Serai, whatever.

Serai:

I did so with current stats.  The stats are current to 2004.  Look under hate crimes at that site instead of country breakdown. You will see some differences if you study the charts.  There has been a rise. 

As to why Elwed said the comment about the “upstart colonials” reflects your ignorance, it is because although he resides stateside, residence doesn’t necessitate being born here.

As for Israel being driven into the sea etc, well if you build a nation and surround yourself with enemies, what else can you expect? It’s not like Israel has gone out of it’s way to get along and be a good neighbour.

What if you belonged to a tribe that’s hasn’t been treated very nicely from the beginning of time (according to the flat earth society); your tribal psyche has been negatively programmed with so much crap from all the other tribes over eons - you’ve been blamed for every ill that’s befallen ALL other tribes in whose midst you have tried to live peacefully while working at jobs they’ve said you can work at and, forced to live in enclaves and ghettos, subject to the whim of your masters in whose midst you live, while they have made countless attempts at erasing you from existence.
Then one day you buy some land in a country (where you believe your tribe was born) and stake your claim over more of it.

Whether it was right or wrong I don’t know. What I do know is that most of the absentee Palestinian landlords were happy to sell their unproductive land.

Anyway, you get some tribal pride and find the means to protect yourself for the first time in eons.
Then, all your enemies (to the North, East & South of you) band together and try to drive you East, into the sea AND you beat the bastards back, more than once, AND you take some of their territory, and they hate you for it and try to get their territory back and you say to them: Fuck you! I’ll give some of it back if and when …

And, no, I don’t agree with what we’ve been told is happening in the Middle East although I try to be as cynical as I can about what I see in the media
Randolph Hearst said: News is something someone doesn’t want printed; all the rest is unpaid advertising.

To put a blanket over any race of people and say: Fuck ’em is not, to my mind, a sample of critical thinking.

World war two was over 50 years ago, get over it now please and move on, Jews are not the victims anymore!

If that line of thinking were true one could say to anyone who was Physically &/or Psychologically abused as a child: Build a bridge and get over it you dumb fuck!

When I see any child hurt in any way from any where, I hurt inside.
I didn’t read the article about the Jewish soldier shooting the Palestinian child, just like I try to put my head in the sand when I hear of Jewish children being blown up by a suicide bomber looking forward to the 72 virgins (what do female suicide bombers have top look forward to? 72 studs?) he’s gonna get into in paradise. I’ve often wondered if they are compliant Moslem virgins over the age of consent.

Now, of course, none of this may make sense to anyone but me, but that’s okay.

Shoulda been ‘drive you West into the sea’  

Reading over this thread and seeing how fast it falls to accusations and explanations is just how it works on the larger stage.  There is nothing about the Arab/Israeli conflict that does not fill me with sadness.  MrsDoF once worked for an expatriate Palestinian; he was a good man and well remembered how a ranch that had been in his family for generations was taken away.  As a child they had to leave and wandered a long time before all scattering and he ended up in (of all places) Normal, Illinois running a restaurant. 

Then there is the awful black hole of the holocaust and the well-intentioned and high-principled creation of Israel that followed, in such a fashion that it cannot fail to create enmity.  I know a Jewish woman - too young to remember the holocaust - for whom that crime is like a wound that others cannot see, but which will not stop bleeding.  The existence of Israel, which she has never visited, is a comfort to her.

If there is any chasm in human society for which no bridge is possible, it is this one.  Unless an epidemic of forgiveness breaks out, with sharing of pain from both sides, and embracing and weeping and the letting go of many burdens, then perpetual fear and deadly hatred lie ahead for everyone involved, pulling other peoples into the vortex of suffering without end.

As Elwed said, if anyone has a solution to that one, billions of people would be in their debt.  I stare in wonderment at politicians who are willing to even tackle the job.

To get back the original post…

This argument, in my mind, is a load of old bunkum.

