9 thoughts on “Archbishop’s speech at Board of Deputies Dinner”

  2. To say that “Zionism is to Judaism what IS is to Islam” is inaccurate and inflammatory. Zionism is a multifaceted ideological movement which has existed for about 150 years. The nearest correspondence in Islam is Wahhabism and in Christianity is Dominion Theology.

    Dave

    • was intended to raise a point of discussion. You are, of course, correct in Zionism being multi-faceted. Movements often take directions different from those intended by their founders, and Zionism was not ‘founded’ in one place by one person. Nevertheless, unsuprisingly perhaps, given cultural, social and political environment, Zionism was essentially an imperialist-nationalist ideology that thrust itself onto the world stage at a point where many wanted to turn from separation and isolation (precisely because of e.g. Holocaust) towards cooperation and friendship. This will be my last comment on this post. D

  3. Stephen Sizer is a victim of the rapidly changing nature of social media. He posted a link on Facebook, which is generally taken as indicating approval. However he also asked a question “Is this ant-Semitic?” I have looked at the website and it is a collection of conspiracy theories, I think Stephen Sizer was trying to draw a distinction between antisemitism and criticism of the actions of the state of Israel. This distinction needs to be made. I would say that the site is more against the institutions of American government than Israel. In brief the site involved alternative explanations for 9/11.

    • Re the purchase of land duing the mandate; see Ben-Gurion at UN in 1947. We own 7% of the land and are 33% of the population, unless you give us the land there will be no state of Israel’. So, contradicting its charter the UN gave Zionism the land.
      Palestinians did react to the Jewish immigration. Just think of the outcry there would be in UK (from 4% to 11% over 60+ years) at an increase from 7% indigenous to 25% mainly immigrant in less than 20 years.
      The comment ‘Israel is in a far stronger position to control the actions of it’s more violent elements than the Palestinian authority.’ is accurate, which raises the question, ‘why does Israel fail to control its violent minority. Check DCI, check B’tselem, ICAHD, etc. All the evidence is that it is Israel that does not want (does not need?) peace. One economist pointed out that whilst 100% of the Palestinian population is affected by the occupation 100% of the time, 95% of the Israeli population is barely touched.
      This is a matter of justice, it is also a matter of theology. ‘Zionism is to Judaism what IS is to Islam’, discuss….

  4. The question is also do the Palestinians wan’t peace? What action by Israel would satisfy them? Would a peace for land deal lead to a permanent peace or just enable them to regroup before launching further attacks. Israel is in a far stronger position to control the actions of it’s more violent elements than the Palestinian authority.

    Dave

    • I’m sorry, but this seems just a little ingenuous. Palestinians have been under attack by Zionists for over 70 years. They have suffered having their land given away and the 1949 ‘settlement’ abrogated by violence followed by some 20 years of military rule. The Oslo Accords, which led many Palestinians to believe peaceful coexistence was possible, were used by successive Israeli governments to establish tighter control over Palestinian life and land.
      It is indeed sad that some Palestinians felt they had no option but to resort to terror, but they have been terrorised by the IOF for years. IN 1988 a peaceful settlement was offered on a Saudi /Arab League initiative, Israel ignored it. I could go on…
      You are correct in suggesting that Israel is ‘in a far stronger position to control the actions of its more violent elements’, so, the question must be ‘why don’t they?’ Palestinians are subjected to daily attacks in the WB by extremist settlers with no redress. Consider ‘Tent of Nations’ check out CPT and EAPPI and examine the recent evidence from DCI, our own Foreign Office (on Child detention) and very recently the testimony of soldiers of IOF to ‘Breaking the Silence’

      • That is a very one sided reading. The land acquired by Jews under the British mandate was purchased, in the main from Arabs. Palestinian extremists resorted to violence during the British Mandate,, before the IDF existed. The Palestinians have rejected several proposed settlements starting with those proposed by the British and then the UN. The loss of land in 1967 was due to a war started by Arabs. which particular 20 years are you referring to?

  5. I wonder if Welby’s is aware of the irony around the anecdote about his dinner in Port Harcourt given his presence at an organisation that is entirely intolerant of any kind of criticism of Israel. And what exactly did our Archbishop mean by ‘atrocious language in a tweet’. He was clearly referring to the tweet by Revd Dr. Stephen Sizer, yet anyone familiar with that incident knows that Stephen Sizer asked, what many might regard as a legitimate question, i.e. ‘is this website anti-semitic’ after all, ‘it raises so many questions’. Regrettably it sounds to me that the senior rep. of our communion has, like so many others, sucked up to the powers that be.
    He writes that reconciliation is difficult and risky and he is to be commended for some of the risks he has already taken. So, why not accept the Zionist challenge and ask, why will you not be reconciled to your Palestinian brothers?

Leave a comment