TNR BLOGS

May 11, 2008 | 7:21 PM
May 11, 2008 | 1:47 PM
May 11, 2008 | 12:39 AM

May 09, 2008 | 2:11 PM
May 09, 2008 | 1:07 PM
May 08, 2008 | 5:01 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

May 10, 2008 | 1:40 PM
May 09, 2008 | 6:40 PM
May 09, 2008 | 2:53 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
01.02.2008
Who's Afraid of the Methodist Church? Or the Presbyterians?

The Methodist Church in the United States seems to have embarked on its annual foray into the murky waters where hostility to Zionism and Israel just barely averts anti-Semitism.  Or maybe not.

The righteous Methodists are once again considering disinvesting from public companies which do business in Israel in general and with companies that somehow help sustain the occupation of the West Bank.  This might mean a farm machine company like International Harvester or John Deere or perhaps a seed company.  Of course, it depends in which companies Methodist endowment and pensions are invested.  But divesting is only a handy and sloppy tactic to put Israel in the dock.

It's the fixation of Israel by various "mainstream" Protestant churches that is at issue. They don't seem too much to notice true persecution by other states of large parts of their populations. Anyway, to attack the Jews is a bad Christian habit. And to treat the Palestinians as victims of other than their own follies is both silly and unsophisticated.

But what are these churches?  And for whom do they speak?

Nearly 70 years ago, in 1940, when the US had 100 million people there were less than a million Methodists.  Today, when the US has about 300 million people, the Methodists have, well, less than a million communicants.  This is not a growing church, and its message has been waning even with this drop in its numbers.  The bishops and ministers of Methodism may believe firmly and more than a bit hot-headedly in their politics.  But such Methodists as remain give every sign of not noticing.  Which isn't bad, when you come to think of it.  But the Church is dealing with their money.

Posted: Friday, February 01, 2008 8:04 PM with 41 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

spencer97m said:

I'm not sure where you got the idea that there are fewer than a million Methodists in the US.  Your piece is about the United Methodist Church.  Quoting its website "there are lots of us: 8.5 million United Methodists live in the U.S., and 1.5 million more worldwide, with the largest growth in membership occurring in Africa and the Philippines."

Perhaps you got the main denomination confused with one of the offshoots (such as the Free Methodist Church)?

February 1, 2008 3:37 PM

spencer97m said:

Even the article you link to describes the church as having 11 million members.

February 1, 2008 3:38 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Companies that the $16b Methodist Church pension funds have either filed or threatened to file resolutions against in the last few years:

Activision

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Apple Computer

Archer Daniels Midland

AT&T

Bank of America

Bed Bath & Beyond

Caterpillar

Centex

Costco

Dollar General Stores

Dollar Tree

Family Dollar Stores

Fred's

General Motors

Home Depot

Juniper Networks

Kellogg

Kroger

Marsh McLennan

Mohawk

Monsanto

Morgan Stanley

Newmont Mining

Pfizer

Pulte Homes

Safeway

Sara Lee

Six Flags

Standard Pacific

THQ

TXU

Wal-Mart

They're rather ecumenical, so to speak, in their targets. I liked the resolution (disallowed by the SEC) forcing Pulet Homes to create a report on their progress re: energy efficiency "sustainability", also the ones to force General Motors to report on their political lobbying activities and force Morgan Stanley to discuss their labor, environmental and other "sustainability"-related practices.

February 1, 2008 4:02 PM

teplukhin2you said:

11 million members worldwide. UMC in the USA has 8 million US members per the United Council of Churches-- this figure declined by 1.4% since year prior and is probably going to continue to decline in not just absolute but also in terms of share of US christians. It's the Catholic and Church of Christ populations that are growing rapidly.

From the UCC:

"The 2007 UCC Yearbook reports the largest 25 denominations/communions in the U.S. (noting an increase or decrease in membership since the 2006 Yearbook reports).

1. The Catholic Church, 69,135,254 members, reporting an increase of 1.94 percent.

2. The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,270,315 members, reporting an increase of .02 percent.

3. The United Methodist Church, 8,075,010 members, reporting a decrease of 1.36 percent.

4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,690,672 members, reporting an increase of 1.63 percent.

5. The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members, no increase or decrease reported.

6. National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., 5,000,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 4,850,776, reporting a decrease of 1.62 percent.

