The United Church has a Jewish problem
This is a guest post by Brian Henry
The anti-Israel activists in the United Church of Canada outdid themselves this year. For the church’s national Council, they tabled four anti-Israel proposals that were unrivalled for venom.
Three of the proposals came from Toronto (the fourth from Montreal) and were the work of a small clique of Israel-bashers who use the United Church to promote their agenda. But it’s no accident that Israel-haters find the UC a comfortable home.
Although it recognizes Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state, the UC consistently objects to Israel defending itself against attack. Instead, it spreads the lie that Israel is guilty of “collective punishment and violence … on the Palestinian people.”
There is, of course, one side in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that targets a civilian population, but it’s not Israel.
The UC does call on both the Palestinians and the Israelis to end all violence but the UC blames only Israel. In January, Reverend David Giuliano, Moderator of the United Church of Canada (the church’s highest official) called the violence a “consequence of the hatred and hostility bred by the occupation.”
So, according to the Moderator, not only is Israel responsible for its own deeds, but also for breeding hatred into the Palestinians. Thanks to the Israelis, the Palestinians can’t help themselves; they’re compelled to fire rockets at hospitals and lob mortars at kindergartens.
The Moderator’s stance is bad enough, but even worse, no matter how vile the Israel-haters within the church become, the UC still defends them.
The Reverend Bruce Gregerson, a spokesman for the UC, admits that seeking to undermine Israel’s existence is antisemitic. But, he says, the boycott proposals merely tried to encourage Israel “to make moves toward peace.”
Uh-huh. Israel is a liberal democracy like Canada, committed to the equality of all its citizens. Yet the proposals called Israel “evil” and compared it to apartheid South Africa – a racist state that was removed from the political map.
The proposals called on the people of Israel to be cut off from the rest of humankind, with a boycott of all Israeli athletes, scholars and cultural institutions.
They called for economic warfare against Israel, with a boycott of all Israeli products and of all “companies supporting the Zionist policies of Israel.”
The process boycotters use to identify Zionist companies is mystical but apparently productive, as the proposals listed dozens, including the Arsenal Football Club (owned by Jews, you know), Huggies diapers, and Victoria’s Secret lingerie.
As a resolution to the conflict, the boycott proposals called for the 4 million descendants of Palestinians displaced by Arab wars against Israel to be allowed to settle in Israel and thus end the “evil” of Zionism by transforming Israel into another Arab state.
On the other hand, the boycotters didn’t urge the Palestinians to do anything. They didn’t call on the Palestinian Authority to resume peace talks, even though Israel has repeatedly offered to do so.
Nor did the boycotters urge Hamas to give up on terror, recognize Israel, or even renounce their ambition to slaughter Jews everywhere, as called for in Hamas’s constitution. The boycott proposals didn’t even refer to Hamas except as “the newly elected Palestinian party.”
Moreover, while seeking to wipe Israel off the map and implicitly siding with the terrorists, the boycotters spread the lie that some Jewish members of Parliament are Israeli citizens and implied they’re potential traitors.
As it turned out, the Council rejected the language of the proposals – the references to apartheid, the suggestion that Jews are disloyal and so forth, and it rejected a national boycott as too divisive.
However, the Council did invite member churches to boycott Israel and reaffirmed its stance that Israel is solely to blame for the conflict, calling on its churches to “resist the occupation.”
I’m disturbed that the UC has adopted the language of terrorists.
Moreover, if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank without a peace agreement, expecting it to become a launching pad for rocket and mortar attacks as happened with Gaza, would this satisfy the United Church?
Not for a moment. The Council declared Gaza still occupied, although every last Israeli left years ago. Apparently, like the rest of the anti-Israel crowd, the UC can’t stand to let the occupation go.
Finally, the Council committed itself to the World Council of Churches’ Amman Declaration, which calls for settling millions of Palestinians in Israel, thus transforming it into an Arab state.
At the Council, many representatives did speak in Israel’s favour, and doubtless these speakers represented the majority of ordinary church members.
However, as an institution, the United Church of Canada used this Council to assert its abiding hostility toward Israel.
Ah, well. I’ll do my bit by spending against the boycott. The kids are out of diapers, but I’m sure my wife would like some Zionist lingerie.
Brian Henry is a Toronto writer and editor and a refugee from the NDP – Canada’s social democratic party. He blogs sporadically here. A shorter version of this article previously appeared in the August 20, 2009, Jewish Tribune, a community paper published weekly by B’nai Brith Canada.
