Now that Israel is under threat of extermination by Iran and Hamas, with Nazi-style libels against the Jews pouring out of the Arab and Muslim world and with Jews everywhere under siege from physical and intellectual attack, what is the response of the most progressive religious and intellectual minds in Britain and America to this phenomenon of global fascism and threat of a second Holocaust directed against the Jewish state? Why, to cut Israel’s economic throat. Last year’s aborted Israel boycott by Britain’s Association of University Teachers was, as predicted here at the time, merely a practice run for what has become the progressive recreational sport du jour – singling out the one country on the planet that is targeted for extermination, first by demonising it with a campaign of lies and then severing its intellectual and economic lifelines to the so-called civilised world.

Israel boycotts now seem to be as popular as a CND badge on a 1950s beatnik. The Church of England, which has done so much to foster hatred of Israel, has now successfully resurrected its narrowly averted boycott support attempt of last year (you can’t keep a good prejudice down) and at the General Synod overwhelmingly backed the call by the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem to divest from ‘companies profiting from the illegal occupation ... until they change their policies.’

As Ruth Gledhill pointedly reported in the Times:

The Jewish community’s distress will be augmented by the fact that the vote to disinvest was backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. By contrast, Dr Williams has so far not commented on the recent Palestinian election victory of Hamas, an organisation committed to destroying the state of Israel.

Dr Williams – who only recently delivered a strongly worded condemnation of the resurgence of antisemitism – has now issued the most weaselly of ‘regrets’ about the timing of the motion for which he himself voted. As Ruth Gledhill subsequently reported:

In his carefully crafted letter Dr Rowan Williams, who voted in favour of the motion, denies that it represented a decision to disinvest. At the same time, he admits that it was a response to a call from the Anglican church in Jerusalem to disinvest... Dr Williams defends the synod as merely urging the Church of England ‘to engage with companies about whom we had concerns and to encourage a fact-finding visit to the Holy Land.’ In his letter to Sir Jonathan Sacks, the Archbishop of Canterbury says: ‘The Synod has not resolved to disinvest. Dr Williams says: ‘It is unfortunate that this has arisen at a time when anti-Semitism is a growing menace and when the State of Israel faces challenges not only in respect of the new administration in the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority but also elsewhere in the region.’

‘Unfortunate’, eh?

Although this vote does not bind the Church Commissioners, the managers of denominational investments, it is rightly considered to be ‘hugely symbolic’. And what it symbolises is the complete and abject capitulation by the Church of England to the forces of unspeakable evil, mendacity and mass murder – backed by the equally vicious and scarcely less significant NGOs. Thus Nick Dearden of War on Want urged the Church Commissioners

to enforce the Synod’s decision, and to send a clear message that companies like Caterpillar [which makes bulldozers used in Israeli anti-terrorist operations] have a responsibility to ensure their products are not used to violate human rights.

The good news is that decent Christians are appalled, and their numbers appear to be growing. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, bravely claimed that as a result of the Synod vote he was ‘ashamed to be an Anglican.’ The vote, he rightly said, ‘ignores the trauma of ordinary Jewish people’ in Israel subjected to terrorist attacks. Last year he said of the church’s boycott attempt that the Israelis already felt traumatised by attacks on them and this would be ‘another knife in the back’.

Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St. Albans, told the Synod the call was ‘unbalanced’ and failed to reflect the complexity of the situation. Anglicans for Israel courageously expressed its dismay by uttering some immensely important home truths:

We believe that the motion -- founded on ignorance and deceit -- represents a severe blow to Jewish-Anglican relations, and on behalf of concerned clergy and laity, we dissociate ourselves from it and will continue to take our stand with Israel. We offer our humble apologies to our Jewish elder brothers and sisters in faith. We pray for peace in the Middle East, but in doing so, affirm that reconciliation cannot be built on falsehood and willful ignorance of Israel's predicament.

The continuing demonisation of Israel will increase antisemitism. It is almost beyond belief that the Anglican Church, at the behest of some clergymen who seem to be motivated by a combination of liberation theology and a strange, Islamicised version of New Testament theology, should seek to collaborate with the forces of Radical Islam-which destroyed the Middle East's only once-Christian state, Lebanon, whilst the Church largely looked the other way- to deliver the last corner of western values, religious liberty and democracy in the region to Wahabbist Islam.

