3-May-13: Scotland weighs up the Jews and finds them lacking. And vice versa.

What would Braveheart have done?

We had our first exposure to the Church of Scotland back in 2008. They brought a group of visitors to Israel under the rubric "INTERFAITH PILGRIMAGE: Promoting Community Cohesion and Interfaith Understanding". We met with, and addressed, them in a large room at Jerusalem's St Andrews Church and found it a pleasant and expanding experience.

A page we were handed at the time by the organizers expressed sentiments that we felt provided a fine basis for sitting down and sharing views. We pulled it out of the cupboard this morning to revisit its contents in light of what the Scots have now done. The key part says the "pilgrimage" stems from:

conversations amongst a number of individuals with differing backgrounds and affiliations, who are concerned that tensions in the Middle East are a constant obstacle to developing good relations between religious groups in Scotland.  We are united in our belief that practical steps need to be taken in order to prevent these tensions being imported to Scotland. Over the years Scotland has demonstrated a positive example of multiculturalism and there are various opportunity (sic) to enhance and build on this... Our mission will reflect on opportunities of community cohesion and interfaith understanding which can help develop one Scotland [and will help to] create a better understanding of faith diversity and the value of enhanced cooperation.

Ah, but that was then.

The Church of Scotland published a report in the last few days, entitled "The Inheritance of Abraham: A report on the 'promised land'". It comes with aggressive recommendations that are going to be put before its General Assembly at the end of this month.

A note issued this morning in the official name of Scotland's Jewish community uses such words as 'arrogance' and 'outrage' (it's unusual to find expressions like these used by a community-wide Jewish organization anywhere, and certainly in the UK) in discussing the direction taken by the church. It calls the paper

an outrage to everything that interfaith dialogue stands for. It reads like an Inquisition-era polemic against Jews and Judaism. It is biased, weak on sources, and contradictory. The picture it paints of both Judaism and Israel is barely even a caricature. The arrogance of telling the Jewish people how to interpret Jewish texts and Jewish theology is breathtaking... [It] claims to know Judaism better than we do. Meanwhile it recently sponsored a conference organised by someone whose website promotes Holocaust denial and the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - but it claims to want to act as a peacemaker in the Middle East! Sadly, this document makes that impossible, and closes the door on meaningful dialogue. On behalf of the Jewish Community of Scotland, we call upon the Church to withdraw it from the forthcoming General Assembly. If the Church cannot build bridges, can it at least refrain from burning them?

St Andrews Church in Jerusalem [Image Source]

The Board of Deputies in London has also weighed in, expressing (in a manner different from its customary buttoned-down approach to all things) its sense that the document from the Church of Scotland is

deeply troubling on many levels... littered with misrepresentations of Jewish history, values and beliefs as well as basic factual errors. It is an ignorant and tendentious document masquerading as a theological statement. The Church of Scotland has done a deep disservice to itself by producing a document without any regard to the trust, respect and dialogue on which interfaith relations should be based... a slap in the face to the Jewish community.

Theological philosophy is way above our pay scale. Besides, once we saw that the Church of Scotland paper quotes with approval the views of Sabeel, a repugnant strand of extremist Christian thought steeped in hatred of Jews [background here], we recognized there was little we could, or would want to, contribute to the unseemly rant on which the Church has just embarked.

Still, we do want to make one point that is not expressed in their 10 page paper, or in the responses it has so far elicited.

The Scots write (on page 2) that

In general terms there have been three main ways of understanding the promises about land in the Bible: (1) A territorial guarantee; (2) A land held in trust (3) A land with a universal mission.

and then proceed to turn scripture, Halacha, Torah Sheb'al Peh, modern Zionist literature and centuries of Jewish thought upside down and inside out in order to show that all three understandings are faulty. They argue that, whatever the promises that gave rise to the notion of a promised land, these have to be understood this way:

Focussed as they are on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ [they] call for a commitment in every place to justice in a spirit of reconciliation... [page 9] Jesus gave a new direction and message for the people of God, one which did not feature a special area of land for them... [page 8]"

In short, the Scots say we Jews are to live our personal and collective lives according to certain selected principles of their religion; ours evidently does not count. It's a bizarre line to take when first you demolish the other's view of its own history and theology and self-determination.

But it fails to come to terms at all with history. Let the Scots argue till the cows come home over theology: theirs, ours and anyone else's, whatever makes them happy. But are they in doubt about the thousands of years of connection and longing that exists between the world's Jews and this tiny patch of ground that the Scots, employing quotation marks to evoke their skepticism, call the 'promised land'? That Jewish connection is not a matter of conjecture or interpretation. You can walk into virtually any Jewish home in the world, step up to the book case and pull down volume after volume that expresses that connectedness and that longing, and you could have done it last century and two thousand years ago with the same result.

You can ignore the concrete evidence in front of your face (something at which Palestinian Arab religious and political leaders are adept). But then it becomes an entirely different discussion. It ought to matter not at all to the Scots or to anyone else whether we Jews claim our connection to this 'promised' land via the Almighty or through the man in the moon. Whatever its origins, it's the oldest documented tie that exists in human history between a people and their homeland. That provides a very different basis for this discussion compared with the bogus one offered by the Church of Scotland in May 2013.