Comments
| 20 August 2009, 3:55 pm |
“I have no doubt Gulf money is behind this church proposal”
The same Gulf money that was, and is, behind the Bushes and the Clintons?
Come on, Jon, neither side in this one is exactly short of cash. Who gets it, and what real difference it makes, are different matters.
| 20 August 2009, 4:02 pm |
I doubt that Gulf money is behind it. It’s a clear case of regular, everyday western “anti-imperialism” mated with anti-semitism.
The worst thing that was ever thought of was anti-imperialism. Not that imperialism was all that good, but it’s opposite has become totally meaningless for any application these days.
| 20 August 2009, 4:08 pm |
The United Church has enormous problems on its plate with regards to the mistreatment of its own co-religonists and other christians in Muslim-Majority countries. Like many other mainstream churches they ignore this pressing subject altogether by displacing the time and energy they OUGHT to devote to the probleme into denouncing Israel.
Cowardice and denial.
One wonders why a Christian church won’t stand up to defend its co-religionists against the intolerance they endure, but insists, instead, in denouncing a country that is exposed to that very same hatred and intolerance
My conclusions? Their silly, misdirected criticsms of Isreal are prompted by a mixture of crass cowardice and cowardly anti-semitism.
In any case, I doubt they’ll still be around in 20 or 30 years.
| 20 August 2009, 4:18 pm |
The consistent bleat from the Arabs and their aplogistas is that Israel should stop trading punches with the ‘Palestinians’ and capitulate unconditionally. Unfortunately none of them can say to whom this act of mass suicide should be addressed. The views of people like this bunch of whackjobs should be dismissed for the complete and utter nonentities they are.
| 20 August 2009, 4:19 pm |
Well David Milliband thinks terrorism is sometimes justifiable and the EU are reaching out to Hezbullah politically so let’s just give the Hamas a seat in the UN security council and be done with it.
| 20 August 2009, 4:32 pm |
the United Church of Canada (together with the Catholic and the Anglican Church in that country) has a far bigger problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
| 20 August 2009, 4:38 pm |
Arsenal did become associated with Israel via a sponsorship deal. Just pointing this out.
| 20 August 2009, 5:00 pm |
Here’s a letter from one of their clergy in today’s Ottawa Citizen, supporting UCC’s stance:
| 20 August 2009, 5:02 pm |
Emtdinglichung wrote: “the United Church of Canada (together with the Catholic and
the Anglican Church in that country) has a far bigger problem …”
No they don’t. That “issue”, like all the “issues” of the world, is caused by the Evil
Israeli Occupation don’t you know?
See how easy it is to “solve” things?
| 20 August 2009, 5:43 pm |
This article is overblown. Here is a news report with the reaction from the head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber, and Rabbi Reuven Bulka, an ex-pres of the CJC:
“In a written statement, Canadian Jewish Congress chief executive Bernie Farber said his organization is “pleased that the UCC has rejected these misguided and destructive proposals and we look forward to building on this positive step.”
Past congress president Rabbi Reuven Bulka told United Church delegates earlier this week that a move to boycott Israel in “any way, shape or form” would spell the end of relations between his organization and the church. He reminded them Thursday that a boycott of Israel would “have serious repercussions.”
But Bulka later told reporters he could live with the compromise that was reached, even if it does leave open the door for a boycott. “I’m not delighted,” he said. “I am grudgingly satisfied.”
Fact is, in canada these resolutions are always sponsored by a small group of ideologues and activists forever trying to change public opionion on Israel. Because the institutions — United Church, Mounteain Equipment Co-op, whoever — are democratic, the resolutions have to come to the floor. Once they do, they are ALWAYS decisively defeated.
Personally, I enjoy watching the obsessed anti-Israeli lefties bash their heads against the wall over and over again. So I guess my reaction differs from that of Brian Henry, who seems to see the UC affair as another step toward Armageddon.
| 20 August 2009, 5:52 pm |
Arsenal Football Club (owned by Jews, you know)
They do know that Arsenal is sponsored by Emirates?
| 20 August 2009, 6:11 pm |
The UC does call on both the Palestinians and the Israelis to end all violence but the UC blames only Israel. In January, Reverend David Giuliano, Moderator of the United Church of Canada (the church’s highest official) called the violence a “consequence of the hatred and hostility bred by the occupation.”