The most passionate and bitter denunciation of all was made by Canon Andrew White, the Cof E cleric who knows more about the Middle East, and does more to promote reconciliation between Jews, Arabs and Christians, than any other clergyman. He was so appalled that he issued the following statement from Iraq:

Last year I wrote about the ‘sanctimonious claptrap’ of the Anglican Consultative Council after they called for the disinvestment from the state of Israel. This week the General Synod of the Church of England has called for the same thing. This time though they have targeted a particular company ‘Caterpillar’ for allowing its products to perform the so called evil deeds of the Israeli Government. This is the same company involved in the reconstruction of the Gaza and West Bank, that I have seen doing amazing work even in the past few weeks. Fortunately Caterpillar does not rely on their funding from the C of E to perform. At the moment I am in Iraq. Here we move around in heavily armored buses called rhino buses. They happen also to be produced in Israel by the same company that produces Israeli Defense Force equipment. I have not seen here the refusal of any British or American staff to use these vehicles. After all they are a matter of life and death and they have protected many lives.

This action has put back many years the attempts to deal with anti-
Zionism and antisemitism in our own nation. For whether we like it or
not anti Zionism is seen here by the majority of British Jews as antisemitism. If we are to take seriously this issue we have to also hear the voice of Jewish people both in Israel and the Diaspora. What are we, the Church doing? Do we not realize that far more Jews have been killed at the hands of Christians than of Muslims? This is the 350 year anniversary of Jews being allowed back into the UK, it should be a time forrejoicing at the great Jewish contribution to our nation. Most Jews though are scared; scared at what is happening to world Jewry led not just by the Church of England but also established Churches in the US.

It is now nearly four years since the Israeli Government came to me
saying they needed the help of the C of E to create a religious track of the peace process. Lord Carey, then Archbishop of Canterbury, led the process which has continued to this day. Just before Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was taken ill I was summoned to his office, to give account for the attitudes of the C of E. Then I was able to explain that this was the action of the ACC [Anglican Consultative Council] and not the C of E. There was considerable assurance that as Lord Carey was no longer the Archbishop the process could continue. It was all very difficult. Where do you take things from here? There is some hope in the fact that I no longer work for the Church of England, but the reality is that I feel very angry. Angry at the lack of compassion shown to Jews both in Israel and our own land and angry that such a decision should put the real work of peace-making in jeopardy in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Things are already really difficult with a terrorist group having been elected to run the PNA.[Palestinian National Authority] We do not know what the future of peace and reconciliation will be in land that is called Holy. We do know now that the job will be even more difficult. Once again I am sure I will be summoned by the Israeli Government to give account for the actions of what for the first time I am ashamed to call my Church.

The Church has fallen into the trap of thinking that you must be either pro Israeli or pro Palestinian. The reality is that we should be pro both people. Both have suffered and both need our support, love and understanding. When I return to Israel and the Palestinian Territories in just over a week my main duty will be to help with the opening of a major Cardiac Surgery Hospital in Bethlehem. This will be paid for by Christians in the USA. Christians who love Israel and the Palestinian People, this should be a lesson to the C of E. What the Palestinian people need is action not just talk. The Synod voting for disinvestment in Israel will not help the Palestinians, but it will make the search for peace even harder and it will diminish any positive role that the C of E could have played in the region.

Things are now more than desperate in the region. In the last five
years alone Hamas has killed Hundreds of Israelis; they are now the PNA. Is the Church of England going to say anything about that! The fact is the Lord Carey and I am the only Church of England Clergy working intimately with both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. We were never consulted. If the concern was for the Christians of the land I doubt if there are any people working so closely with the Palestinian Christians as us, raising funds for needy Christians in Gaza and the West Bank, helping schools, hospitals and churches.

