Much of the present content of this web site is concerned with the harassment and persecution of one man by an assorted pack of hasbarafiosi rabids, and increasingly by seemingly respectable Jewish and Christian Zionist/Jewish organisations, it seeks to show that this persecution is part of a much wider picture.
The assault on Stephen Sizer is part of an organised and determined campaign to move the Church of England ever closer to the “correct” attitude towards the State of Israel. This is, in turn, part of the campaign to intimidate the Christian Churches in the UK, generally. The Methodists and The Society of Friends (Quakers) get the treatment regularly, and the Church of Scotland has more recently experienced the whole weight of the machine in action.
On 4th July, 2013, it was announced that Vivian Wineman, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, had been elected as co-chair of The Inter-Faith Network. Wineman made the following statement….
“In our present climate the importance of this work, and of inter faith work generally, cannot be overstated. I am proud that the Jewish community has been at the forefront of developing interfaith relations in society generally, and that the Board of Deputies has led the community consistently in this work… Positive interfaith engagement, apart from being valuable in itself, is vital in creating friends and allies in the general community.”
To the untrained eye, this probably seems like a reasonable enough thing to say. It is, however, carefully worded to appeal to various constituencies in the Jewish community. The Board is on an inexorable and accelerating slide into irrelevance. The question facing it is how substantial will be the crumbs that the Jewish Leadership Council allows the Board to retain when its takeover is complete. Much of the statement is a contribution to the ongoing pleading of the Board’s case. Saying, in effect, “Look at us, look at us. We are still relevent and getting the job done.” The reality is that the more realistic Jewish Leadership Council is getting all the invitations that the Board used to get and bending the important ears that the Board used to bend. Further, there is a jockeying by individuals in the Board illuminati for status and importance in the coming new scheme of things.
More importantly for present purposes, is the tell tale choice of certain words in Wineman’s statement that emphasise what we already know about the Boards current obsession with inter faith relations. That is…
“ …..apart from being valuable in itself…”
The reality is that any intrinsic value they see in such things is marginal to put it at its very best.
“ ……is vital in creating friends and allies….”
This is what they are really all about.
Aren’t allies something you look for when you are going to war? And when you ally with, is it not axiomatic that you ally AGAINST ?
As we demonstrate over and over again on this site, for the Board, inter-faith relations is not about enriching our lives and the lives of our communities by increasing knowledge, increasing understanding and promoting tolerance among the faith communities, it is a WEAPON.
Understand that for the Board, inter-faith relations is first, last and ALWAYS about The State of Israel, is a one way street and will always be strictly on their terms. These terms are, that the other faith groups must come to a “correct“ attitude towards Israel and, ideally, permit them (the Board) an acceptable degree of supervision of those faith groups’ thoughts, utterances and policies relating to the State of Israel.
In other words, while the other groups bring their faith to the table, the Board brings a POLITICAL agenda.
Understand also, that the Board leadership are not a bunch of reasonable, cuddly, moderate proponents of two states for two people, though they are very adept at playing the role. The Board have specifically rejected the idea of two states. They also reject the idea of one state since annexation of the territories in toto, would bring with it a great many undesirables (Arabs) that the world would require to be accorded civil and political rights. This they declare, would mean the end of a Jewish state and would therefore be anti-Semitic. The unavoidable presumption therefore, is, that they are very much onside with the Israeli strategy of “as much land as possible and as few Arabs as possible”. A strategy of stealing more and more Palestinian land, dunam by dunam, while always, of course, being willing to “talk “.
They love to talk. All the while they are talking, they are building the land grab wall, demolishing Palestinian homes, stealing their land and turning their land into “nature reserves“ and “military zones“ with a view to settling it later.
The option of annexing area C is retained once it has been satisfactorily cleared of Arabs. This process is well under way, one might say nearing completion. Area C is 60 % of the land area of the West Bank , with only 5% of the West Bank Arab population remaining in it. The Palestinian nightmare is particularly acute in the Jordan Valley, which Netanyahu has declared “Israel will never cede the Jordan Valley”. The Arab population of the valley has fallen from from over 350,000 in 1967 to around 50,000 today. They may not annex the area of course, but seek to maintain an endless occupation of it.