Ignoring how much confidence one should have in The Guardian, here’s a quote from the article:

The synod vote was taken after a call supporting disinvestment from the Anglican bishop of Jerusalem, the Rt Rev Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal, who is Palestinian.

If I were to venture a guess, I’d say this is a Palestinian who has some hostility issue to work through. And then there’s this:

Caterpillar says it has not supplied vehicles or parts to Israel, which obtained the machinery from the US military.

Talking of bunkum, here’s an example:

In a letter to Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi, released on Friday, Dr Williams tried to play down the synod decision and offered reassurances. He expressed deep regret at the effect on “Jewish friends and neighbours” about how the decision had been perceived and insisted that the move did not initiate a more general boycott.

Deep regret about the effect, my ass.

It may be news to some people that for many Jews, Judaism as a religion and culture cannot be divorced from the nation of Israel. Not all Jews may agree with whatever government is in power at any given time, but it is difficult to view the Church of England’s decision to disinvest in Caterpillar because that company “makes giant bulldozers used by the Israeli army to demolish homes in Palestinian areas,“ even though it doesn’t directly supply them to the IDF, as anything but anti-semitism, particularly given that the vote was sponsored by a Palestinian.

Since the definition of anti-semitism doesn’t seem to be universally agreed upon by all readers, here’s what dictionary.com has to say:

an·ti-Sem·i·tism n.

  1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
  2. Discrimination against Jews.

It’s not too hard to support such an accusation against the Church of England as represented by the synod that voted on that issue.

It is worth pointing out that Neil T. has materially misrepresented the content of the article, something that apparently escaped the other poster’s attention. Nowhere does the article state the opinions of the chief rabbi; all the people whose criticism is quoted are Anglicans of some prominence. In particular:

Simon McIlwaine, spokesman of the Anglicans for Israel group, told the BBC Sunday programme the decision had set back Anglican-Jewish relations by 70 years

Neil T., I’ll reserve judgement whether you intentionally misattributed that quote.

For the record, I am deeply unsympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. They appear to desire the annihilation of Israel, where Isreal appears content to simply have peace. As such, the ball is squarely in the Palestinian’s court. Europeans seem to be more sympathetic to Palestinian interests than the security of Israel. I think they have it backwards.

DOF, I’ll go along with you.

The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is a vicious circle. While I am adamant that the Palestinians can end it at any time, the trillion dollar question is exactly how this could come to pass. It doesn’t help that Palestinians are the willing or unwitting tools of other Middle Eastern nations; countries that washed their hands of them as they were dispersed, but are more than happy to stoke the flames in Israel - more than likely to distract from the actions of their own regimes.

For the record, I am deeply unsympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. They appear to desire the annihilation of Israel, where Isreal appears content to simply have peace. As such, the ball is squarely in the Palestinian’s court. Europeans seem to be more sympathetic to Palestinian interests than the security of Israel. I think they have it backwards.

That we agree almost completely on an issue is such a rarity that it is worth noting.  I’m anxious to see if the sun will actually rise tomorrow.

As an Arab, I desire peace in the Middle East too. But peace will never come to Palestine until one fact is accepted. A people were dispossed to make a homeland for another people, who wanted to escape the scourge of prejudice.

A people were dispossed. Simple as that.

Palestine was inhabited by other people, LONG BEFORE the Jews arrived on the scene. The justication of Palestine belonging to the Jews is a religous one, and as I am not religious [very much anti-religious] then that argument is gonan fall on deaf ears. I don’t accept it.

If it is true show me the title deeds.

But funny enough, all this talk about victimisation, makes me think of one group of people that is even more victimised than the Jews. Yep. It’s true folk. It is indeed possible.

Us Gays and Lesbians. Everywhere we go on this earth, we are not wanted. Not even by other victimsed groups. We don’t have nations fighting to create or preserve safe space for us. We don;t have Rabbi’s standing up for the dignity of Gay and Lesbians; We don’t have priests and monks doing the same… no they are all busy standing on their little podiums pontificating in the name of God and hurting the rest of us!

