Anyone who genuinely thinks the David Miller/ Bristol University thing is to do with the ”safety” of Jewish students on campus doubtless thinks there are fairies at the bottom of their garden.
Safe from what ? Safe, it would seem, from encountering political perspectives different from their own. If the poor lambs can’t cope with this, we can only wonder if a University is really the place for them.
The latest UJS wobbler is over the fact that the NUS President, Larissa Kennedy, is taking part in an online discussion meeting at which Omar Barghouti is also participating.
“ How can Jewish students ever feel safe “ they sob.
How can this meeting remotely threaten their safety on campus ? I mean. Really. For fuck sake.
David Milller was absolutely spot on correct in his assessment of UJS.Be clear about this. The UJS is not a cute little apolitical social club akin to a campus flower arranging society. It is a hard core political grouping. The universities should make it clear that if they choose to engage in campus politics they must, like everyone else, accept the rough and tumble that political engagement inevitably brings with it. Their claim to exceptional treatment is an outrageous threat to academic freedom and the hard won right to freedom of expression.
Witness the racist UJS campaign against a previous NUS president, Malia Bouttia, whose crime was being Muslim and no fan of the racist Israeli state.
Malia had mused that the University of Birmingham was a hotbed of Zionism. All hell broke loose. The campaign of racist harassment by the UJS and its allies in the wider Israelist “ community” was sickening and unrelenting.
Malia doubtless regards Zionists as political opponents. Why should we not bemoan the fact that a particular location is a hotbed of a political perspective that we are opposed to ? If she had said that the University of Birmingham was a hotbed of Toryism there would, of course, have been no problem.
Then there is the annual campaign against Israel Apartheid Week. Israelists should be as free to organise on campus as anyone else, but universities should not be bullied into shutting down opposition.
“ IAW is divisive” they blubber.
Precious little snowflakes, politics IS divisive.
The current pile on by the hasbarafia against David Miller and Bristol University is not spontaneous outrage. It is not even spontaneous faux outrage. It is the system in action. A tried and tested implementation of the AIPAC inspired ” nuclear option”. So far as they are concerned it doesn’t really matter if Miller gets sacked or if he doesn’t. He and Bristol are getting a good kicking pour encourager les autres.
What follows is a revisit of something I put together a few years ago. It is the abbreviated story of how they came to own the Methodist Church and secured a veto on theological debate within that sad and sorry organisation. It is a definitive illustration of the process, of how it all works. All the elements are there.
This control was then extended to the churches in general.
What has started with Bristol is not going to end with Bristol. The universities need to understand that the Israelists are unappeasable. They simply pocket any concession without so much as a please or a thank you, and before you have time to catch your breath they are back for more. Anything you give them is danegeld. When you engage with them you are entering into what Mark Braverman called ” the Fatal Embrace.”
HOW THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES SECURED A VETO ON THEOLOGICAL DEBATE IN THE METHODIST CHURCH
The Methodist church have taken a fearful battering. Some members, have shown great purpose and courage under the impact of it, but the ” leadership “have been craven and allowed themselves to be worn down by the sheer grinding intensity. As we write (late June), the 2013 annual Methodist conference is a matter of days away and there are indications that the Board of Deputies have managed to bully and blackmail themselves into a position from which they have insidiously and outrageously influenced the business of the conference.
The BOD/Methodist story proper begins in the run up to the 2010 conference. As usual, relevant parties were provided with papers in advance. These papers included a report from a working party entitled “Justice for Israel and Palestine“. As you can imagine, the Board were spooked by the very title, before they even got to the content, given that they, themselves, had refused to accept a resolution before THEM, citing as a major reason, that they couldn’t accept the wording “the well being of all the people of the region.”
The report called for an end to the illegal occupation, a lifting of the siege of Gaza and a boycott of West Bank settlements.
If that wasn’t enough to persuade the Board that the end of the world was nigh, it went on to direct the Methodist Faith and Order Committee to prepare a report on how theological issues might impact on the situation in the Holy Land, making particular reference to Christian Zionism, and asking whether it was compatible with Methodist beliefs.
All leave was cancelled and the hasbarafia prepared for war. An online and offline assault was launched on the Methodists, employing all the well worn tried and tested blackmail avenues. It was all there once again. Jon Benjamin, CEO of the Board, demanded an urgent meeting (as per) and amidst all the usual melodrama, dissembling, hyperbole and smearing of the reports sources and authors, was the incredible assertion by Benjamin, that what was particular troubling was ………
“…the assertion that the Methodist Church would investigate expelling Zionists.“
He simply made that up of course, for melodramatic effect. They do that a lot.
In the days and weeks leading up to conference, there had been meetings between Board members and the Methodists at Methodist Church House in which, it is reported, the Board members were much given to banging the table and engaging in scarcely believable boorish behaviour. On the morning of the debate on the report at conference, the hasbarafioisi made their presence felt in the hall, loudly demanding that the report be dropped without a vote. Upon realising that this wasn’t going to happen, they demanded to address the conference. Upon realising that this outrageous demand wasn’t going to be met either, they were apoplectic.