If it’s the occupation, why did Arafat & Co have to invest what they didn’t steal into promoting jihad from the time he returned from exile to run the PA, using payments to the extended families of “shahids”, PA TV, mosques and every level of the school system to laud perpetrators of terror?
| 20 August 2009, 7:20 pm |
The United Church is neither united, a church, or particularly Canadian. It’s like the HRE but even less pious. They are currently down to 250,000 members (for a population of 35M) in more than 3,000 churches (or 70 members per parish) after once representing 25% of the population.
UCC came from an amalgamation of mainline denominations in 1925 – Methodists, Presbyterians and 2 Canadian evangelical trends. The Anglicans were in talks to join but decided against. It was a very mainstream church for decades, with the Presbyterians and Methodists and their middle class/bourgeois memberships.
Since church attendance has dropped, UCC has drifted ever leftward in terms of politics and theology. They give Unitarians a run for their money in being aspiritual and a number of ministers deny the divinity of Christ. Not such a huge shock, but for ministers of a supposedly Christian Church to deny the point of their pulpit and to continue in it is more than somewhat odd. Gretta Vosper is a minister in Toronto who published a book denying Christ and the existence of God: http://www.amazon.ca/Without-God-Gretta-Vosper/dp/1554682282
As an agnotheist, none of these positions offend me or get me riled up in and of themselves, since I hold them (weakly – I’m no Richard Dawkins). It’s just the pretense of being a minister and specifically denying the creed and scriptures that create your position. I prefer religious leaders to actually believe in their doctrines, as apparently do most people as evidenced by the rapid death of mushy mainline denominations and the growth of evangelical ones that are adamant about possessing the Truth.
UCC has been subverted by a left wing cabal – like it was part of a plan to subvert institutions by a march of like minded ideologues – and behaves like a radical public sector union in espousing anti-semitism, anti-capitalism, and misanthropic environmentalism.
| 20 August 2009, 10:38 pm |
Tourism Minister Avraham Hirchson and Keith Edelman, managing director of the legendary British soccer club Arsenal have signed a sponsorship agreement through which Israel will advertise popular tourist sites to the London club’s fan club and soccer stars.
| 20 August 2009, 11:03 pm |
greenmamba’s link to the letter to the Ottawa Citizen from a Rev. Dr. Hanns F. Skoutajan, “Past chair of the former Committee of the Church and International Affairs”, unsurprisingly, given the activity of the committee he chaired, makes a glowing reference to one A.C. Forrest, a UCC antizionist and Arab nationalist activist who was chief editor of the UCC’s magazine ‘the Observer’ and who from his editorial chair immediately following the 1967 six day war, ensured that nearly every issue of the magazine would contain an article denouncing Israel. Skoutajan says that critics of the UCC resolutions are at fault for never addressing the validated arguments put forward by A.C. Forrest in his book.
In the chapter entitled: ‘A Church Divided: A.C. Forrest and the United Church’s Middle East Policy’ (beginning on page 86), of Canadian political scientist David Taras and David Howard Goldberg’s book: ‘The Domestic Battleground: Canada and the Arab Israeli Conflict’, the authors provide a balanced history and dispassionate account of the history of A.C. Forrest’s and the Committee of the Church and International Affairs’ antizionist campaign.
And it’s all there, by which I mean, the identitical antizionist talking points that A.C. Forrest, the Observer and the Committee of the Church and International Affairs promulgated in the late 1960’s and early 70’s are the ones we read and hear about today: Israel napalms Arab children; Israel’s military efforts are disproportionate; Israel is worse than Apartheid South Africa; Israel can be paralleled to Nazi Germany; UN Human Rights Commission pronouncements are authoritative when it comes to Israel; All UNRWA clients must be repatriated into Israel (aka the one Palestinian Arab Islamic state solution), in order to attain a just peace; Zionists in the form of a “Network”, and in Canada, masterminded and operated by the Mossad and the B’nai Brith, control the media and the foreign affairs of Western states and not only stifle free expression, press freedom and academic freedom through harassment -i.e. critics referring to antisemitism-, but also penetrate every corner of our nation; We antizionists are martyrs for speaking truth against the power wielded by the nefarious Zionist-controlled MP’s and government (of course notwithstanding Taras and Goldberg pointing out that Forrest and the Committee were received warmly by some, but not all bureaucrats serving in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a small coterie of sympathetic MPs).
And from the other side, Taras and Goldberg show that the UCC did not wind up electing A.C. Forrest to be Church Moderator, despite the support he received and the newly elected Moderator got Forrest and his legal counsel to issue a carefully worded apology to the B’nai Brith. We also learn that both A.C. Forrest and an opponent of his, Rabbi Gunther Plaut, required security due to fears, threats and intimidation on whatever side.
