The President and Vice President have recently returned from an all expenses paid visit to the Holy Land. Their blog provides ample proof that this was not a visit designed to encourage peace and reconciliation. It was clearly intended to generate yet more anti-Jewish sentiment within the Connexion.
Yesterday I referred to the ancient Jewish community of Hebron and pointed out that Jews and Arabs lived together in peace for many years until the Jews were massacred and driven out.
The President of the Methodist Conference Revd Alison Tomlin and Vice President Deacon Eunice Attwood are probably the last people on earth who would think of themselves as anti-Semitic which makes some comments in their blog all the more surprising.
Note the picture above. The President and Vice President are standing with a Palestinian guide in an empty street. Each side of them are lock ups, possibly shops, possibly garages.
Our President and Vice President have been told that these are Arab shops, though conveniently none are open. It must be early closing day.
They repeat what they have been told "Below is a street of shops, the metal grids are to prevent the objects which are thrown down by Jewish settlers from hurting Palestinians". So the "Jewish settlers" actually live above Arab shops? They share the same building? Is this likely in a town which they also describe as a "very much a divided community"?
Note the metal grid. Look carefully. Where are the objects which apparently rain down on the shoppers and shop keepers along the empty street? Enlarging the picture reveals no debris either on the grill or on the floor around our leading duo.
Then comes the next point. It tells us a lot about what some Palestinians think of Jews and what leading Methodists are prepared to repeat without question.
"Apparently urine used to be poured out of windows but currently bleach is preferred thus destroying the goods for sale below." The use of the word "apparently" is instructive. What they are saying is that they have no evidence. They saw no evidence. There was no evidence. Had they seen it we could be sure they would have mentioned it. Isn't it surprising that they aren't photographed with a throng of local people ready to tell the story?
No, this is what they had been told by their guide. Conveniently the shops were closed so there was no one to verify the libel. Nor did they have the courage to ask the "Jewish settlers". So it was "apparently" true. And as an added bonus its disgusting.
I was at a conference last year when Richard Vautrey our former Vice President told a similar story, with pictures from the same street. Curiously he didn't mention the urine and the acid. That aspect of the story "apparently" hadn't been invented then
Jews have put up with Christians believing things about Jews which are "apparently" true for generations. The blood libel was "apparently" true. It led to the massacre of Jews in Norwich, London and York.
In the early part of the twentieth century many European Christians believed that the Protocols of Zion were "apparently" true. This belief in the "apparent" provided some of the intellectual justification for the Holocaust.
And now the great denomination of John Wesley is reduced to being led by two gullible people who, without question, investigation or and skepticism, are reduced to repeating a vile story about Jews because it is "apparently" true.
Of course let us be clear. We Methodists are certainly not anti-Semitic. Nor would our President or Vice President repeat a vile and disgusting story without a thorough investigation.....apparently.
Update: Some one signing themselves "offended Jew" commented on the President and Vice President's website. The comment has now been removed. Is there some sort of official policy to stop Jews commenting on official Methodist blogsites? If anyone has any information about this please contact me. Confidences will be respected.
Update: Some one signing themselves "offended Jew" commented on the President and Vice President's website. The comment has now been removed. Is there some sort of official policy to stop Jews commenting on official Methodist blogsites? If anyone has any information about this please contact me. Confidences will be respected.
Posts
36 comments:
Spot on MP!
The Ladies made mention of the veritable EAPPI! I had the distinct mis-pleasure of having to sit and listen to an EAPPI contortionist by the name of Anna Seifert - her whole talk was full of inuendo and heresay - all about us horrid Jews - she didn't have a charitable word for us - but, and we have this on first hand evidence - she is not an Anti-Semite - she proved it - some of her best friends are Jewish! And she couldn't half wring her hands like us true liberals! Funny though, although she seemed to have been in the West Bank at the same time as some of the suicide bombings, apparently unmoved by them, she apparently did not feel that any mention of these was merited.
When Richard Vautry told the (almost) same story at the conference last year he pointed out to me afterwards that he works with an orthodox Jew. A lot of gentiles just don't realise the offense created by the phrase "some of my best friends are Jews" as if it is a license to defame and attack.