8. National Baptist Convention of America, 3,500,000, no increase or decrease reported.

9. Presbyterian Church (USA), 3,098,842 members, reporting a decrease of 2.84 percent.

10. Assemblies of God, 2,830,861 members, reporting an increase of 1.86 percent.

11. African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

12. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, 2,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

13. Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc., 2,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

14. The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS), 2,440,864, reporting a decrease or .93 percent.

15. Episcopal Church, 2,247,819, reporting a decrease of 1.59 percent.

16. Churches of Christ, 1,639,495 members, reporting an increase of 9.30 percent (This increase reports the church's growth since its last reported figures in 1999.)

17. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 1,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

18. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc., 1,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

19. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 1,440,405 members, reporting an increase of .53 percent.

20. American Baptist Churches in the USA, 1,396,700, reporting a decrease of 1.97 percent.

21. United Church of Christ, 1,224,297, reporting a decrease of 3.28 percent.

22. Baptist Bible Fellowship International, 1,200,000, no increase or decrease reported.

23. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, 1,071,615 members, no increase or decrease reported.

24. The Orthodox Church in America, 1,064,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

25. Jehovah's Witnesses, 1,046,006 members, reporting an increase of 1.56 percent."

February 1, 2008 4:13 PM

teplukhin2you said:

nb a church that's decreasing by 3% per year, like the Presbyterian Church, will shrink by more than half in _absolute terms_ within a generation. I think the long-term outlook for Israel's a good sight better than the long-term outlook for the UMC and the PBUSA.

February 1, 2008 4:21 PM

Rhubarbs said:

I don't blame Marty for not knowing his terms, any more than I'd hope he wouldn't blame me for not knowing synagogue jargon, but it's not "mainstream" Protestant denominations. It's "mainline." It's a term of art within American Protestantism, and it has valuable historical meaning. "Mainstream" does not.

It's the difference between calling a synagogue "orthodox" versus "ordinary."

February 1, 2008 6:21 PM

tomeg said:

I thank G-d some liberal Episcopal Bishops refused to join the noisy left wing in our denomination who push for disinvestment. While I disagree with Bruno's "even-handed" stand on Israel-Palestinian relations overall, I am disgusted with the all-but-openly-declared-antisemitic cant of of the caustic, knee-jerk (for Episcopalians, that is) left.

February 1, 2008 7:18 PM

teplukhin2you said:

In view of their demographic trends, maybe they should be called "streamlined"

February 1, 2008 7:29 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Well, I'm a rather hopeless heathen, but I've spent time with the many people of my mother's left wing Presbyterian church.  They all support Israel as much as I do.  It is only one church, but still.

February 1, 2008 8:03 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Teps' right - the Presby's are a fading away sadly. Those on the left end of the spectrum are kind hearted and mean well.

Tranlastion: they are not evangelical or very political - when I say left wing, I mean they love everyone and are particulalry attached to anyone they view as objects of bigotry, in my experience this means immigrants of any status, Jewish folk, gay folk, Muslims - sorry Marty, Afr. Americans.  

(I'm afraid my only bona-fide lefty left wing political friends anymore are from Israel, yep they do still exist.  They yell at me too much when I try to change their minds, so I gave up).

Anyway - Marty, the idea that you have anything to fear or mistrust in Presbyterians - in America anyway - is just not supported by facts.  Europeans in general often shock me with their anti-semitism, but how many P's are there in Europe?

All of this Chrisianity stuff is not my specialty, but I am famliar with the *culture* of this church, and I just don't see it.  I cannot even picture rampaging Methodists either, but I'll bow to your knowledge on this one Marty.

February 2, 2008 7:02 AM

CRS9TNR said:

My mom is Methodist and my Dad is Catholic.  Significant differences here.

Counting just Methodists really isn't accurate.  They are part of the larger Protestant movement.  So while they may have 1 or 10 million members, they really are closer to the majority of Americans in general who are Protestants, i.e. Lutherns, Baptist and Prysberterians.

And a little jab at the argument here.  An argument does not depend on who supports it or how many support it.  A dumb idea is a dumb idea.  Following Mr. Peretz's logic, we should all do what the Catholic Church wants here in America because they have the numbers,  Believe me, the Catholics are not exactly on the side of Sharon and Olmhert.

Yes, as my father used to say, a million Elvis Fans can be wrong.

February 2, 2008 9:33 AM

Rhubarbs said:

A million Elvis fans can be wrong. No one disagrees with that.