Their 2008 strategy of interfaith understanding and openness made vastly more sense.

31-Oct-12: A Scottish corner in the Holy Land: The BBC explains what it means

Some interesting themes in today's BBC look (online here and the text is at the foot of this post) at the Scots Hotel: a romantic Scots interpretation of the white man's burden in today's Middle East. 

If you have read it, we have some observations:

In 1999, the General Assembly voted to invest around £10 million ($16 m) to upgrade the property. There was an uproar. Critics said it was scandalous to do this at a time when the Church at home was having to sell off properties and merge congregations, not to mention struggling to finance HIV/AIDS projects in Africa. But supporters of the development won the day, insisting that the hotel could become a place of reconciliation in the Middle East. The General Assembly was particularly won over by Palestinian Christian delegates, who pleaded with the Kirk not to abandon its position in Israel.

The outcome is not so well understood by the writer, and maybe not by the Church leadership either. The existence of a Church-owned hotel does precious little to advance the cause of reconciliation between Israeli Jews and the mostly-hostile Arab sea in which our country lives. 

But in terms of the standing and security of Christian Arabs, who face insurmountable, frequently existential, challenges from their Islamic cousins, a case can be made that it has had some positive impact as an expression of concern for their welfare by their fellow Christians in the UK and Europe - a scarce commodity. 

In the village of Reineh, near Nazareth, Father Samuel Barhoum tells me how proud he is of the links with the Kirk. "We are a forsaken minority here," he says, alluding to the fact that outside the Middle East many people are unaware that there are Palestinian Christians as well as Muslims. For him, the Scots Hotel in Tiberias is "an oasis".

This is a significant key line. Who is doing the forsaking? Who is being forsaken? Suggested answers: Christians in the west, to part one. Christian Palestinian Arabs in part two. A scandalous and somewhat baffling ongoing reality, made the more so by the endless denial in which the first of those groups engages.

The Church of Scotland is fiercely supportive of the Palestinian cause. But ironically the existence of the Scots Hotel - which relies to some extent on Israeli goodwill and receives hefty Israeli tourism grants - is said by some to tie the Church's hands.

Does the Church's leadership or membership understand how support for what is called here the Palestinian cause translates into exacerbation of the problems facing Christian groups throughout the Arab world?

Rooms here cost as much as £200 ($320) a night, which puts it out of reach of most local people. Certainly few Palestinians, who it was originally hoped might come here to rub shoulders with Jewish people, could stay here. 

An odd and indefensible position: that Palestinian Arabs need a hotel in order to rub up against Israeli Jews and vice versa. Try selling this idea to the people who daily patronize supermarkets, hospitals, buses, Kupot Holim health fund clinics, universities (and trams in Jerusalem) the length and breadth of Israel.

Churchmen were acutely aware that if they sold the property it would be bought by Israelis, which would be a blow not just to Christianity in the region but also to the Palestinians, whose cause the Church of Scotland strongly supports.

There's a whiff of something unstated and unsavoury here. Understanding how the sale of a hotel to "Jews" could have been a blow to "Christianity" is the key to understanding what's troubling with this superficial and somewhat misleading article and the underlying ideas that animate it.

Here's the first part of the BBC text:

Scots Hotel: Why the Church of Scotland has a Galilee getaway

By Angus Roxburgh | Tiberias, Israel [BBC World Service website]
31 October 2012 Last updated at 00:44 

Spot the odd one out: Hilton, Marriott, Radisson, Church of Scotland, Holiday Inn. Yes, you're right, they are all names of hotels apart from… but wait a minute, the Church of Scotland also owns a hotel, and a very splendid one at that. Very splendid, and very controversial too, since an organisation as thrifty and modest as the Scottish Kirk would not normally be expected to spend £13 million ($20m) building a luxury hotel. It also happens to be situated in one of the world's hotspots - northern Israel, not far from Syria and Lebanon, in the town of Tiberias, which only a few years ago came under rocket attack. So who is the Scots Hotel for, and why does the Church own it? It all started back in the 1880s, when a group of Scottish missionaries led by a surgeon, Dr David Watt Torrance, came to the Holy Land to preach, convert, and heal. Torrance built a hospital in Tiberias which served patients from as far away as Damascus. After the new Israeli state built its own hospital in the region in 1959, the three buildings housing the Scottish one were converted into a hospice for pilgrims, and then a modest guesthouse, owned by the Church of Scotland. By the 1990s, the guesthouse was crumbling due to lack of investment, and the Church faced a dilemma. Sell it - and its beautiful grounds by the Sea of Galilee, including a little cemetery where Dr Torrance and his family are buried - or invest in it...

The rest is on the BBC's website.

27-May-11: On boycotts and banning books - and the screaming silence of the humanitarians

Burning books in Nazi Germany, 1930's. No connection
whatsoever to the events in Scotland - none at all.

