The troubled British Methodist Conference, due to open on Thursday, is already the focus of media attention across the world. Chanah Shapira in Israel National News provides readers with a background note.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Follow by Email
Methodist Preacher on Twitter
Recent Comments
Do you have something to say?
Share it
Bible Reader
Latest Post
Popular Posts
- The 360 assessment tool will soon be available for ministers and church leaders
- $30 for a blog post
- Vestry Prayers from the Fat Prophet
- An Island Parish - update
- Lent and Ramadan: compare and contrast
- The gerontocracy that runs the Methodist Recorder
- An Island Parish: why does he have to leave?
- Steve Wild to the rescue of the Island Parish
- The questions the Methodist Recorder won't answer about its future
- The Church must condemn the Itamar killings
Followers
Subscribe To This Blog
Posts
Comments
methodist - Google News
Online Preaching Resources
Blogs I watch
- 42
- Believe in the city
- British Methodist Blog Feed
- Connexions
- Councillor Bob Piper
- Dave Faulkner The Big Circumstance
- Digging a lot
- Fat Prophet
- Harry's Place
- Jo Clifford
- John Cooper
- Methodist Friends of Israel
- Methodist Preacher Guest Page
- Mike Ion
- PamBG
- Peter Phillips Post Modern Bible
- Preaching with a purpose
- Presbyterian Pilgrim
- President and Vice President of Conference
- Pretending to be a preacher
- Pure unbounded love
- Seismic shock
- The Radical Methodist
- Theo the Phitatelist
- Tom Watson MP
- Turbulent Cleric
Contact David
David's Links
10 comments:
This is the sort of thing that worries me:
'At the same time they reject any legitimacy of the specifically Jewish covenant with God for the land of Israel; they deny the firm link between Jews today and our Biblical past.'
The Conquest Narratives have a history of being used to justify apartheid and ethnic cleansing, in the USA and South Africa, for instance. Here we have an article taking the view that it's wrong to critique their use in Palestine, where the Israelis do so much that flagrantly flies in the face in international law. It maybe antisemitic to deny the legitimacy of Israel; it cannot be so to condemn its illegal behaviour, or to critique the abuse of the Bible to justify it.
The only way peace will come to Palestine - since the Israelis are never going to destroy their enemies militarily, and the most overwhelming Arab victory would probably result in the emergence of a Jewish resistance movement - is for both sides to sit down together, as they did in Northern Ireland, and work out a just settlement which satisfies both. All the present situation does is foster hatred, war, and both antisemitism and anti-Arab prejudice.
The witness of archaeology is, of course, that the Conquest never happened.
Robert, you say "the most overwhelming Arab victory would probably result in the emergence of a Jewish resistance movement."
All the evidence is that those calling for an "overwhelming Arab victory" also want to see the annihilation and extermination of the Israeli people.
Jews have lived in the Holy Land for many, many years and I think we have to respect their right to live there in peace and security.
Of course we should do everything possible to facilitate talks and encourage dialogue. The talks in Northern Ireland only became possible when the Republicans realised that they were not going to be able to terrorise their way to a united Ireland. So far we haven't seen any evidence from Hammas and Hezbollah that they are interested in any form of talks.
The misuse of scripture by others is an irrelevance to the argument.
As for the witness of archaeology, I would caution extreme care. You never know what will emerge tomorrow. A lot of 19th Century certainties were overturned decades ago, but many still don't know that.
Level with me please, Robert. Do you believe that the Jewish people have no right to a national homeland anywhere in the former Palestinian Mandate? If so, that does not make you an antisemite: but it does close down any possibility of further dabate
It took two sides to talk in the Six Counties, and it only became possible when the Brits moved on from Thatcherite dogmatism about 'we'll never talk to the IRA'. In fact, of course, they had a back channel open all the time, and I'd be very surprised if the Israelis don't have one as well.
We've all heard the Israeli thing about 'not having a dialogue partner', and I've had dire suspicions about it for many years. The PLO leak a few months ago showed that the Palestinians were willing to sell their mothers for peace, but the Israelis, as I thought, had been blocking progress all the time.
I have never said the Jews shouldn't have a homeland, but it needs to be recognised that other people live their as well. Palestine needs to become a place where all the descendants of Abraham, Jew and Arab,can live in equality and genuine peace. An ethnically-based, exclusive, apartheid state is never going to produce peace.
Robert, To describe Israel as "an apartheid state" is nonsense. When I was in Israel I met with Arab members of the Knesset. Sadly there is only one country in the Middle East that can now comfortably have the all the descendants of Abraham living together. The new State of Israel had to absorb nearly a million Jews that had been ethnically cleansed from other parts of the Middle East by fanatics. At the same time its Arab citizens were given full civil and economic rights.
You're forgetting the Occupied Territories. Incidentally, you said that you've seen no evidence that the Palestinians are willing to negotiate. Here's a link to the minutes of a meeting where they offered to give away virtually all of East Jerusalem. http://transparency.aljazeera.net/document/2825 . There's plenty more out there.
Thank you for this very interesting link, Robert (which I think came via Wikileaks). We are obviously interpreting the same text differently. For me the crucial part is when Tzipi Livni says:
"Hamas has missiles in the Gaza Strip because we are not there, and there are no missiles in the West Bank because we are there."
Condoleeza Rice reinforces the point thus:
"The issue is that even if Israel has full trust in you, you are still incapable. I have full trust in Nouri Malki, Iraq’s Prime Minister, but he is incapable. Canada has sincere desire but there came a time when Canada was incapable of controlling the borders."
Israel will quit most of Judea and Samaria when the Palestinian Authority proves itself to be both willing and able to crush Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and its own Tanzim. Not a moment before.
When the details of that meeting about Arab Occupied East Jeruslaem came out, there was a hell of a row in the Arab media. The Israelis knew this would happen which is why they never believed the offer.
Judging by Robert's seriously ill-informed comments on a previous blog - Methodist conference to be pressed to embrace EUMC definition of anti-Semitism - and now on this string - I seriously doubt he has any real idea of the facts as they are or of life for Jews and Arabs in Israel or anywhere else in the Middle East - rather than the myths and misconceptions that he presupposes and peddles.
For a start - the Northern Ireland analogy is SO not relevant here - the IRA has never refused the right of Britain merely to “exist” nor has it threatened to kill all Britons or preached that they are descended from some lowly animal species. Moreover, which Irishman has ever been stupid enough to fall for the "suicide" implosion and 72 virgins story?
If you want to read more considered commentary of this flawed analogy, read David Trimble, or Henry Macdonald http://www.zword.com/uploads/assets/documents/ZWord_HenryMcDonald_4YrI620j.pdf
Furthermore, it has been the Palestinians (and not the Israelis) who have consistently walked away from peace-making. Whether from Arafat's proud exit from Camp David in 2000 which spawned the pre-planned terrorist onslaught known as the 2nd intifada through Taba, Olmert 2008, etc.. even the current deadlock is spearheaded by Abbas / Erekat refusal to engage at all.
A fundamental understanding of the Middle East psyche is a pre-requisite for any considered commentator on Israel - Palestine.
Just one example - Almost all sides would agree that whatever is envisaged at most would only ever be peaceful co-existence – not co-habitation. No-one is the Middle East envisions a salad bowl (a single “multi-ethnic society”) No-one is suggesting a “my daughter marry your son” society - that Jews marry Muslims etc… I know that liberal European (Western) bigots and most of your conference attendees will struggle to understand that mindset – but that is part of their misreading of the values of Middle East society.
Shabbat Shalom
Post a Comment