It's fifty million Elvis fans that can't be wrong.

February 2, 2008 10:29 AM

jacksondyer said:

"Tranlastion: they are not evangelical or very political - when I say left wing, I mean they love everyone and are particulalry attached to anyone they view as objects of bigotry, in my experience this means immigrants of any status, Jewish folk, gay folk, Muslims - sorry Marty, Afr. Americans."

Having pity for people who are "objects of bigotry" is not the same as love.

In any case,  keep me away from folk who 'love everyone."

February 2, 2008 10:36 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Ok Jackson, that's fair - these are unashamedly uncynical people, truly good to their bones.  I'm afraid they do love everyone though.  They aren't keen on witch-hunters (after people, etc), but I bet they'd find a way to love them too if need be.  Kind of nauseating, I'll agree.  I give them credit for walking the walk though,  they don't mess around.  The live it.

AIl can say is my family loves Israel it all its glorious specificity and has shown in many ways over a few  generations.  As Martin Amis aptly put it, "we love it at the blood level."

February 2, 2008 10:56 AM

spencer97m said:

Still no correction to the number of Methodists, Marty? What happened to journalistic standards?  I've seen other online writers correct their articles with a nod to their readers who pointed out when they got a fact wrong.  The failure to do this here doesn't speak well for TNR.

February 2, 2008 3:10 PM

basman said:

I write this here because Talking Back to the online essays is a virtual dead end. If this promotes any discussion well and good. I not, no big megillah. If another entry in this blog makes it more apposite than here, maybe I'll paste it there. But your editorial on why Obama is good for Israel--which well he may be--is so shoddily reasoned that I felt the urge to try to expose that shoddiness and explode the faux certainty of its tone.

Three questions

1.  “‘I'm confident,’ Obama said, ‘that Israel is ready and willing to make some of these concessions if they have the confidence that the Palestinians can enforce an agreement.’ This is exactly right. And it is a sign that President Obama would not pressure only one side (Israel) because the other side (the Palestinians) are immune to American pressure. On his way out the door in 2000, President Clinton actually had a map color-coding the old city of Jerusalem: Israeli sovereignty on this street, Palestinian sovereignty in that, like the delerious maps drawn in London and Paris back in the early 20th century that burden the Middle East and Africa to this day. Clinton coerced Ehud Barak, then prime minister of Israel, to accept his map and make other concessions. He got nothing out of the Palestinians. Yet even the most moderate Palestinians now assume that future discussions will start where Clinton left off. It is good to know that Obama understands why that won't work.”

Me: How poorly reasoned your comments are here! Do you really think that Hillary Clinton does not think that Israel will make concessions if they are confident that the Palestinians can enforce an agreement? Do you really think that any reasonable analyst of the Middle East does not think so? The first answer is so general and so safe a comment as to be nothing more than a bromide that you fill with content solely to rationalize your own political preferences. The fault here, by the way, lies with you and not with Obama. So the bromide is “exactly right”: so what? The give away is that in your words “it is a sign…”etc. In other words you without basis speculate on what can be inferred from the bromide without being able to cite specific evidence to support your assertion that Obama would not “pressure only one side…” Again that may be so. But the issue is not Obama on Israel, but, rather, your weak reasoning. Same criticism on your glib implicit assertion that Obama would not Bill Clintonize Jerusalem: how do you get from the bromide to that conclusion? It may be the case, but not from any case you have here made.

2. “The second question is whether any agreement negotiated with Palestinian leaders can be enforced on the Palestinian people. Most Israelis are ready to make a deal and abide by it. There is no such disposition among Palestinians. Hamas, the party that won the most recent Palestinian elections and that already rules in Gaza, explicitly rejects any deal with Israel. So what do you do? Obama's answer, and the right one: You deal with the official Palestinian leadership, which is willing to deal, but you pressure them to take action on other fronts that will bring the people back from Hamas. We ‘have to make sure that Abbas and Fayad and those that are controlling the West Bank still actually start delivering something tangible that is benefiting the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, that they are ridding [their party] Fatah of the corruption that has been endemic and are put in a stronger position politically so Hamas is not dictating the terms of Palestinian negotiations but the moderates in the Palestinian camp are dictating what the Palestinian people are willing to go along with.’”

Me: This is somewhat—but not much— better argued than your comments on the first question. And I take your representation that Obama said what you say he said at face value (though it might have been nice to have the source for the quote cited.) But your case is still a poor one. Your first problem, common to your comments on the first question, is that your argument is that Obama is the only candidate speaking this way on this issue. That is patent nonsense. Show me where Hillary Clinton has said that Israel will need to make a deal that is mindless of popular support. Show me where she has said that the Palestinian leadership need not dislodge Hamas, need not deliver on political realities that may facilitate that dislodging. Your second problem here is legislative reality. Where was Obama on the Sense of the Senate declaration of the Revolutionary Guard as terrorist organization? What’s that you say, “He wasn’t there that day to cast a vote?” And who was the only Democratic candidate to assent to that proposition as a matter of public record? What’s that you say, “Hillary”?  And who left standing in the nomination race for the Democrats was loud and clear in his denunciation of the Senator from New York’s ballsy vote, but who himself ducked the vote? What’s that you say, “Obama”?

3.  “Third, is this an opportunity to watch democracy flower in the Middle East as George W. Bush has dreamed? Well maybe, in a thousand years or so. Meanwhile, Obama grasps that any accord will require strong leadership and even some "dictating" from the moderates. This is not callous. It is realistic. But only if the Palestinian leadership realizes that "now is the time for them to step out of the ideological blind alley that they've been in for so long." The Israelis have stepped out of their own blind alley of small settlements and lonely outposts planted in densely populated Palestinian areas. Everyone knows how very much actual land Israel will give up so that Palestine can be Palestine. No one yet knows whether the Palestinians are ready to let Israel be Israel.”

Me: You have got to agree by now that you are failing this assignment. You have here left your thesis behind. You make no effort to show Obama’s sole voice on this question. And the question itself is so poorly framed and imprecise. You are asking, as if it were somthing that really divides Obama and Hillary, in effect: who rejects the neo-conservative principle of imposing democracy now in the Middle East as a guiding condition of specific and practical policies there. Is there any question but that every candidate who was on the original Democratic campaign stage—including Mike Gravel—rejected this notion? So what, in your loaded language, does Obama “grasp” that no of the others, or now just Hillary does not “grasp”? What’s that you say, “Nohing”? What, to remind you of your own argument, vouches for Obama’s exclusivity on the notion that the Palestinian leadership must realize that "now is the time for them to step out of the ideological blind alley that they've been in for so long." What’s that you say, “Nothing”?

Even polemics have to be held to the standards of well made, persuasive, accurate and logical argument.

By these criteria your piece is an example of terrible polemics. I like Obama a lot and have grown to like him more as time has gone by over the last year or so. I prefer Hillary still and one reason is foreign policy considerations. I am open-minded about my thinking on these things and am open to being persuaded by a better argument. But your paper thin offering here, poorly disguised as argument and analysis, cannot withstand even a modicum of scrutiny and does Obama no service.

February 2, 2008 4:12 PM

guyminuslife said:

Oh, come on, the <i>Methodists</i>? Really? We're going to pick on the Methodists today? The <i>Methodists</i>? Man, it must be a slow week for Zionist rabble-rousing.

February 2, 2008 5:30 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

rhubarbs...

you beat me to the punch..50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong...Elvis is gold lame is just too cool...

February 2, 2008 6:31 PM

basman said:

you beat me to the punch..50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong...Elvis is gold lame is just too cool...

I've missed this part of the argument.

But, Elvis in gold lame was a yo yo and if that's when he had 50,000,000 fans, well yes they could be and were wrong, just as Liberace's were. But Elvis in the fifties, at Sun records, in Memphis, singing Mystery Train and Arthur Crudup's That's Alll Right Mama, or Hound Dog by those white guys who loved black music so much, Leiber and Stoller,  and gave Big Mama Thornton a run for her money, that was cool!

February 2, 2008 7:04 PM

basman said:

Naah, on reflection  you'd have to give Big Mama the nod:

Big Mama Thornton ft. Buddy Guy - Hound Dog

Big Mama Thornton ft. Buddy Guy - Hound Dog (1965)...big mama thornton buddy guy hound dog blues

If this doesn't work just go to Youtube for it, it'll blow yer mind.