"...this was not a visit designed to encourage peace and reconciliation. It was clearly intended to generate yet more anti-Jewish sentiment within the Connexion.
You're saying that the President and Vice-President of the Methodist Conference are not only anti-semitic, but have set out to stir up anti-semitism within the Methodist connexion? That can't be what you meant, but it is what you have said. I think a correction might be in order.
The clarity is in their blog. Apparently.
So on reflection, you're happy with what you have written? That the President and Vice-President of our Conference went out to Israel/Palestine with the intention, the purpose of stirring up anti-semitism in British Methodism?
Well, I've just read their blog entry, and they seem to have met a good number of folk from all sides of the situation, including Jews. I regret that your apparent intention to redress what you perceive as an imbalance only seems to add to the polarisation over the issue.
As to the doubts that you pour on the veracity of the story about Hebron - this isn't a new allegation, whatever you recall of Richard Vautrey's visit. I have read of such treatment of Palestinians by Jewish settlers in a number of places over the last few years.
"Settlers" - whatever the history, Hebron is currently occupied land, and the settlement is illegal. That might be the consequence of an almighty mess, but it is the current legal status as I understand it. The fact is that the 20th C history of Israel is an awful story of atrocities by both Jew and Arab. I am increasingly fed-up with either side pointing the finger and saying "It's their fault."
Unfortunately, I don't see any resolution of the situation until they learn again to accept each other and live together in peace; I suspect the Second Coming will happen first...
Thanks Tony. I hope Jews and Arabs don't have to wait until the Second Coming. The Oslo Accord showed that progress can be made and a better future is possible for all. In my capacity as a member of the European Parliament's standing delegation to the Knesset I saw the actual plans in considerable detail and believe they could have ushered in a period of peace and prosperity.
Richard I don't know who made the arrangements for this visit. I am aware that various anti-Israeli organisations now offer to set up the itineraries for visiting groups and delegations. In recent years it has become increasingly difficult for Jewish owned travel firms to work in the West Bank and this has given new opportunities which some have been quick to exploit.
It would be interesting to know who the job on the ground was "out-sourced" too. You are better connected that me, perhaps you could make enquiries at Church House?
It may be sensible if future delegations and tours from Methodism made contact with the Board of Deputies, the Israeli embassy, the Methodist Friends of Israel or the the Christian Friends of Israel(or even me). There is no shortage of ways in which the views of all sides can be sought.
A few years ago I took my family on a tour that saw the sights but also enabled conversations with all strands of Jewish and Arab opinion. So I know it is do able.
No, David. That won't do. Did you really mean that the intention of this visit -- its aim, purpose, and goal -- was to stir up anti-semitism in British Methodism?
Richard, I was not a party to the planning of this event. I can only make my judgment on the outcome as recorded in the President and Vice President's blog.
My conclusion is:
"....this was not a visit designed to encourage peace and reconciliation. It was clearly intended to generate yet more anti-Jewish sentiment within the Connexion."
I don't know who made the arrangements. As I say, you are better connected, find out.
What's to find out? You seem to be claiming that someone in Church House set up this visit with the intention of stirring up anti-semitism in the church. I don't have to investigate to know that this is a bizarre -- even monstrous -- assertion.
some of the comments here are breathtaking. They wholly endorse the view that the "liberal" churches (and the TUC and Co-op, for that matter) are embracing racism and ARE anti-Semitic.
the Ladies' trip (as the standard EAPPI witness testimony) is designed to portray Jews in the worst possible light - without any regard to truth, balance or accuracy and whether staged or actual. Sabeel and Ateek are quite strident in their anti-Semitism - not to mention Kobia and others at the WCC.
Here are the facts that you are condoning and endorsing -
1. No Jew (but OK for Methodists) will be allowed to reside in a Palestinian State in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)and Gaza. (that's anti-Semitism)
2. Anyone that sells land or property to a Jew (as opposed to a Methodist) in these areas is punishable by death.
3. No Jew can purchase land or property in Saudi or Jordan (so much more for the Methodists!).
Some of the commentators here are encouraging this racism. ...Pure and Simple
I repeat my comment (which has now been published on the Pres and ViceP blog)
This is a report of a trip for the partially-sighted.
