9 thoughts on “British Chief Rabbi Plays ‘Anti-Semitism Card’ Over Church Divestment Proposal – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. It is not the critique itself that is anti Jewish! Rathjer it is the single handed isolation of Israel above all other causes, or rather as teh only international cause that makes it anti-Israeli, perhaps anti Jewish. Daniel

  2. Daniel: I don’t agree with yr premise that the Church of England is singling out Israel for moral condemnation. While I’m not a Church member and don’t know its history I’d venture to say that it condemns policies of many countries it views as immoral. I’d be shocked if it didn’t do so regarding South Africa, Chile, Serbia and Sudan. Just because we hear about its deliberations on this matter in the media doesn’t mean that the Church sleeps when it comes to other moral depredations in the world.

    The tenor of your comment exhibits an unfortunate habit of many who defend Israel to the hilt. Here’s how it goes: the world criticizes Israel to the exclusion of all others. We are singled out for blame while others go scot free. It goes on and on like this. It’s part of Jewish defensiveness about Israel. Instead of facing up to the real issue (Israeli policy), you divert attention to side issues involving persecution, selective morality, etc.

  3. How dare you comparing me with people who defend israel to the teeth. Go and check the Synode international policies over the years and you see how few issues come up there! Check your facts too before you accuse me to be in any camp. I am both a defender of bias towards israel and a defender of the Israeli Left! The two things go together!


  4. And further Dear Richard For your convenience Mr Acccuser below all press releases since 2002 of CoE on Foreign Policy! The world for the foreign policy department consists out of three countries. Iraq, palestine and Israel. Thanks for the complements! You may be more left than I on issues but who is blind and stubborn in his ways here?


    Why do you have to bite first before you talk.

  5. Daniel: I base my judgements of your political views on what you write here, not on everything you’ve ever written but not published here (how could I?). Your comment featured a trope common among those who defend Israel right or wrong. I was critiquing only the argument you presented & trying to give it some context.

    Next, you are wrong in yr assessment of the Church’s foreign policy agenda. There are twelve documents listed on the web page you link. Three are about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Eight are about Iraq and one is about terror. Bashing Israel is not the prevailing theme here as you imply in yr comment. I note that you do not quote from any passages in those documents to prove your point that the Church is fixated on an anti-Israel position. Therefore, I cannot judge whether you are right or not. And even if you found such positions you must also examine any statements that might be viewed as favorable or sympathetic to Israel.

  6. Oh wow ! you say it your self Iraq, Palestine and Israel. What a globally concerend Church, especially for one of whose significant chunck lives in Africa . No concern about Any other place. Well that is really balanced! Are we talking about the might globally concerned Church of England here, or a little pentacostal church from around the corner? They are mnot Jews like you and me to whom the Israel / Paestine conflict is important, they are teh Church of England. Would you not agree that there are many other issues in addition to the one we are currently having a dispute on? In addition you hear! NOT INSTEAD!

  7. I think you’re getting carried away a bit. Who says the 12 links on that pg. represent the only statements or reports which the Church has issued on world affairs? Oh, that’s right, you do. In fact, I’d bet you a large wager that it’s a small percentage. Since when are web pages meant to be exhaustive catalogues? And you really believe the Church has never made a statement about Africa? You’ve got to be kidding.

    * There is a chapter in this report about Church investments relating to Sudan.
    * Kosovo
    * A chapter in a report about terrorism about Iran. The report also refers to other nations like Sri Lanka.

    And this is what I could dig up in a 15 minute search through the site. I’m sure there is much, much more. You’d profit by spending your own 15 minutes there before you denounce the Church for a “crime” it hasn’t committed.

  8. I think you are very apologetic for the church. It so happens that I am prei-mposed. I had a senior posed in one of their bodies as race relations officer so I am well tuned with them. I slaso saw the things on development aid, but these are two diufferent boots. one is from the Foreign Policy Department which issues political policy the other from the foreign aid department (Sudan etc…).
    Even if there is more, you seem to excuse them for not listing all areas they discuss. There still remains the fact that what you see under foreign polict press releases listed is what you see and get. I am not interested what is in teh back yard and not published or straight obvious. Yers ago the YMCA made a similar move my singeling out Israel above all other nations. That’s all I will have to say. I am sure you will respond and tell me again how silly I am and how badly I take the CoE. Well stay on your Bright sunglass Prozac for I am a realist despite being within the Israeli Left ( I was member of Ratz -0 now Meretz- when I lived in Israel, etc ). Some of us try too hard to be all loving and never see the stick even if it isn there (often enough there is none – but I am telling you with CoE (as was with the Y was) there is a stick!

  9. I am prei-mposed. I had a senior posed in one of their bodies as race relations officer

    I have no idea what this means.

    When you distinguish between statements made by the foreign policy dept. and the foreign aid dept. saying that only statements made by one “counts,” I think you engage in pilpul (“splitting hairs”).

    Even if there is more, you seem to excuse them for not listing all areas they discuss. There still remains the fact that what you see under foreign polict press releases listed is what you see and get.

    This is silly. I have over 1,000 posts in my blog. But only my most recent ten are linked on my main page. Does that mean that someone is justified in reviewing only those ten and saying I’m obssessed with only one topic covered in those 10 posts & that I care about no other topics? Of course not.

    Only someone who knows my site well or spends a lot of time searching through it will find the remaining 990 posts in my archive. The same holds true for the CoE website. The material is at the site. You just can’t be bothered to send them an e mail asking for help in finding it (which I’m certain they’d gladly offer). When you make a generalization and then refuse to examine & prove authoritatively the premise you used in making it–that’s intellectual bad faith.

    I can’t tell you how many people visiting this site have told me how progressive their views were on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their goal invariably was to compare favorably their “reasonable” liberal views with my own unreasonably leftist ones. Yet when they actually expressed a particular political view it was invariably right-wing. So I can only judge people based on the political arguments they put forward here & not on the “label” they give themselves.

    I suppose it’s possible that Meretz-Yachad has a right wing. I suppose there are party members who might agree with you that the Church is an enemy of Israel. But I imagine anyone espousing those views would be in a distinct minority. I too support this party but I am certain that many more members would take my view of this than yours.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *