I was thinking of injecting a little Robert Fisk into the ongoing conversation on Israel-Palestine - though after the recent hurling of comment grenades by Hallam’s Army, I use the word “conversation” loosely - and I would no doubt have to jettison it altogether were I to cite Fisk. So I’ll try a little Avi Shlaim, a Fellow of St. Antony’s College and Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford. The following two excerpts come from his collection of essays Israel and Palestine (2009).
…. This brief review of Israel’s record as an occupying power over the past four decades, and especially of its conduct during the 22-day assault on Gaza, makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with ‘an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders’ [from an earlier citation of Sir John Troutbeck, writing in June 1948 to the British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, accusing the Americans of helping to create "a gangster state headed by 'an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders'"]. A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practices terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel’s real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbors but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. In Gaza it went too far: it sowed the wind and it will surely reap the whirlwind.
(From the essay “Israel’s War Against Hamas: Rhetoric and Reality”, p. 317)
The majority of British Jews share the British tradition of civilised debate on all subjects, including that of Israel. There are differences of opinion among them, but the debate is mostly conducted responsibly. Moreover, it is widely accepted that criticism of Israel does not involve disloyalty to Jews in general or to the values of Judaism [my italics]. Independent Jewish Voices and Jews for Justice for Palestinians, for example, succeed in combining a critical position on Israel with a strong Jewish identity. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is another notable example of this fair-minded, liberal and pluralistic position. He knows better than most that among the most fundamental values of Judaism are truth and justice, and that Israel’s record in this respect leaves something to be desired. Sir Jonathan is also a great believer in inter-faith dialogue. One of the 16 books he has authored is called The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid a Clash of Civilisations.
But on the other side of the Atlantic, public debate about Israel is much more fierce and partisan, leaving relatively little space for the dignity of difference. The passion with which many prominent Jews defend Israel betrays an atavistic attitude that is often blid to other points of view….
(From “Free Speech? Not for Critics of Israel”, pp. 369-70)
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 8:14 am
I don’t know whether Avi Shlaim is a self-loathing Jew, but nothing in your article actually addresses the issue of Jewish identity. Instead you are quoting from Shlaim to talk about the Israel issue. Fair enough, but why not pick a title that is relevant to your subject matter?
More concerning is why you see fit to reproduce Shlain’s argument, which says that - when discussing Israel - British Jews are mostly civil and reasonable whereas American Jews mostly are intolerant and “atavistic”.
You don’t actually believe this, do you? If so, why publish it on your blog?
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 8:21 am
Also, what’s all this about “Hallam’s Army”? Hurling of comment grenades? Really!
I thought you were interested in dialogue and making connections with people. Me too. I do not view this debate as some kind of holy war.
You have consistently argued that dialogue with those who disagree with you both theologically and politically is desireable, and I have assumed this to be true.
If Methodist boycotters wish a continuing dialogue with Jews and Zionists and concerned Christians then you should actually welcome the fact that people are producing their alternative opinions on your blog.
Richard 10.28.10 at 8:42 am
It’s my blog, Joeseph. And I do welcome disagreement. Always have done I can’t speak for Kim (experience has taught me that!) but I would I think an honest re-reading through the comments from yesterday will shed some light on what he means by ‘hand grenades’.
But genuine dialogue only operates on the basis of mutual respect. David H appears to have shed any last vestiges of goodwill towards me and my blogging (unless there’s some way I’m supposed to understand ‘anti-Jewish’ as some sort of compliment). I’m a bit tired of being slurred and mis-represented. “
methodist preacher 10.28.10 at 8:48 am
Joseph, there are very clear rules in the Methodist blogsphere.
For example if Richard or Kim describe people as vermin that is hilarious, robust, debate.
If I object to their language that is outrageous personal abuse. Three years ago I picked them up on it. You as a Jew may understand only too well why I objected:
http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-understand-language-of-that-nasty.html
Then there’s the retelling of ” jokes”. You as a Jew have probably not heard this one. I have, and I can’t repeat here the language I used in response (that spoilt a cosy social evening at a golf club):
http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2007/07/recycled-racist-jokes.html
I really do welcome the interest of people such as yourselves. I mentioned to a Jewish colleague the unpleasantness I had faced since I embarked on the current. His response was, “welcome to our world”.