I wonder if anyone mentioned the Mufti, Haj Amin - i doubt it - alas you have probably never heard of the bloke -because the fabrication of the history of the Arab-Israel conflict, commended by yourselves and adopted by your recent conference of skewerism, has "air-brushed" probably the most pivotal player in the hatred stakes out of your cosy narrative of the struggle against those horrid Jews. And I wonder if you were taught any further wilful mistranslation of Isiah (or any other of the Holy Books) - because your esteemed aforementioned report has also foisted a gross distortion of the words of Isiah upon your unsuspecting minions.
This has nothing to do with love of peace and everything to do with blinkered prejudice (and coming dangerously close to pure hatred).
Sure there is a barrier, but did you ask why? there was no impediment at all before 2000. You could just walk or drive in AND out of Hebron, Bethlehem and everywhere else in the West Bank (and Gaza). I did - many times! Have you reflected on why there is the need for such action now? Do you even know? In case you don't - here is a clue – an extracted “random” article from Ha'aretz dated 17/9/09 - it says it all -
Larisa Grischenko, 39, died on Wednesday from critical wounds sustained four years ago in a terror attack at the Hadera market.
Grischenko had been in a coma since the October 2005 bombing, which left five people dead and another 55 wounded. Another woman died of her wounds two weeks after the attack, raising the death toll to six.
Grischenko is survived by her husband and three children. She will be laid to rest Thursday afternoon at the Hadera cemetery.
The Israel Defense Forces responded to that attack by entering a town south of Jenin to hunt down members of the Islamic Jihad cell responsible for the bombing.
One of the men killed was Jihad Awidat, the Jihad operative who dispatched the bomber Hassan Abu Zaid, 21, to Hadera. Abu Zaid had been released from Israeli jail just weeks before he carried out the bombing.
So …. three children emotionally drained for four years and finally left motherless - Let's see your resolution on that!
or perhaps just your crocodile tears - after all - they are only Jews - "they have no right to be there in the first place!"
I have always read your blog with interest David. In my view though, on this occasion you appear to have made a very serious allegation for which there is no evidence at all.
Regardless of any real or perceived unbalance in the Pres & Vice-Pres' tour, your post seems to add more heat rather than shedding light.
From what I know, there are injustices on all sides in this conflict - adding allegations like this does nothing to resolve them and does nothing to build God's Kingdom.
Accusing people of throwing urine and bleach at people is pretty horrible. Was there any evidence of this at all, or just hearsay? Did you see Louis Theroux's programme about this issue? The general picture from that was that Jews in PA-administered areas (those horrid "settlers") are subjected to a great deal of violence, racism and intolerance, and if anything they are (generally) victims of this sort of thing rather than perpetrators - which would make these accusations a reversal of the truth.
Out of fairness, I have to let you know that I've posted about this.
Richard I've spent the afternoon watching a rugby match. I've seen your post. It is much like many others you have posted in the last seven of eight months:
Methodist Preacher says something.
Richard says "are you calling Methodists anti-Semitic?"
Methodist Preacher gives a gentle reply.
Richard runs round the blogsphere thinking that he has scored a point by challenging me to say whether we are anti-Semitic.
I would have thought after your little foray into demanding I name names about a Methodist Minister involved in the Holocaust you would have had the good sense to pipe down. Despite repeated requests that you responded on your blog where you made the challenge you just hoped it had never happened.
Just to remind you:
http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2010/07/british-methodist-church-and-holocaust.html
Richard, this was not your finest hour.
By the way how's the anti Methodist Preacher petition going?
http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2010/10/anti-israel-petion-among-methodists.html
Is the Methodist church being led by two gullible people as you intimate here? I may be wrong but I didn't really think the President and Vice President led the Methodist Church. I also, and again I could be totally wrong thought that the power base of the Methodist church was the conference. If I am correct in this thought then the answer to my first question might well be no.
While I appreciate that they are effectively the public face of Methodism I would have to ask who knows who they are within Methodism let alone outside. In my experience you mention Rowan Williams or John Sentamu and most people will know they are leaders within the church of England but mention Alison Tomlin or Eunice Attwood and I would suggest the majority of people will say who? and thats in Methodism!
I think the other issue here is that the majority of people sitting in our pews week in and week out are more concerned about things like paying the Circuit Assessment or if they are going to get a new minister in September than they are with events on the world stage.