In 1972, about 6 months prior to the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics by the Palestinian ‘Black September’, Forrest published an article in the Observer penned by John Nicholls Booth entitled “How Zionists manipulate your news” which accused Israel of…
causing “a trail of global tensions, the longest and blackest record of international censures against any nation, 1,500,000 heartbroken and homeless refugees and three wars.” Booth argued that “the Zionist network” wielded enormous and disproportionate power and that it was disloyal and sinister. His view was that “Israeli intelligence, through B’nai Brith’s A[nti] D[efemation] L[eague], Zionist organizations, temples and rabbis, penetrates every part of our nation.” He believed moreover that anyone who criticized Israel was certain to be labelled an antisemite and that this was a form of “harassment” used by the Anti Defamation League to intimidate potential critics of Israel.
[...]
Forrest’s original position was that he would apologize [as a result of a number of suits and countersuits between B'nai Brith and the Observer and UCC], only if “anybody could show me there was anything incorrect or false in it… I refused to go along with the moderator and secretary of the General Council in coming to any sort of agreement.”
Now I haven’t read A.C. Forrest’s book (which I think is also available on line for the interested), but since Mr. Forrest didn’t think there was anything incorrect in the John Nicholls Booth article he published in 1972, perhaps his acolyte Rev. Dr. Hanns F. Skoutajan, past chair of the former UCC Committee of the Church and International Affairs, might also want to address the points made in Booth’s article since he expects his opponents to address the antizionist talking points in Forrest’s book.
| 21 August 2009, 12:26 am |
We have the same problem in my outfit, the Presbyterian Church (USA), though not so bad. There was a resolution passed in June 2004 at a meeting of the ruling General Assembly calling for disinvestment from Israel and denouncing the Barrier Wall whereever is built. Two years latter, following much criticism both by grassroots Presbyterians and American Jewish groups, in June 2006 at another meeting of the General Assembly both resolutions were overwhelming repealed. Since then, the anti-Israeli factions in the various Presbyterias have tried more sublte anti-Israeli actions such as bringing over Chrisitian Ministers from the West Bank to whine about how Israel is oppressing West Bank Christians and other nonsense! Needless to say, we never heard from our Presbyterian ruling bodies about opression of Christians in southern Sudan and elsewhere in the Muslim world or anything about the ongoing genocide against the African Muslims of Darfur.
| 21 August 2009, 3:37 am |
Nothing short of the elimination of the State of Israel will put an end to the obviously insane idea that Israel is occupying Gaza. Even in Lebanon, Nasrallah continues to trumpet his “resistance” to a non-existent occupation.
This Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada and I believe a couple of others in the US such as the Presbyterian Church mentioned by David All upthread and above all the United Methodist Church are among many that have created a special interest in attacking Israel – something that I for one can only attribute to a return to traditional Christian anti-Semitism.
| 21 August 2009, 12:56 pm |
“promulgated in the late 1960’s and early 70’s are the ones we read and hear about today: Israel napalms Arab children; Israel’s military efforts are disproportionate; Israel is worse than Apartheid South Africa; Israel can be paralleled to Nazi Germany”
http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org/
http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/
| 21 August 2009, 2:08 pm |
Lbnaz:
Forrest’s book is here:
http://www.canpalnet-ottawa.org/The%20Unholy%20Land.pdf
I got the giggles when on he cited John Glubb as a source without mentioning that Glubb led the Arab Legion in 1948/9.
| 21 August 2009, 3:15 pm |
This Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada and I believe a couple of others in the US such as the Presbyterian Church mentioned by David All upthread and above all the United Methodist Church are among many that have created a special interest in attacking Israel – something that I for one can only attribute to a return to traditional Christian anti-Semitism.
But all of the congregations you cite are leftist in nature and their clergy are all strongly influenced by marxism. The anti-semitism isn’t so much Christian in nature, but rather emerges from left-inspired views and positions.
More conservative/traditional Christians are,, by and large, pretty strong supporters of Israel
| 21 August 2009, 4:44 pm |
John P., you are right. This anti-Israeli bias has more to due with the leftist sympathies of a large part of the liberal clergy and church workers than traditional anti-Semitism. Their hatred of Israel reflects their hatred of the West, of Democracy and themsevles.
I have no doubt Gulf money is behind this church proposal, in the same it is behind a growing number of universities, think tanks, politicians, charities, NGOs mosques and religious organisations.
Keep the heat on Israel, get away with murder.