In the end, the charge of anti-semitism by what’s his face, is muck raking in lieu of intelligent “debate” or astute criticism….

and further more, some of my brothers and sisters were killed in the Holocaust too you know. But no one really gives a fuck. Our stories aren’t heard every time a holocaust movie is made. Our people aren’t honoured in memorials to the victims who died…. we were just poofs and dykes!

Us Gays and Lesbians. Everywhere we go on this earth,

Well, if it’s any consolation, you have MY utmost respect and admiration.

Let me amend my above post, as I accidentally cut off a crucial part of your quote:

Us Gays and Lesbians. Everywhere we go on this earth, we are not wanted.

Well, if it’s any consolation, you have MY utmost respect and admiration.

On the surface this conflict has always struck me as a sort of childish brawl - two siblings beating the crap out of each other and claiming the others started it first. And, like those children, neither will cede any blame, although they continue to shoulder brutal consequences of those actions every day.

I got into a spat with robadams several months back on this and we exchanged emails on the matter. The bottom line to me is that fundamentalist attitude pervades the leaders and people on both sides. There are lots of rational people, good natured people, religious and not, trying to work towards a solution. But their cries seem to go completely unheeded, as it’s the irrational attitudes in particular that are causing the most grief. And they’re not going to go away, as has been stated, because (especially the religious) fundamentalist views, grossly oversimplified and shortsighted as they are, are inseperable from the national politics. It’s hard to remove belief X if nation Y was founded on it.

But it does happen. Look at the USA. We need to be turning the cranks in the other direction, is all.

I figured I’d toss one on - the victim card thing. It’s very real, it’s used fairly often (1 in 3?) whenever the conflict is brought up at the U, and people who disagree with that discourse experience some turmoil for it.

But it’s been presented to me before that the Holocaust is still a young conflict, and the influence of the so-called “old guards” (who struggled to redeem themselves and Jews from the notions that Jews were weak and struggling, or that they were somehow ‘going extinct’) remains prevalent in the politics of modern Israel, and, based on the one talk I’ve attended, that influence is problematic.

I wish I could pose a solution for that, but I can’t. It’s a dilemma on the use and abuse of history. It would do us all well to remember history and not to repeat it, but there are other times when it is a less useful, if not detrimental, tool. Where this stands is difficult for me to say.

A freind of mine used to make a hobby of being thrown out of historical sites for correcting the tour guides history to the unbiased version.  One example of this came in Israel.  The tour guide said ‘This is where the British murdered Israeli freedom fighters (in 1946).  My mate pointed out that they had bombed a British army barracks, and killed British soldiers, and they were hanged for this act of terrorism. He was asked to leave.

Palestine was a British protectorate.  The we quit because we were tired of having troops killed by terrorists in a far off land we didn’t particularly care about, given the fact we had just finished the most violent war history has ever known.  Some of these terrorist went on to become world statesmen.

I would comment isn’t it odd that different branches of the same Abrahamic religeon hate each other, but given even within the sub-divisions they don’t get on (Catholic vs Protestant vs Fundie, Shi’ite Vs Sunni) the answer would be not really.

What is ironic is if it is the promised land, how come it’s the bit WITHOUT the oil?

Serai, you are betraying your prejudice with just about every word out of your mouth.  You’re pulling out ALL the classic arguments:

I don’t see how me booking a holiday in Tel Aviv would help me to find a sudden rush of sympathy for people who play the persecution card every time someone disagrees with something they say or do.

Translation:  if any Jew has the temerity to complain about anything, I will dismiss their complaints out of hand.  Jews can’t be reasonable; they complain about anything and play the victim whenever they get upset.

As for Israel being driven into the sea etc, well if you build a nation and surround yourself with enemies, what else can you expect? It’s not like Israel has gone out of it’s way to get along and be a good neighbour.

Translation:  and besides, even if they are victims, it’s their own fault.