The pro-Israel blogosphere - and practically no one else from what we can see - has been agonizing over reports about a decision by the West Dunbartonshire Council, a regional Scottish local government, to ban Israeli books and other made-in-Israel goods from its realm. Other Scottish cities and local government councils are said to be planning to follow suit. The Marrickville Council in suburban Sydney, Australia, went through the same sort of process but gave it up last month when the price to be paid by its rate-payers for such selective ideological sophistry finally sank in. The Scots, we're confident,  are made of sterner stuff.

Going beyond the boycott itself, many people will find disturbing that the facts - which echo the Nazi book-burnings of eight decades ago - are barely reported in mainstream news channels. And as for a civil response, there is almost total silence on the part of the 'humanitarians' and the 'human rights activists'. Street marches? Outraged protests? The defence of free speech? Hah. Look elsewhere.

Burning hated non-Islamic books in Pakistan, 2000s.
Not connected to the Scottish action; not even remotely similar

The boycott decisions are also strangely selective and unbalanced. Why throw out Israeli books (which is where the West Dunbarton campaign is focused) and not throw out Israeli computer chips or medicines or drip irrigation devices or disks-on-key or software or any of the long list of Israeli innovations that are indispensable in modern society? For aspiring haters of Israel with a thirst for ideological consistency, here is one of many on-line guides to removing everything Israeli from your narrow and ever-darker lives. Warning: it's a long list.

For the rest of us, the councillors of West Dunbartonshire probably see themselves as lovers of truth and justice and we need to help them find their way. They are exposed to a rich diet of Israel-hating polemics from freedom-loving local activists: an illuminating piece headlined "West Dunbartonshire Council stands firm against demented Zionist hysteria" is representative of the genre. Though Glasgow is notoriously the home of Deep Fried Mars Bars and a balanced diet of anything may be aiming too high, we think they need to hear from us.

Otherwise how else will they know how anti-humanitarian, how anti-liberal, how anti-intellectual, how anti-freedom the banning and boycotting of books or anything else is? And how else will they get to hear about a fine piece of writing by the Italian journalist (not Jewish, not Israeli, certainly not Scottish) Giulio Meotti, called "The Scottish disgrace: Abominable Scottish decision to ban Israeli books reminiscent of Shoah era".

Please join us in informing the people on the list below of what a giant step into the dark they have taken for themselves and those they were elected to represent.

Denis.Agnew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
George.Black@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
James.Bollan@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Jim.Brown@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Geoffrey.Calvert@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Gail.Casey@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
jim.finn@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
william.hendrie@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Douglas.McAllister@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
david.mcbride@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Ronnie.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
jonathan.mccoll@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Jim.McElhill@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Patrick.McGlinchey@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Craig.McLaughlin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
William.McLaughlin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Marie.McNair@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
John.Millar@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
lawrence.oneill@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Iain.Robertson@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Martin.Rooney@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
May.Smillie@west-dunbarton.gov.uk

Finally, just so that everyone is clear on where we stand when it comes to boycotts... the subject has a long and well documented history. Let no one on the BDS side say they don't know what that heritage is or where it leads.

"Kauft nicht bei Juden". BDS in the 1930s - boycotting, divesting and sanctioning
the businesses and property of a hated minority. Germany's Nazis showed the way.
This of course has no relevance to the Scottish decision to boycott, divest
and sanction Israeli businesses, property and cultural creations.  

23-Mar-11: We know these horrors only too well

Jerusalem's central bus station (in the background) this afternoon 

An Egged bus of the number 74 line exploded at about 3 this afternoon near the Jerusalem's central bus station and just outside the Jerusalem Conference Center (Binyanei Ha'uma) at the entrance to the city.

The New York Times report helpfully attributes the carnage to "what Israeli officials called a terrorist attack". Thank heavens we have the world's most authoritative newspaper to point out to us how easily people can get mixed up about things like this; the explosion was terror according to "Israeli officials", but less excitable observers might say it could just as easily have been some Thai worker chasing an unpaid debt.

The Jerusalem Post says one woman, aged 59, died and 39 people were injured. Of these, three were injured seriously by the force of the explosion itself; four are moderately hurt from the effects of shrapnel sadistically packed into the explosive device by the heroes who planted  it; and the remainder are in moderate to light condition. Witnesses are said to be able to identify the man who left the bomb-filled bag next to the bus stop and police are searching for him. (There was a similar bombing in Jerusalem's southern neighbourhood of Gilo two weeks ago that ripped the hand off a municipal worker, and now there is a suspicion that the bombings share a common perpetrator.) May they find him quickly.

Thursday UPDATE: It appears the murdered woman was a British national. No names released yet. AFP says a British tourist.

UPDATE Friday: This British source says the woman killed in the Binyanei Hauma bus stop bomb blast on Wednesday was a British Bible translator, Mary Jean Gardner, 59, from Orkney in Scotland, who was studying at the Hebrew University. This Scottish newspaper says she was "employed by the Wycliffe Society, which works to provide translations of the Bible to the estimated 340 million people who can’t read it in their own language".

UPDATE March 28, 2011: The post above is now translated into the French language and appears on the website of Le Mouvement pour la Paix et Contre le Terrorisme.