I despair at my own Church, but the reality is that it causes me to ask questions about the Church rather than Israel. We will press on with our work; fortunately it is no longer the work of the C of E and we will continue loving both peoples and seeking truth and justice for all and never falling into the evil trap of anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

But it appears that Uncle Tom Professional and all are falling over themselves to enter ‘the evil trap of anti Zionism and antisemitism’. Now, British architects have decided to institute their own boycott of Israel's construction industry in protest at the building of Israeli settlements and the separation barrier in the disputed territories:

Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, whose members include Richard Rogers and the architectural critic Charles Jenckes, met for the first time last week in secret at the London headquarters of Lord Rogers’ practice. He introduced the meeting, and the 60 attendees went on to condemn the illegal annexation of Palestinian land and the construction of the vast fence and concrete separation barrier running through the West Bank and Jerusalem. The group said that architects, planners and engineers working on Israeli projects in the occupied territories were ‘complicit in social, political and economic oppression’, and ‘in violation of their professional code of ethics’. It said that: ‘Planning, architecture and other construction disciplines are being used to promote an apartheid system of environmental control.’

One really does have to marvel at the way the Arab Big Lie appears to have destroyed the capacity for reason among some of our most illustrious citizens. The occupation is not illegal; there is no social, political and economic oppression of Palestinians, merely Israel’s attempt to defend its citizens from being murdered in large number by those same Palestinians; the charge of apartheid is a disgusting libel without a shred of truth (and one which incidentally does for South African apartheid what Holocaust denial does for the Nazi genocide). Architects are supposed to build things; but the aim of this action appears to be to allow Israel to be destroyed. No wonder this meting was held ‘in secret’.

Charles Jenckes told the Independent:

There reaches a certain point where an architect can't sit on the fence. [sic] Not to stand up to it would be to be complicit.’ He said the separation barrier built by Israel was ‘a contorted, crazy, mad, divisive, drunken thing’. ‘In 10 years’ time, its builders will see it as a great folly,’ he said. ‘Architecturally it is madness. I understand fully that security is the problem for Israel and they have the right to protect themselves. But this is not the solution. It is an extremist measure which foments extremism, by incarcerating and intimidating Palestinians.

So let’s get this right. Israel has been under existential attack for more than half a century. When it was founded, the Arabs tried to destroy it. They were beaten. Has there ever been another situation like this, where half a century on the country that was the target of a war of extermination is told that it must met the demands of those defeated aggressors who have never stopped trying to destroy it? And that if it doesn’t meet them, then it and not those trying to destroy it are behaving in a tyrannical fashion? And that a barrier which prevents those potential murderers from reaching their intended victims is ‘an extremist measure which foments extremism’?

According to these architects of lies, Israel is not permitted to defend its citizens against the war waged against it. It is not permitted to kill the terrorists, nor to demolish the houses that are the terror factories, nor to take any military action at all. Yet the non-military means of self-defence, the separation barrier, is also illegitimate – because it causes hardship to the aggressor community which is trying to commit mass murder! These accomplices to the Big Lie claim that the architects, planners and others working on Israeli projects in the occupied territories are ‘in violation of their professional code of ethics’. But is this grotesque moral inversion of the function of a construction which is designed to save lives not the obscene repudiation of their professional ethic?

And now look at the extra twist to this story:

Eyal Weizman, the Israeli director of the Centre for Research Architecture at Goldsmith’s College in London, urged action. ‘A boycott would be totally legitimate,’ he said. ‘The wall and the settlements have been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice and we should boycott any company which does business, any architects that participate - anyone facilitating these human rights violations and war crimes’...The biologist Steven Rose, who led the British academic boycott of Israel from 2002, said: ‘Architecture and planning are an integral part of the fascist* apartheid state.’

One of the most tragic and disturbing features of the history of Jewish persecution is the part that has been played by certain Jews who, for a variety of reasons, have done the dirty work of those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. It is a pathology which is rampant at present, with numerous Jewish academics in particular helping foment the lies and hatred which are steadily demonising and delegitimising Israel and putting Jews in peril.

In America too, the boycott movement is accelerating. The Palestine Chronicle tells us that student activists are meeting later this month at Georgetown University for the fifth annual Palestine Solidarity Movement conference.