I suspect the debate will rumble on here and in other places but will I believe not touch wider Methodism and will be restricted to those who either turn to the various blogs or the Methodist Recorder to keep them abreast of what is going on.
Thanks Fat Prophet for a reality check. I will be spending the next two or three weeks trying to relocate a playgroup to our church open to parents and children of all faiths in an area with a large Muslim population.
Our church is skint. Only three or four of us actually work. Many of our members are pensioners or are on benefits.
Conference seems to be more concerned with sorting out issues in two territories (Israel and Palestine) where we have not one member.
There is money to sent three people on an all expenses paid visit (from my experience we are talking about £10-15,000) yet there is not money to support struggling inner city churches.
It really is time we got our priorities right.
John Wesley urged us to go "not where we are needed but where we are needed most". I'm sure that Jews and Arabs in the Holy Land can sort things out without a couple of Methodist luminaries demonstrating how little they know!
David, I'm afraid you are long on rhetoric, but short on reason. In what sense have I been "running around the blogosphere"? I posted a couple of comments here to try to clarify your post: I couldn't quite believe that you meant what you'd written. I still don't really believe you think that the President's visit was set up with the intention of generating anti-semitic sentiments within Methodism. But that's what you've said.
So somebody in Marylebone Road, and officer or employee of the church has intended to increase anti-semitism? Set out, on purpose, to stir up the Methodist people toward hatred of the Jews? You can't possibly really think that. Can you?
Readers may be interested in a Jewish take on the current spate:
http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/03/methodically-maligning-israel-leaders.html#comments
Richard, you are well connected at Church House. Why did they take down the comment from "offended Jew" on the President and Vice President's website? Has someone at Church House got a downer on Jews and doesn't believe they should be able to comment on Methodist websites? Come on, you are our self appointed expert on free speech, find out what went on there. You surely wouldn't want people to think the comment was deleted because it was from a Jew? They may draw certain conclusions. Apparently
just noticed that Al and Eun have removed my comment - how kind of them. They clearly don't want to hear of Jewish victims. But it's still available to read in the comments on David's Tuesday 8th March blog (I think!)
I've just posted a riposte to the luvly ladies - don't know if they will publish it so here it is in case they don't -
clearly not able to withstand some basic factual truth the President and Vice-President don't want to hear from real Jewish voices - apparently content with lackeys supplied to assuage their consciences and to justify some self breast-beating. The lackey voices you have sought out do not speak for me or the many millions of others. Jews come in all colours and types, including crackpots too!
Please don't go on about love and co-existence - you have no idea what these both entail because you have had no experience of these. You have been careful not to seek out the many examples of these to enrich your witness.
There will be no peace and coexistence whilst all the blame is blindly attached to those horrid Jews and you are helping to foster that..
I don't know what makes you think I'm 'well-connected'.
One last time and then I'm done: do you really believe that the visit of the President and Vice-President to Israel was "intended to generate yet more anti-Jewish sentiment within the Connexion"?
Yes. The trip was anti-semitic. The ladies were taken for suckers. See my post on Connexions.
Richard asks:
"do you really believe that the visit of the President and Vice-President to Israel was "intended to generate yet more anti-Jewish sentiment within the Connexion"?
It certainly wasn't a fact finding tour. At no point did they meet any mainstream Israeli opinion. There would have been no problems fixing up such a meeting. Israelis are keen to tell their story.
The first act of the President and Vice President of Conference is to publish a blog that claims:
"Apparently urine used to be poured out of windows but currently bleach is preferred thus destroying the goods for sale below."
They provided no evidence for this story. But they repeated it. It will probably appear in the Methodist Recorder because the copy has already been filed. Following this post it is one little story that they will not be retailing further.
When Jews responded on that blog they were blocked. Christians were allowed to comment (even me!) but not Jews.
Can you tell me Richard what the purpose of that visit was? Because if it wasn't to collect stories such as the one about the urine and acid, what was its purpose?
Thank you "offended Jew" for trying. I am sorry that Jews are not allowed to place comments on the President of Conference's blog.
I notice that Richard is now editing comments by Jews on his own site. It seems in the Methodist blogsphere Jews must abide by different rules.
