purpose. 279 signatures in less than two weeks. Some will have been dodgy, but that’s the way of petitions."
Closer inspection of the petition and the signatories show just how ill conceived it was.
Hall's petition claimed that the plaintiff in a forthcoming court action had described the Methodist Church as racist and anti-Semitic. In fact the plaintiff has been very careful to say that this was not the case, but believes that the conference report, resolution and behaviour were discriminatory under current legislation and case law.
At least two of the signatories of the ill-fated petition subsequently removed their name, several were anonymous, many were from overseas and some were from members of a tiny British based Jewish organisation critical of Israel. One signatory was actually supportive of the plaintiff. Among those signing was Ben White, author of a scrurilous book on Israel.
Several of the signatories left abusive remarks about the plaintiff.
The failure of this petition is a welcome straw in the wind that British Methodism has not got the appetite for the ill conceived anti-Israel campaign. We should look forward to restoring a healthy and friendly relationship with our Jewish neighbours. Time for a cup of tea and a celebratory Jaffa cake
Posts
21 comments:
This is an extraordinary piece of misrepresentation David. I know you didn't like the terms in which I presented the petition, but I stand by the opening paragraph. You ("the plaintiff") have said that the Methodist Church acted in a way which was discriminatory against Jews. That's anti-semitism. And, insofar as antisemitism can be called racism, that too.
As for the "campaigns"... What campaigns? I mentioned the petition (I think) 4 times on my blog, so it will have gone out on my Facebook status and Twitter feed a similar number of times to people I already have a connexion with. There was no campaign, and I never had any intention of running one. For one thing, I don't have time. But in that 10 days, 279 people signed. Around 40 people 'liked' it on Facebook. Whatever you say, that's far more people than have expressed an opinion on either of our blogs. "No more than 200" of the British Methodist Church signed, its true. But most of the church won't have known about it. And in any case, how many have shown public support for your lawsuit?
You're right, of course, that British Methodism wouldn't want to pursue an anti-Israel campaign. The Conference Report and Resolutions were anything but! They were anti-injustice. I think you'll be hard pressed to find many Methodists who support the way that Israel has treated the Palestinian people.
As for me being "influential and semi official", all I can say is 'I wish!'
Incidentally, in the interests of accuracy, should you refer to yourself as a 'plaintiff'? As far as I know, there's been no complaint filed yet.
Thanks for your comments Richard.
I'm sorry to see that on Connexions you are now posting approving notes about Stephen Sizer the friend of Holocaust deniers. It is unusual for you to quote "evangelicals", except to ridicule them:
http://hurryupharry.org/2009/01/31/stephen-sizer-cites-another-holocaust-denier/
Once again, you don't address the issues that have been raised with you. It really is a waste of my time commenting here, isn't it?
Richard. you are always welcome. Over the last few months I've written many things on my blog and others. I have tried as hard as I can to answer all the points. Practically all the issues that you raise have been dealt with. Sadly there is only limited time in the day. I do have many other tings to do, many of them associated with running a Methodist church in one of the poorest areas of inner city Britain.
Eventually this issue will be the subject of examination by a court of law. That examination will be far more detailed than any attempted on a blog. Richard you can be assured that no one would not be taking the course of action now underway unless they believed it to be right, appropriate and stand a substantial chance of success.
I do understand the embarrassment that the obvious flop of the petition must have caused. Sometimes these things work, sometimes they don't. It has however served to underline the lack of enthusiasm within British Methodism. If the petition had any "legs" it would have attracted thousands very quickly.
Nice try, David. You might regard the petition as a failure. I don't. You end with "If the petition had any "legs" it would have attracted thousands very quickly", but only the other day you advised "Launching a petition is more complex than many people think. There are a number of preparations needed to get it working properly (accuracy for one)and then it does require a lot of leg work." You can't have it both ways.
I never intended to do alot of 'legwork' on this, and I could write the blogpost that would appear here for you if I did (just as I could have written this one).
But if the petition was a failure, by the same token your campaign must be judged in the same way. After all, you've had exposure in two national media outlets, but without any uprising of support from the Methodist people that I'm aware of.
Finally, I'm intrigued by what you think 'success' would look like in this case -- should it ever come.
Richard, I fear you are getting a little obsessive.
I don't know who leaned on you but I think you did the right thing in taking it down. It had clearly become an embarrassment and I suspect that wiser heads at Church House prevailed.
Please don't lose sleep worrying about how much or how little publicity my work is getting. Everything is in hand.
Leaned on by Church House?
And you call me obsessive?
I'm done here.