The report was overwhelmingly accepted.
As you might expect, the maelstrom of faux outrage immediately following the conference, made what had gone on immediately before seem like ringa ringa rosy. Yet again all the tried, tested and trusted elements were there.
The anti-Semite smears…
The smearing of the report’s authors and their sources…
The “inter- faith relations” blackmail…
Jon Benjamin, CEO of the Board, and Jeremy Newmark, the notorious perjurer, fare dodger, fraudster and one man crime wave, and CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council, issued a joint statement asserting that…
” …..the Methodists have abused the goodwill of the Jewish community” What ?
Geoffrey Alderman, the weekly Jewish Chronicle columnist declared that…
“Cutting off relations, doesn’t go far enough.”
This is the same Alderman that made strenuous efforts to have Stephen Sizer’s doctorate rescinded because he didn’t like the content.
Another favoured Jewish Chronicle columnist, Robin Shepherd, demands that
“ …war be declared on the Methodists ………..Ban their officials from entering (Israel), deport their missionaries, block their funds, tax their churches. If it’s war, it’s war.”
Stephen Pollard, the cry baby editor of the Jewish Chronicle sobbed..
” We now know where we stand “
The Jewish Chronicle cheerfully hosted a blog post by one Joshua18, who tells us that John Wesley thought Jews were worms, and goes on to say
” it is therefore, not surprising that delegates at the Methodist conference overwhelmingly passed every recommendation of the report…”
The seeming collective severe narcissistic personality disorder of the Board inevitably rears its ugly head…….
“What is particularly hurtful is that the report was compiled without consulting US.”
Yes, they think that they are entitled to input on the compilation of an internal Methodist discussion document.
“We are troubled that the Methodists went ahead, despite being warned of its likely impact by the Council of Christians and Jews“.
Maybe the Methodists were quicker off the mark than the rest of us in spotting the CCJ as a branch and an attack arm of the Board. The ludicrous David Gifford CEO of the CCJ pitched in with a typically inane comment.
“It would have been far better to direct people to support co-existence projects for Israelis and Palestinians.”
In other words, let’s forget that it is an occupier/occupied situation and let’s work for co-existence within this context, rather than work to change it. Let’s direct our energies to encouraging the Palestinians to know their place. Stop demanding an end to the occupation and work on getting the Palestinians to like it.
Not for nothing is the CCJ dismissively referred to as Christian Zionists For The Occupation.
And of course, there are the usual linguistic sleights of hand. The occupied territories become “ Israel “ and Israel becomes “the Jewish people“ (not withstanding that when it suits them equating The State of Israel with “the Jews“ is declared to be anti-Semitic ).
This neatly opens the door to “the hurt, pain and grief of the Jewish community“, and the Methodists riding rough shod over this. The formlua is always the same and entirely predictable.
As we have pointed out elsewhere on this site, if all you knew of the UK Jewish community is what you see when you look at the Board of Deputies, you could be forgiven for thinking that they consisted of nothing but a bunch of whining, self pitying narcissists.
The three year (to date) campaign has been a jaw dropping example of the machine in action. Its unspoken purpose, we will explain in a while. Much of it has been more calculated than mere faux hysterics.
The Community Consultative Committee, a liason forum for the United Synagogue, Reform, Liberal and Masorti agreed to form what one member called a “high powered group” of scholars and Rabbis. The group would seek to put its point of view across at a meeting with Methodist representatives. Jon Benjamin, CEO of the BoD detailed it further as
“they will explain the theological centrality of Zionism in the Jewish faith and (inevitably) express the anger and pain felt across the Jewish community”. That is, a modern sixty five year old political entity has a central place in a several thousand year old faith. This notion was emphatically rejected by the tribunal in the FUCU case, and by the arch Zionist QC Jonathan Goldberg….
” You might as well say that supporting Tottenham Hotspur is a protected characteristic because a lot of Jews do.”
This is the first indication that it is not so much the boycott aspects of the resolution that now concerns them, but the theology.
But now, the really scary bit….Lucian Hudson, the chair of Liberal Judaism, spoke of “red lines” and clearly feels that it is for the hasbarafia to help the Christian churches out by drawing these lines on their behalf. He chillingly added,
“We also want to make sure that these red lines are understood by other Christian groups“.
Amazing. The hasbarafia set out to draw lines on behalf of the churches within which the churches’ theological thinking and policy making must be contained. The Methodists are to be given a good kicking pour encourager les autres.
So far as the Methodists are concerned, it succeeded.