I daresay I will be labelled ‘anti semitic’ for my views, but I don’t have any issue with peoples racial background unless they use it as an excuse for special treatment.

Another revealing slip here, Serai:  Judaism isn’t a race.  Unless, of course, you’re a N*** ... well, let’s not go there.

I can tell you of all the racial abuse I have ever encountered or read about in the news here, I cannot recall more than a handfull of them being against Jews. There is hardly an epidemic of persecution here in the UK, if anything the Jewish community are doing very well for themselves thank you very much.

Oh yes, I forgot, they run the world, don’t they?  My mistake.

No it doesn’t, I wasn’t going to bring this up but seeing as you keep on trying to paint me as anti semitic, my grandfather came to the UK during ww2 to escape persecution in Poland, because his parents were Jewish. No I don’t consider myself Jewish nor does my grandfather, but his parents certainly did.

This is a nice variation on, “Why, some of my best friends are Jews.“  You never lived as a Jew, and neither did any family you know, so this means absolutely nothing in your claim that you’re not anti-semitic.

Sorry forgot to add the wink, I wasn’t seriously playing the victim card, I forget you upstart colonials have a different sense of humour to us Brits.

Ooo!  She’s getting backed into a corner, folks.  She tries another nationalistic swipe.  Is this the only tool in her toolbox?

Well, it’s not a surprise to me that there are clueless Brits just as there are clueless Yanks, but it’s good to see confirmation every so often.

And just because, the opening post is mistitled. Instead of

British Jews and Christians fall out over bulldozer boycott.

it should read

British Anglicans fall out over bulldozer boycott.

Given that the article doesn’t even mention their side of the story, it makes the outbursts against Jews even more telling… It’s obvious that Jews aren’t victims anymore, eh.

Geekmom you are so wrong, but really go ahead call me what you want I know the truth, you clearly do not. Vent all you want you haven’t won any argument here with me, all you’ve done is show how you like to jump on people.

The label of anti semite won’t stick to me I am afraid except in your little blinkered world, which is fine by me because your little world has nothing to do with or any effect on me or mine.

Go on frothing and babbling nonsense if it makes you happy, just know that I know you are wrong about me, and nothing you can say or do will change that.

Oh and your definition of judaism as a relgion may be correct, but semites are a race, so put that in your pipe and have a nice smoke on it.

elwedriddsche…

Please explain to me WHY jews are often hated.

Also, while you are at it you could explain WHY some palestinians blow themselves up in Israel’s public places.

I would also like to know how come there are a lot more deaths on the palestinian side.

I’m a little shocked at your condescending answers.

And finally, why is boycotting a product a hate crime.

Ever heard of jewish food laws…I see it everyday.

It’s a lot more complicated than we think. It ain’t black and white picture and you can’t say these guys are bastards and these guys are angels.

The one thing that really upsets me is that there is an uproar every time someone criticises Israel…even a little.

They are truly untouchable.

I have to agree with Serge’s post. I don’t really take sides in the conflict because both sides have blood on their hands. The Israelis seem to be able to take the moral high ground but the Israeli army have done some thoroughly nasty things (do a Google search for ‘Rachel Corrie’). But it’s no excuse for extremist Palestinian groups to send in suicide bombers to terrorise innocent Israelis.

What my post was originally about was the fact that the Jewish leaders in Britain were using the pulling of funding to a supplier of bulldozers to the Israeli army as a religious issue. To me that makes no sense - sure, Israel is mostly a Jewish country but just because someone doesn’t like the actions of a Jewish country doesn’t make the anti-semitic. I don’t particularly like some of the things going on in Iran and Saudi Arabia but that shouldn’t make me anti-Islam.

Of course, if both sides could just get on and tolerate each other everything would be so much easier.

Please explain to me WHY jews are often hated.

How simplistic an answer do you want? They are members of a foreign tribe, have provoked the envy and greed of the non-Jewish locals, have been painted with a bull’s eye by Christianity, and are a too convenient all-purpose scapegoat.