God bless you Joseph.
[Admin note: slightly edited]
Kim 10.28.10 at 1:13 pm
As a matter of fact, Joseph, I agree with everything that Avi Shlaim says. His point about the rather toxic atmosphere in which the issue of Israel-Palestine is discussed in the US compared to the UK is, I think, an accurate assessment.
You question my citing Shlaim vis-à-vis my “subject matter”. It is by way of responding to the ongoing mischief, intensified by comments yesterday, (a) that to be critical of the state of Israel is, ipso facto, to be anti-Semitic, and therefore (b) that if a Jew is critical of the state of Israel, he must be self-loathing. In either case, the suggestion is that there is a pathology at work, either bigotry or neurosis. And then, of course, wearing this bullet proof polemical vest, those who resist critiques of the state of Israel can carry on in deep denial and self-confirming outrage.
Btw, the little conversation between Avraham and DH was tragi-comic. Christian Zionist that DH is, he pledges his support to the cause of the nation of Israel while - if Avraham didn’t get the subtext - condemning (no doubt with a heavy heart) all Jews who do not take Jesus as their Lord and Saviour to hell. You want supersessionism? You got it - with (literally) a vengeance.
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 1:58 pm
Kim, you say that this post is related to the recent debates on this forum.
Sorry, but who is suggesting that Jewish dislike of Israel is a form of self-loathing?
Some Jews sympathetic to Israel argue this is the case, certainly, others would disagree, still others prefer not to judge motives. If you are genuinely intrigued by Jews, identity and anti-Zionism, you should read the correspondence of Paul Bogdanor and Shaul Magid. It is fascinating:
http://www.zeek.net/704debate/
Personally speaking, I am most interested in the topic of Jewish identity. But I do not think this is the issue we have been discussing at all.
Rather, the issue we have been discussing is specific: whether the Methodist resolution against Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, whether this renders the Methodist Church to now be institutionally anti-Semitic, whether the resolution would exclude the Wesleys themselves as Zionist heretics, whether a Methodist is allowed to express pro-Israel opinions without being treated as an apostate, and whether the Methodist Church is professional and democratic in the way it operates.
Neither myself, nor David, nor Avraham, nor Daphne nor anyone else on this forum have focused our criticisms on anti-Zionist Jews. The argument is about the Methodist Church and the Methodist boycotters. Thus I can only think of one reason why you would bring Avi Shlaim into this debate.
Kim, it looks very much as if you want to showcase the Jews who support your argument to prove you’re not anti-Semitic. It reminds me of how the Mediaeval Church would wheel out its Jewish converts to participate in “debates” wherein Jewish religious communities were harshly denounced.
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 2:01 pm
As a matter of fact, Joseph, I agree with everything that Avi Shlaim says. His point about the rather toxic atmosphere in which the issue of Israel-Palestine is discussed in the US compared to the UK is, I think, an accurate assessment.
That’s interesting, can you expand on how you think US Jews discuss Israel in a “toxic atmosphere”?
Which American Jews have created this atmosphere, and why?
Why do you think things are “toxic” in America but not Britain?
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 2:04 pm
Btw, the little conversation between Avraham and DH was tragi-comic. Christian Zionist that DH is, he pledges his support to the cause of the nation of Israel while - if Avraham didn’t get the subtext - condemning (no doubt with a heavy heart) all Jews who do not take Jesus as their Lord and Saviour to hell. You want supersessionism? You got it - with (literally) a vengeance.
Sorry, I missed the bit where David condemned Avraham to Hell. Please show me where he said this.
Kim 10.28.10 at 2:25 pm
Kim, it looks very much as if you want to showcase the Jews who support your argument to prove you’re not anti-Semitic. It reminds me of how the Mediaeval Church would wheel out its Jewish converts to participate in “debates” wherein Jewish religious communities were harshly denounced.