Very quickly after the 2010 conference, the BoD announced that all relations with the Methodists were to be broken off. This was of course, merely a piece of melodramatic posturing. Broken off? Not quite. The CCJ were charged with making sure there was a bridge that they could slink back over. Gifford announced that he had asked all 40 of CCJ’s local branches to engage with their local Methodist organisations so that they might hear the “other side”. Yes, you’ve got it. David Gifford, “Christian” CEO of the CCJ, is asking Christians in their localities, to lean on other Christians, to encourage sympathy for the political stance prevalent among the hasbarafia, and assumes that they will.
Some way into the campaign, Jonathan Arkush posted a whine on the BoD web site and the Jewish Chronicle complaining that the Methodists had plans to reorganise their staffing structure, which would have abolished the positions occupied by people that he had been “engaging” with. He complained that these proposals had been drawn up without informing HIM. Yes, it’s that narcissism again. He thinks he’s entitled to input on how the Methodists should organise themselves.
It is scarcely believable, the time, and the scale of the resources, that the Board have put into their attempt to get the Methodists into line over a period of three full years.
Well, the 2010 resolution isn’t going to be reversed and they must know that. It isn’t for the sake of getting back to being nicey nicey for its own sake, since as we have seen elsewhere, inter- faith relations niceties are strictly on their terms. So what are their terms, in this particular case, outside of the general one of securing a “correct” attitude to Israel?
It is the references to theology. They are terrified of anti-Christian Zionist theology, and still to play for is (was) the provision in the resolution requiring the Faith and Order Committee to produce a paper on Christian Zionism.
14/5 The Methodist Conference directs the Faith and Order Committee to undertake further work on the theological issues, including Christian Zionism, raised in the report that are needed to guide and support the approach of the Methodist Church to the Israeli/Palestinian situation and to bring a report to Conference.”
In a very real sense, this was the most important element in the 2010 resolution. While those parts pertaining to the boycott of settlements etc. are symbolically important they don’t have much of a dynamic. The parts pertaining to Christian Zionism on the other hand are potentially lethal. The smarter ones among them know that while Christians as part of the general population support Israel to a greater or lesser degree, for reasons shared by the general population, those that, as Christians, offer unqualified, unquestioning, non critical support “at all times“ (the kind of support the Board demands) do so from a theological Christian Zionist perspective, particularly in America, but increasingly elsewhere. This highly dangerous basket of ideologies is a major foundation of the American uncritical support of Israel.
The Christian Zionists and the Board are on all fours in their attitude to criticising Israel. It should never happen. It will be recalled that the Board expressly FORBIDS themselves such criticism.
The Board of Deputies realise that any document critical or dismissive of Christian Zionism, would have far reaching implications, particularly if there is any hint of it being incompatible with Methodist beliefs. Imagine the potential domino effect among the churches.
This explains the time and effort that has gone into the pursuance and persecution of Stephen Sizer. No one could seriously believe it was about a careless link to a web site. It is all about his being an effective critic of Christian Zionism and being of global importance in this respect. He must be gagged.
All the time and resources expended over the last three years vis-a-vis the Methodists, has been about killing the paper due from the Faith and Order committee. The style is the usual one. The initial hysterics are put aside, and it becomes dialogue, understanding and inter-faith relations, carefully managed by the CCJ. The blackmail is still there but it’s tempered with a sugar coating. Every once in a while, sorrowful hints are dropped about how regrettable it would be if the Faith and Order committee were to produce an “offensive” paper and all this painstaking work were sabotaged.
The Faith and Order committee were commissioned by the 2010 conference. While no one thought it reasonable to get the job done by the 2011 conference, it seems the hope and expectation was that it would be ready for 2012. It wasn’t ready for 2011, nor was it ready in 2012. Nonetheless, the commissioning of the Faith and Order committee to produce the report was REAFFIRMED in both years.
So 2013 is the year, right? Well, no. The papers in advance for 2013 declare the dumping of the commission. Rather than the originally commissioned paper, Methodists are provided with a reading list and told to read the stuff and make of it what they will.
They inadvertantly tell us why.“The theological issues raised in the report are no less complex and rank among the most contentious aspects of interfaith relations.”
That is aspects that are likely to piss off the Board of Deputies
Inter-faith relations? . Hmmm. We have here a quite remarkable state of affairs. The Faith and Order committee have spent three years preparing a report commissioned in 2010 on certain theological issues including Christian Zionism. The commission was reaffirmed in 2011 and 2012. After three years earnest deliberation they report in 2013 that, on inter-faith relations grounds, they have nothing to say on the matter.
SO THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES SECURE A VETO OVER THEOLOGICAL DEBATE INSIDE A CHRISTIAN CHURCH
The degree to which these inter-faith relations are one way traffic is outrageous and depressing. The hasbarafia feel entitled to set out to educate the church on how Zionism, a political phenomenon, is central to the Judaic faith, and yet obstruct, and effectively prevent, the Methodists from exploring and debating the centralities of THEIR faith.
Who and what is next ?
How the 2013 conference was hijacked
The Magical Mystery Tour