But we are not anti-Semitic. Apparently.
David, you're not listening. If you'd said the President's visit was naive, ill-conceived, biassed, badly-judged I'd have disagreed, but probably kept my disagreement to myself. But what you've said about this visit went a lot further than that. You wrote that the visit "was clearly intended to generate yet more anti-Jewish sentiment within the Connexion". You've ascribed evil intent, without any evidence or justification. If that isn't what you meant, you should change it. If it is what you meant, you should start a disciplinary process in the church. Or, since Jews are protected under incitement to racial hatred laws, the police. What you can't do with any integrity is leave your post as it is.
For the record, you haven't noticed that I'm "editing comments by Jews" on my blog. Because I'm not.
Since the Methodist President and Vice President blog does not seem to welcome critical comments, I have posted my comment to them here:
=================================
Why have comments by "Offended Jew" and myself been removed? Why did my comment not even get published? Are people not allowed a right of reply?
I have no doubt that you won't see fit to publish this either, but I will say it anyway because I know you'll read it.
Your Palestinian tour guide accused the local Jewish population of some horrendous things. Not only did you believe these accusations at face value, without questioning them, but you also saw fit to broadcast those accusations to the world, knowing full well how this will affect peoples' perceptions.
Spreading ill tidings about any group of people in this manner is objectionable and frankly un-Christian. It is especially objectionable to do it to Jews, when very recent history shows exactly where this kind of slander leads.
Jewish "settlers" are among some of the poorest in Israel. You may not like where they choose to live, you may consider them "illegals", and you may disapprove of their beliefs - but they have a right to a voice just like anyone else.
This is the heart of the conflict - a dispute over land between Jews and non-Jews. If you are going to claim that you are searching for the "truth" then at least listen to both sides of the argument. Jews have plenty of grievances about their treatment as well.
If, on the other hand, this was a mission to show solidarity with Palestinian non-Jews, then at least be honest about it to yourselves and to your peers.
I have lost patience on the Connexions blog - here is my latest comment on it -
Richard - you don’t seem to get it?
the trip is a direct result of the unfortunate resolution - it was planned to reinforce the resolution - and because it is so one-sided in its apportion of blame - it is Antisemitic. It was planned to be (by its itinery) and in practice it fulfilled that.
As for Kim and his perhaps self-deluding Jewish friends that are critical only of Israel and sometimes Jewish only for their berating crtiticsm of Israel - if they are unfair in their balance then they too are AntiSemitic. They don’t speak for me or the millions of Jews who argue and debate every moot point both within democratic Israel and outside it but not to the deliberate exclusion of what’s happening in the rest of the world and who do not descend into mis-apportioning the blame on one side. Jews, as Christians, Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs, etc. come in all colours and shapes - and that includes crackpots too!
If you want an example of some balanced criticsm of Israel that is fair and clearly not Anti-Semitic, then why not read the comments of the President Jose Ramos Horta of East Timor on his recent trip to Israel and the West Bank.
But Richard, unfortunately I have also ran out of patience on this thread because you clearly are not interested in some good factual-based arguments.
let me know when you write something balanced?
For a technical reason that I can't fathom some comments are not appearing but still arrive in my inbox. This one came from Richard Hall:
avid, you're not listening. If you'd said the President's visit was naive, ill-conceived, biassed, badly-judged I'd have disagreed, but probably kept my disagreement to myself. But what you've said about this visit went a lot further than that. You wrote that the visit "was clearly intended to generate yet more anti-Jewish sentiment within the Connexion". You've ascribed evil intent, without any evidence or justification. If that isn't what you meant, you should change it. If it is what you meant, you should start a disciplinary process in the church. Or, since Jews are protected under incitement to racial hatred laws, the police. What you can't do with any integrity is leave your post as it is.
For the record, you haven't noticed that I'm "editing comments by Jews" on my blog. Because I'm not.
The problem I referred to above has affected this comment from Matt:
Since the Methodist President and Vice President blog does not seem to welcome critical comments, I have posted my comment to them here:
=================================
Why have comments by "Offended Jew" and myself been removed? Why did my comment not even get published? Are people not allowed a right of reply?
I have no doubt that you won't see fit to publish this either, but I will say it anyway because I know you'll read it.