Only a person with a log in his eye could reach that conclusion from what I have been saying, Joseph. Before this snide, self-serving remark, deploying the same sinister tactics against which I have remonstrated, I thought you were a decent kind of guy …
On DH: the subtext, Joseph. DH is notorious at Connexions for believing that non-Christians will go to hell. One of his favourite texts is Matthew 10:33.
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 3:05 pm
How is the remark self-serving? As a Jewish believer in Jesus, making comments detrimental to the history of Jewish converts is not going to help me at all really. Rather I made the remark because it’s how it appears to me - of course I can be wrong on this point.
However, the Methodist Church has no churches in Israel or Palestine, so why get involved? The best thing you could do would be at least work together with Jews and Arabs in the region towards something positive.
Why boycott Israel because you think they’re bad?
As a man of faith, where would you be if God boycotted you?
Kim 10.28.10 at 3:35 pm
Where shall the word be found, where will the word
Resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.
– T.S. Eliot, “Ash Wednesday”
In Writing in the Dust: Reflections on 11th September and Its Aftermath (2002), Rowan Williams ends his wise ruminations with John 8. He observes that “When the accusation is made [against the woman taken in adultery], Jesus at first makes no reply but writes with his finger on the ground. What on earth was he doing? … He hesitates. He does not draw a line, fix an interpretation, tell the woman who she is and what her fate should be. He allows a moment, a longish moment, in which people are given time to see themselves differently precisely because he refuses to make the sense they want …, long enough for some of our demons to walk away.”
I’ve got many other things to do now before my daughter’s wedding on Saturday. I certainly don’t need heaps of hassle in preparation for the anticipated nuptial splendour. In any case, I think we’ve reached a point in these “discussions” where we “need a longish moment, in which people are given time to see themselves differently …, long enough for some of our demons to walk away.”
Shalom and salaam,
Kim
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 3:38 pm
Mazel tov on your daughter’s wedding, I hope you have a great time Kim. It will be wonderful I’m sure.
DaveW 10.28.10 at 4:19 pm
Joseph,
Just one clarification. As I read the comments above I think there may be some confusion between 3 different people.
dh
David Hallam (aka Methodist Preacher)
and me (Dave Warnock or DaveW or Dave42)
are all different people. It looked like you might be thinking dh was David Hallam and on another thread Avraham confused me with dh.
I was just aware that this could be confusing for people.
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 6:43 pm
Ah righty. Yeah that explains it, thanks for clearing this up.
dh 10.28.10 at 6:47 pm
Thanks Dave W.
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 6:50 pm
Kim, the reference to John 8 is appropriate. If you think Israel is worth boycotting, why not the UK? Why not every other country? Why don’t we all just boycott each other, seeing as we are all corrupt and flawed in some way? Or are there certain instances in which we are allowed to cast the first stone?
dh 10.28.10 at 7:58 pm
Joseph W, I have no idea why Kim is so hating on me and overstating my views regarding Jews and Christians. You as a Jewish person who believes in Jesus (at least that is what you said earlier in this thread) knows that Jesus is the only way for Salvation. However that doesn’t keep us from supporting the Jewish people having all of their Israeli land and to support Israel as a people in everyway. For him to call me supersessionist and lump me into pre-WWII Catholics seems rather strange. If you could see the thread with me and Avraham let me know what are your thoughts and how my view is so hostile to Avraham.
Boy I hate people like Kim overgeneralizing me or rain on my parade by implying my view is hostile to Jews. all I can say is ridiculous.
Joseph W 10.28.10 at 8:00 pm
I actually think your conversation was rather civil with Avraham, he seems like a nice chap.
dh 10.28.10 at 8:01 pm
I don’t hate Kim, I extremely dislike the statements regarding me being “supersessionist” in an overgeneralizing way.
Kim, I never ever have nor want to give the impression that I hate you as a person. I mean it. I want to personally apologize to you for saying that when that is not my thought in anyway.
Let me rephrase: Boy I extremely dislike the overgeneralizing of myself or the attempt to rain on my parade by implying my view is hostile to Jews that is done by Kim. All I can say is ridiculous.
dh 10.29.10 at 6:47 pm
Thanks for the encouragement Joseph W. Shalom to all and that goes for Kim even though he was having a “bad case of the Mondays” on a Thursday.