David, I have just visited the Methodist conference website here: http://www.methodistconference.org.uk/assets/downloads/confrep-14-justice-for-palestine-israel-170510.pdf and looked at the wordingof the document you have takenoffence at.Your followers may be interested to view the exactwordingof the document. It states:
14/9 The Methodist Conference notes the call of the World Council of Churches in 2009 for an international boycott of settlement produce and services and the support given for such a boycott by Christian leaders in Palestine
in the “Kairos” document, Palestinian civil society and a
growing number of Jewish organisations both inside
and outside Israel and worldwide and calls on the Methodist people
to support and engage with this boycott of Israeli goods
emanating from illegal settlements.
END OF QUOTE. What bit of this statement is antisemitic?
Cotswold. I don't know who you are but you have stumbled into this discussion late in the day.
I have been very careful to say that the preaparation of the report, the report itself, and the outcome were "discriminatory". Others such as Richard at Connexions are keen to introduce the word "anti-Semetic"- even launching the ill fated daft petition on that basis.
I believe that discrimation against a people on the basis of their religion or ethnicity is a serious issue. Especially when part of the preparation involves listening to a Christian cleric describe the Holocaust as a "Zionist tool", from which Jews have made money, and expressing appreciation for Hamas who seek to expell all Jewish people from the Holy Land.
More details in a previous post The Small Print:
http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2010/10/small-print.html
I don't normally place too much credence on anonymous comments so it would be helpful to know who you are before any further discussion.
I would still like to hear your reasons for supporting the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and why you support the illegal trade in Palestinian resources.
and I'd like to know who you are....
On anonymous comments:
I would like to be able to use my real name on the internet, however, I have found that to be a real problem in the past. My reasons for wishing to remain anonymous on the internet is simply to protect myself from the problem of spam, abusive, threatening or intrusive calls, etc. This was a problem for me when I was new to the internet.
If the purpose of someone remaining anonymous is in order to harm others and protect themselves from the consequences, I would agree with you. That would not be fair, and would make me feel unsafe. But this is a discussion, not a war, and its good to talk. I have found that the name of a person is usually less important than what they say and do in the world. "deeds not creeds", as we Quakers like to say. It is in this spirit that I seek dialogue. In remaining anonymous, I am asking you to trust my intentions towards you. So you have a decision to make. Either you dip a toe in the water and risk this online conversation with an anonymous quaker or not. I was simply wanting to hear your reasons for supporting the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and resources by the Israeli state. Maybe there is something I haven't considered about this issue of products from Israeli settlements in Occupied territories. Enlighten me! From your blog writing, you come across as a confident person, more than happy to express his opinions with forthrightness. I have no harmful or abusive intent towards you or anyone else, so I am wondering why so shy to put forward your opinions on this issue? If you have posted your views elsewhere I am happy to be directed to them. Expecting the best, a Cotswold Quaker.
Thanks Cotwolds, some of my best friends are quakers.
You are new to this blog and regular readers will know that I rarely undetake long discussions about a particular point. Not because I don't want discussion but mainly because I have to fit my blogging in around a busy working life in a secular setting.
I did suggest you read the item on my blog called "The Small Print" this goes into the detail of my concerns about the Methodist report and resolution in detail.
You may also be interested to read the recent blog of a group of British trade unionists who visited a factory on the Barkan industrial estate. This gives a very different picture:
http://www.tufi.org.uk/delegation-blog/?p=125
Basically there is a strain of thought that believes the whole of Israel has been "stolen". The issue of the West Bank settlements is currently being used as a device to de legitimise the whole of Israel.
The Methodist Church is going further along this path than many as it is now questioning the Biblical basis of Zionism. If we say that the Jews have no right to settle in the Holy Land are we supporting those who are determined to "liquidate" the people of Israel.
Incidentally the Barkab industrial estate employs 5000 people, 90% of which are reputed tobe Palestinians. Do we want those people to lose their jobs?
I have spent some time reading through the links you referred me to. I had already looked at "the small print" before my last response to you which is why I was asking the question again. I've had another look through the links you referred me to, to see if I had overlooked it, and I still can't see where you set out your reasons for supporting illegal Israeli settlements. So, the question hangs in the air between us... I am left wondering why so assertive a writer as you seem to be, is so shy to say what he really thinks about this issue. I hear the depth of your anger towards others who have expressed their views clearly and forthrightly in a number of places. I now know what all the other peoples opinions are on the issue, but I still haven't heard what you think David..........
Sorry I don't do games. The question will just have to hang in the air.
Cotswold, I've had sight of your latest comment. I'm not prepared to publish material of a defamatory nature.