If you want to talk about a specific time and place, books can be written.

If you wish to make the case that it’s the Jew’s fault, as your question insinuates, go right ahead.

Also, while you are at it you could explain WHY some palestinians blow themselves up in Israel’s public places.

It’s the ultimate terrorist weapon and their religion aids and abets its use.

If you wish to make the case that the Palestinians are driven by despair to such self-sacrifice, go right ahead. You won’t find me a sympathetic audience, though, unless you can first demonstrate beyond a doubt that the Palestinians haven’t squandered opportunities to achieve solid goals without resorting to violence and terrorism.

I would also like to know how come there are a lot more deaths on the palestinian side.

If this claim holds true, it’s because the Palestinians don’t have more firepower at their disposal.

I’m a little shocked at your condescending answers.

Ask me if I care.

And finally, why is boycotting a product a hate crime.

I have not made such a claim, therefore I don’t see a need to answer that question.

Ever heard of jewish food laws…I see it everyday.

Care to explain the purpose of this question?

The one thing that really upsets me is that there is an uproar every time someone criticises Israel…even a little.

The problem isn’t the criticism of Israel. The problem are the armchair quarterbacks who are clueless about the actual facts on the ground and tell Israel what to do or not to do, without offering a workable alternative.

So some people are upset that the IDF raizes buildings that are used as sniper posts, say. Don’t tell Israel that they can’t do this, tell Israel what will demonstrably keep the Palestinians from sniping in the first place. The world is all ear.

What will you do to ensure that Israeli children can play without an adult armed with automatic weapons guarding them? Have another chat with the Palestinians? Commiserate with them how poorly Israel treats them? Tell the Jews it’s all their fault?

Serai, I just love your embodiment of the pagan values of wisdom, tolerance and love there.  Nice job.  (How do you say “neener neener” in Gaelic?)

Neil T., nobody here is defending all of Israel’s actions regarding the Palestinians.  However, we are taking issue with the fact that some people here are using the fact that an article stated that ANGLICANS were arguing about a boycott to start accusing Jews of universally playing victims.  Do you really not see the disconnect here?

In other words, you’re clearly seeing something that is not there, and we’re speculating as to why that is.

Now, if someone wanted to take issue with the leading members of the Israeli government and their decisions, that’s a different kettle of fish entirely.  But I don’t see anyone doing that.  I see a lot of banging on the Jews in general, regardless of which government they happen to be under.  Your Guardian article says nothing about Jewish leaders and their opinions, Neil.  ALL the quotes are attributed to Anglican groups and unspecified “conservative religious groups in the U.S.“ Why are you generalising about Jewish leaders like this?

Your Guardian article says nothing about Jewish leaders and their opinions, Neil.  ALL the quotes are attributed to Anglican groups and unspecified “conservative religious groups in the U.S.�? Why are you generalising about Jewish leaders like this?

In that case, here’s an article quoting the chief rabbi in a magazine article.

In that case, here’s an article quoting the chief rabbi in a magazine article.

Okay.

The primary source quoted by The Guardian is apparently available online at http://www.thejc.com, but not for free. Without the primary source for reference, I’m not willing to take what The Guardian writes as gospel.

So what does The Guardian write?

Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, has criticised the Church of England’s general synod as ill-judged in voting to remove its investment in a US company that makes bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish Palestinian homes.

Nothing offensive there.

In unusually harsh language, Dr Sacks called into question the Jewish community’s links with the church. In today’s Jewish Chronicle, he says: “The church has chosen to take a stand on the politics of the Middle East over which it has no influence, knowing that it will have the most adverse repercussions on a situation over which it has enormous influence, Jewish-Christian relations in Britain.

“Unusually harsh language” can mean a number of things. Assuming it refers to the immediately following quote, what do we have? The CoE has indeed taken a political stand. He’s probably right that the CoE has no influence over the Middle East politics on either side. Are there repercussions in the British Jewish community? Apparently so. Does the CoE has enourmous influence over the Jewish-Christian relations in Britain? Yes.