Your Palestinian tour guide accused the local Jewish population of some horrendous things. Not only did you believe these accusations at face value, without questioning them, but you also saw fit to broadcast those accusations to the world, knowing full well how this will affect peoples' perceptions.
Spreading ill tidings about any group of people in this manner is objectionable and frankly un-Christian. It is especially objectionable to do it to Jews, when very recent history shows exactly where this kind of slander leads.
Jewish "settlers" are among some of the poorest in Israel. You may not like where they choose to live, you may consider them "illegals", and you may disapprove of their beliefs - but they have a right to a voice just like anyone else.
This is the heart of the conflict - a dispute over land between Jews and non-Jews. If you are going to claim that you are searching for the "truth" then at least listen to both sides of the argument. Jews have plenty of grievances about their treatment as well.
If, on the other hand, this was a mission to show solidarity with Palestinian non-Jews, then at least be honest about it to yourselves and to your peers.
Another comment which did not automatically appear:
I have lost patience on the Connexions blog - here is my latest comment on it -
Richard - you don’t seem to get it?
the trip is a direct result of the unfortunate resolution - it was planned to reinforce the resolution - and because it is so one-sided in its apportion of blame - it is Antisemitic. It was planned to be (by its itinery) and in practice it fulfilled that.
As for Kim and his perhaps self-deluding Jewish friends that are critical only of Israel and sometimes Jewish only for their berating crtiticsm of Israel - if they are unfair in their balance then they too are AntiSemitic. They don’t speak for me or the millions of Jews who argue and debate every moot point both within democratic Israel and outside it but not to the deliberate exclusion of what’s happening in the rest of the world and who do not descend into mis-apportioning the blame on one side. Jews, as Christians, Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs, etc. come in all colours and shapes - and that includes crackpots too!
If you want an example of some balanced criticsm of Israel that is fair and clearly not Anti-Semitic, then why not read the comments of the President Jose Ramos Horta of East Timor on his recent trip to Israel and the West Bank.
But Richard, unfortunately I have also ran out of patience on this thread because you clearly are not interested in some good factual-based arguments.
let me know when you write something balanced?
Al and Eun seemed to have vacuumed their site completely erasing any mention of my comments and the fact that they were subsequently deleted so....I never existed? There's replacement theology for you! Presumably they felt very uncomfortable with the truth
Interestingly - they also seem to have subsequently altered their identity criteria leaving only two options (Google Account or OpenID)
perhaps they will also rescind or alter the resolution?
really want to thank Methodist preacher for defending the Jewish people so well and I think in such an intelligent and stimulating way.
Also thought your brieh history of Hebron was spot on.
Sincerely and thanks
Cry4Dance
Incidently just took a look at Richard Hall's blog, took a look at a brief history of the Israel/Palestine conflict. He is very and I mean very guilty of Omission, like: omiting the fact that the Jew's accepted the partition and the Palestinians rejected it, that Israel was attacked in 48 by at least 4 arab countries and in 67 the arabs threantened to throw "the Jews into the sea" and that the Temple Mount may be one of Islam's holiest sites but, and here is the omission, it is the absolute holiest site for the Jewish people. And, this will be my last entry for now, that it was Yasser Arafat who "blew up" the Camp David
process. some people might want to
argue about this last point ,perhaps die hard Arafat supporters. But I would like to see Richard or any one else argue with the other points. Cry4Dance
Thanks to everyone who have been so encouraging in recent days. British Methodism is under a dark cloud which I believe will soon move and let the sunlight in. With God all things are possible
Such a great pity that the Lord Jesus Christ was a Jew - so demeanin g, hey?
Richard Hall needs to simply look at who the Methodist leaders visited! Utterly biased and hateful. I would agree 100% that it was clearly intended to generate yet more anti-Jewish sentiment" no other explanation explains the uninterrupted role call of hate groups deliberately visited. Utterly disgraceful! As for the "gut wrenching" checkpoints, these, plus the separation barrier are what defeated the murderous violence of the second Intifada - they were built to protect innocent lives. If you dont like them, blame Palestinian violence - unbearable proof of this was provided when, after a checkpoint was removed by the Israelis to help Palestinians lead more normal lives, the family at Itamar were murdered.
Post a Comment