I'd like to know what's defamatory about anything I said. I accept your right not to publish my comments in your webspace, so I shall publish them myself and we can let others have an opinion.
That is your privilege. I would rather not take responsibility for your defamation.
My gut feeling is that if Cotswold genuinely had been threatened, s/he would be eager to lavish on David the lurid details which has caused him/her to disregard the precepts of the Truth Testimony and conceal his/her identity.
Not to give the readers vague details, and expect them to accept it.
I think we all have met individuals for whom the true heroes of the discussion aint the Palestinian Arabs or supportive Israelis, but *them* bravely speaking truth to power from the safety of Western Streets.
Of course, maybe s/he is accurate. Maybe another blogger made a complaint to the Police in an attempt to sile... no, sorry... that was Stephen Sizer (and former National Front member, now minister Anthony McRoy [1]) against Messianic Jew, Joseph Weissman.
Cotswold, what are you thoughts on Quakers having allowed Hezbollah members to speak on their premises, Hizb ut Tahrir (which went on to argue for the possession of Pakistani nuclear weapons) or having been willing to admit neo-Nazi politicians such as Kristina Morvai of the Hungarian Jobbik party?
David, obviously it is your choice as to what you publish, but my guess is that the individuals named are not to sort to issue defamation writs... which is why Cotswold feels able to make these accusations from behind the cloak of anonymity.
T'other way around does, however, often result in lawfare.
[1] Amongst others, he compares the killing of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah to the Yehoshuan martyrdom. I'm sorry, but this makes me think of Paschal pogroms.
>> ncidentally the Barkab industrial estate employs 5000 people, 90% of which are reputed tobe Palestinians. Do we want those people to lose their jobs?
That's interesting, I didn't know that. Consider the attempts to queer the pitch for Peace Oil:
http://tinyurl.com/32fbksa
Despite being a joint venture between Arabs (Christian and Muslim) and Jews and Druze, it involved some degree of political control by Jews so was deemed unacceptable. Such individuals really are beyond the pale, I am afraid, and I cannot see this attempt in any other terms than seeking to keep synagogue buildings lower than the nearest church of mosque.
>> I believe that discrimation against a people on the basis of their religion or ethnicity is a serious issue.
David, I'd appreciate if you don't want to print this, but I think such an attitude can be seen quite clearly in the words of Nicola Jones who addressed the Methodist Conference with the belief that Jews consider themselves to be a Chosen People (nope, only a supercessionarist like a Christian could believe that Amos 3:2 refers to that concept) and that, where Galatians [1] announces that "all are one in Christ", it should be inferred that Jews continue to worship a racist God.
There's a word for people who think this, but I'll stick with the suggestion that they believe Jews commit daily crimes against humanity by refusing to accept the Christian Messiah.
(incidentally, the motion was forwarded by Stephen "why should the Church always be balanced?" Leah who was, I believe, the Chair of the York PSC. Have a look at what the current Chair has gone and done:
http://tinyurl.com/3anf72t
Again, there's a word for people who try to present Jews, as a bloc, as racists.)
Then Church representatives attempted to justify the earlier motion by saying the Church had been asked by Palestinian Arabs representatives.
http://tinyurl.com/36n2nkv
I wish it wouldn't hide behind Palestinian Arabs. Church clerics made the choice, and now appear not to have the courage of their convictions.
Besides, many of these groups which are routinely cited are self-selecting, often so small and marginal that one wonders if they exist only to issue these 'implorations'. And often based abroad.
They're as representative of a functioning civic society as the Inverness bridge club or Lower Snoring knitting circle of West Barking Polytechnic tealadies' guild are.
One the other hands, there are the likes of Peace Oil and OneVoice and Children of Peace and Deir Abu Meshal (a West Bank village in which the women knit yarmulkas for the Israeli market) and the hundreds of Arabs attending Ariel College [2].
But, they aint real Palestinian Arabs, are they? They aint sufficiently hateful of Israelis, are they?
PS My abiding memory of a Methodist service was at Leith, when a visiting preacher rode his bicycle in like a velcro-clad John Wesley. Something to excite the old dears, I suppose.
[1] Stephen Sizer also has used Galatians - namely, the Children of Hagar - to denounce contemporary Israelis as these, thus nullifying their claim to the Land. I wonder how he squares this with the parallel motif that the *Arabs* descend down this line.
Is the Rev. Dr. Sizer an anti-Arab racist? I think we should be told.
[2] It should be noted that the big cheese of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti is a post-grad student at Tel Aviv.
"Velcro-clad"? Oh dear.
Post a Comment