The article also accuses the Guardian of increasing the British Jewish community’s sense of vulnerability after last week’s publication of two lengthy articles by its Jerusalem correspondent Chris McGreal that drew comparisons between Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with the apartheid policy in South Africa. A delegation from the Board of Deputies of British Jews met the editor Alan Rusbridger to express concern that the articles would increase anti-semitic attacks.

Like it or not, that’s not an unreasonable concern. The crime statistics will bear out in hindsight if it was a valid concern.

Dr Williams wrote to the Chief Rabbi to insist that the vote did not represent a boycott or question Israel’s right to exist or to self-defence. Earlier this week Dr Sacks replied that the archbishop’s clarification would aid mutual understanding.

Bollocks to Dr. Williams. Clearly his idea of how Israel should handle the nation’s security differs from the Israel government. There’s nothing unreasonable about asking him elaborate on his position.

But his Jewish Chronicle article states: “The vote of the synod ... was ill-judged even on its own terms. The immediate result will be to reduce the church’s ability to act as a force for peace between Israel and the Palestinians for as long as the decision remains in force ... The timing could not have been more inappropriate. [Israel] needs support not vilification.“

The CoE has taken sides in this conflict, for the Palestinians (remember who sponsored the vote?) and against the Israeli government. It therefore is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Nu?

Without access to the full text of what The Guardian quoted, your opening post still seems rather prejudicial.

You have not acknowledged your misattribution of a quote to Rabbi Sacks, which sets the tone for the rest of your post. If you would stick to what appear to be his actual words, I read them very differently than you do.

He calls the CoE of taking a stand in the Middle East conflict, riding a moral high horse while removing itself from the pool of potential unbiased mediators. He’s further calling the vote as damaging to the Jewish-Christian relations in Britain and he seems to have called it right, particularly as the vote and another one predating it appear to be controversial even within the Anglican Church. He asks a primary supporter of the vote to explain his intentions, which I can’t really fault.

Judaism doesn’t have the equivalent of a Pope, therefore Rabbi Sacks is by definition not in a position to represent all British Jews. He represents a certain proportion of British Jews; how large a proportion anybody who cares to know can research on his or her own time.

The fundamental question raised is whether an attack against the Israeli government is intrinsically anti-semitic. The answer is, of course, that it depends.

The way I see it is that the CoE has taken an intrinsically contradictory position. They claim the moral high ground, divesting stock in a company whose equipment reaches the IDF indirectly, while refusing to make at least the symbolic gesture of saying “and if we had stock in a company that produces material used by Palestinian terrorists, we would divest it, too”. Other than vapors about being shocked, shocked! that at least a representative of British Jews took offense at the divestiture, the CoE has taken a one-sided political stand and recused itself from doing something useful to tone down the conflict.

Now, is this one-sidedness anti-semitic? I wouldn’t call it grossly so, but it’s prejudicial enough to qualify as such.

You have not acknowledged your misattribution of a quote to Rabbi Sacks, which sets the tone for the rest of your post. If you would stick to what appear to be his actual words, I read them very differently than you do.

My apologies. Yes, it does appear that he did not say that.

The way I see it is that the CoE has taken an intrinsically contradictory position. They claim the moral high ground, divesting stock in a company whose equipment reaches the IDF indirectly, while refusing to make at least the symbolic gesture of saying “and if we had stock in a company that produces material used by Palestinian terrorists, we would divest it, too�?.

You have a fair point. I don’t know if the CofE has any investments in companies that make explosives, but I am assuming that they would disinvest if it turns out the companies are directly supplying Palestinian terrorist groups with explosives for suicide bombing missions (as an example). That would only be fair.

Of course, I may be wrong to make that assumption.

The fundamental question raised is whether an attack against the Israeli government is intrinsically anti-semitic. The answer is, of course, that it depends.

Yes. In my view, it is not.