They will discuss rebuilding the campus divestment movement and hold training sessions for new and experienced solidarity activists. Speakers include Palestinian activist Omar Barghouthi; British academic boycott advocate Sue Blackwell; Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada; and dozens of veteran divestment activists.

Training sessions in hatred and lies; and in a university, no less, a supposed custodian of truth and enlightenment. Meanwhile, three major New York-based foundations are sponsoring an American Association of University Professors’ conference in Italy on Monday, which has invited virulent enemies of Israel to discuss a boycott. This is despite the fact that one of the articles circulated in advance of the meeting was found to have been what executives of two of these foundations called ‘an anti-Semitic paper by a Holocaust denier.’

The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription only) reports:

The article,‘The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany: The Economic Boycott of 1933,’ appeared in the January/February 2001 issue of The Barnes Review, a magazine of revisionist history published by Willis A. Carto, founder of the conservative group Liberty Lobby, which ceased operations in 2001. The article states that Hitler’s actions against Jewish people were ‘a defensive -- not an offensive -- measure,’ and were a response to Jewish leaders’ call for an economic boycott of Germany. The AAUP included the article in a packet of reading materials it sent to 23 scholars and university leaders scheduled to participate in the meeting, which was to have started next Monday in Bellagio, Italy.

Roger W. Bowen, the association’s general secretary, sent an e-mail message last week apologizing to the participants. And in a statement posted on its website, the association said the inclusion of the article was ‘an egregious error.’ ‘Nothing of this sort will happen again,’ the statement said. Ruth Flower, a spokeswoman for the organization, said the Barnes Review piece was retrieved by staff members searching online for reading material for the conference, as they looked for articles that had ‘boycott’ in the title. But she said the AAUP had not been able to reconstruct how it came to include the piece in the packet sent to participants.

The bodies funding the conference, the Ford, Rockefeller, and Nathan Cummings Foundations, issued statements saying they doubted the conference’s viability. As Alec Magnet reported in the New York Sun (subscription only):

The president of the Ford Foundation, Susan Berresford, and the president of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, Lance Lindlom, issued a joint statement yesterday that said, ‘While we accept that this offensive paper does not reflect the views of the AAUP we believe its errant inclusion in the conference materials has undermined the credibility of this conference as a forum for intellectually honest and rigorous exchange.’... Ms. Berresford and Mr. Lindlom called the distribution of ‘an anti-Semitic paper by a Holocaust denier’ an ‘unacceptable error.’

An ‘unacceptable error,’ eh? But the Ford Foundation has previous form on this issue.

At a 2001 United Nations conference in Durban, South Africa, radical antisemitic groups the Ford Foundation funded dominated the agenda. In November of 2003, under pressure from Congress, the press, and American Jewish organizations, Ms. Berresford announced that the Ford Foundation ‘deeply’ regretted some of its funding of anti-Israel groups. She announced new policies requiring guarantees not to engage in bigotry or promote violence or terrorism.

So much for that particular promise. Durban was of course the notorious carnival of anti-Jewish hatred sponsored by the UN. As Alan Dershowitz has commented, this AAUP meeting promises to be an academic Durban. And it appears that the conference is still going ahead. The AAUP General Secretary has said that

...academic boycotts are irreconcilable with the purposes of higher education

but also that

We believe, rather, that the conference should be held now, with the same group of invitees, and with every intention of mounting an academically rigorous conference.

Those who note the absence of intellectual rigour in the confluence of those two statements might not share his optimism. And as James Lewis correctly notes in The American Thinker:

When you agree to debate a question, you legitimize the issue. This is a standard tactic of campus radicals around the US, who hold positions of power in AAUP. Decent people do not sponsor headline conferences on certain questions. Should we consider the death penalty for Danish cartoonists? Decent people just take a stand on those questions. You can tell a lot about someone’s decency by the questions they ask.

The list of people in both Britain and America who are boycotting decency altogether is getting longer by the day.

*Update: Steven Rose says he was misquoted by the Independent, and what he actually said was that Israel was a 'racist apartheid state'.

Posted by melanie at February 11, 2006