So that is where the Board are at. Their attitude to the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Holy Land is well illustrated by their rejecting a resolution before them, largely on the grounds that it spoke of
“the well being of all the people of the region”, words they were unable to stomach.
Further understand, that the Board expressly FORBIDS itself any criticism of Israel. We explain this fully on the page we have entitled “OMERTA”.
So no criticism is the zero sum position. They would dearly love to project this position onto everyone else. They can’t of course, so they draw lines for our benefit. They love to draw lines, especially red ones. The objective is to contain criticism of The State of Israel within these lines and, in each particular case, have them drawn as close to the zero sum position as possible.
So how do they go about this?
It is a well rehearsed process. Whenever someone or some organisation is deemed to need sorting out, there is first a torrent of abuse, verging on the hurling of obscenities. It comes from lots of directions at once. Numerous “Jewish Community“ organisations (of which there is no shortage) are harnessed. The occupied territories are conflated with the Jewish people, who are “hurt and pained and…….lots of other things”. There is a deluge of self pity and narcissism, explicit or implicit charges of anti-Semitism, and threats to sever relations.
When the miscreant is a Church or other Christian organisation, in addition to everything else, there is the inter-faith blackmail weapon. “You are damaging inter-faith relations, sticking two fingers up at the Jewish community,” and so on, and so on.
The starkness of the strategy was neatly illustrated when the Church of England Synod overwhelmingly voted to affiliate with the EAPPI programme. It was said to have “CHOSEN the programme AT THE EXPENSE OF inter faith-relations.”
It is either it or us, was the position. See our page “Defend the EAPPI programme.”
Very soon, the Board will be demanding that the churches choose between its inter-faith relations with them, and the desperate plight of their fellow Christians in Palestine. The Council of “Christians” and Jews will be backing them up.
Then the abuse is toned down and sidelined, and the next stage of the corrective process commences. The threats and blackmail remain, but are now more implicit than explicit, and presented as being more in well rehearsed “sorrow” than anger. Prominant among the organisations mobilised to facilitate the process, is the execrable Council for Christians and Jews. It is they who apply “Christian“ pressure on other Christians.
The CCJ has a long and creditable history, but in recent years has evolved into nothing more than a branch of the Board of Deputies, habitually employed to do the Board’s dirty work for them. For the full picture on just how low this organisation has sunk, at least centrally, see our page “In the beginning, there was the Council for Christians and Jews.
The corrective dialogue begins with the Board explaining the centrality of the land to the Judaic faith, with Zionism at the heart of Jewish communal life. Allies are gradualy identified inside the the organisation in question, which is gradually edged back to the right side of the lines. For an absolutely classic example of the process see our page on how the Methodists were disciplined.
It is not just acquienscense on the immediate issue that the Board seeks, but control. They seek to get themselves in a position, sometimes formally , where they directly have input on the internal policy making and the theological exploration of the churches. As well as redefining anti-Semitism they also seek to establish their favoured definitions of Christianity.
The Board shares and actively publicises the view that….
“ Christian support for Israel is rooted in biblical sources”
“ You cannot be a genuine Christian believer while acting against the Jewish people.”
By acting against the Jewish people, they mean of course, criticising Israel in ways that cross the lines they have drawn. The Board regard Christian Zionists as their natural allies in the churches, and actively work to increase Christian Zionist influence, therein. To repeat, the Board would have the churches accept their position that the only true Christians are Christian Zionists.
One of the Christians we interviewed expressed herself as being horrified by the seeming Board assumption that ecumenical discussions should include them. She went on to say….
“Inter-faith relations in the sense of dialogue, increased understanding and mutual acceptance is not only desirable but is essential in a civilised society. However, they (the Board) may not sit at the table when our Lord’s business is being discussed, unless they follow the same Lord, which they do not”.
In reality, there is no need for the churches to fear the “damaging inter-faith relations” card. The Board of Deputies do not represent a faith, per se. In so far as they (still) represent anything (debatable), they represent an ethnic group in the UK.
From time to time this website may also include links to other websites. These links are provided for your convenience to provide further information. They do not signify that we endorse the website(s). We have no responsibility for the content of the linked website(s).
If it works for the Board of Deputies, it’ll work for us. ~Editor