February 2, 2008 7:23 PM

glacialspeed said:

I suppose this is a waste of effort, but somebody needs to say it: opposing the actions of the state of Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism.  *sigh*

February 2, 2008 7:33 PM

basman said:

one more try for Big Mama and Buddy Guy:

www.youtube.com/watch

February 2, 2008 8:02 PM

ginzy said:

To glacialspeed:

a)  Regularly holding Israel to a different standard than other countries is antisemitism.

b)  Demonizing Israel is antisemitism.

c)  Demanding concessions of Israel and none of the Palestinians is antisemitism.

d)  Delegitimizing Israel and questioning its right to exist is antisemitism.

e)  Denying Israel the right to defend itself is antisemitism.

f)  Distorting what is ostensibly factual news coverage of Israel (see BBC, Guardian, NPR etc.)  is antisemitism.

g)  Denying and distorting modern and ancient Jewish history, in particular the Jewish connection to all the disputed lands in the historic Land of Israel is antisemitism.

h)  Blaming Israel for all of the Palestinians problems is antisemitism.

i)  Blaming Israel for all of the problems of the Arab world is antisemitism.

j)  Blaming Israel for all of the problems of the Muslim world is antisemitism.

k)  Blaming Israel for the crimes of Muslim Palestinians against the shrinking Christian Arab minority in the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority is antisemitism.

I could go on (particularly as relates to some policies and statements by many (though not all) mainline Protestant church leadership) but I suspect that even you get my point.

Hershel Ginsburg

(in full regalia)

Jerusalem / Efrata

February 3, 2008 7:34 AM

CRS9TNR said:

Basman - Cool Video.  I like YouTube more and more.  You told me you were High Class, but I can see through that.

Another point here, according to Wikipedia, President Bush (W) and VP Cheney are both United Methodists.  Along with Hillary.  So while there may not be a lot of them, they are in influential positions.  But I can't see Bush or Cheney Divesting in Israel.

One of the big new Defense Programs is the F-35.  Israel is in already and will probably drop $ 10 Billion on this program for 100 jets.  So no Lockheed or Northrop Grumman for the Methodists.  I say, build a thousand of these and get ready for the big one.  YouTube as a Demo Video at www.youtube.com/watch

Another odd thing I have noticed.  Among British Men in their fifties they tend to have two odd beleifs.  They think Israel is wrong and want some type of UN Sanctions, and they love Elvis.  Now don't get me wrong, I like Elvis, but not that much.  But I think there is a lot of British Guilt over the whole Balfour Declaration and how they lost Palestine.

February 3, 2008 8:41 AM

jacksondyer said:

" But I think there is a lot of British Guilt over the whole Balfour Declaration and how they lost Palestine." CRS9TNR said:

Not just in their fifties, but mostly leftists feel that way.

Their so called guilt over Balfour is just an excuse to attack Israel. Do they feel guilty about the British white paper in the 30's which condemned tens of thousands of Jews to death in Nazi Europe?

I doubt it.

February 3, 2008 11:43 AM

jacksondyer said:

The news article on divestment linked to by Marty is quite interesting:

"Methodists consider divestment"

Among other things it said:

"A top Methodist body heard arguments for and against divesting from Israel.

Two of the 11-million member church's regional groupings, in New England and Virginia, have recommended divestment from companies that allegedly are complicit in Israel's West Bank occupation.

The weekend meeting, in Fort Worth, Texas, also considered divestment from other nations, including Sudan."

In other words, they are voting on divestment from Israel where about 70 thousand people both Jews and Arabs were killed in over half a century of conflict, but are only "considering" divesting from the Sudan where hundreds of thousands of people have already died.

To the Methodists: Antisemites are us.

These clowns need to stop demonizing Israel and get a life.

February 3, 2008 11:58 AM

glacialspeed said:

Ginzy, none of those things you mention is antisemitism unless it is based on prejudice or hostility towards Jewish people.

February 3, 2008 4:39 PM

guyminuslife said:

Glacial: It's not about reason, or thinking, or any of those things. If Marty were Arabic, he'd claim that the war in Iraq was about America hating Arabs; if he were Vietnamese, he would claim that the war in Vietnam were about America hating Vietnamese people, if he were Hutu, he'd be up in arms against the Tutsis; as the accident of birth would have it, he's Jewish, and so any criticism of Israel counts as antisemitism in his book.

February 3, 2008 5:40 PM

jacksondyer said:

"Ginzy, none of those things you mention is antisemitism unless it is based on prejudice or hostility towards Jewish people."

Wwll, balming the Jewish State for all the evils in the world is antisemitism.  The irrational hatred towards Israel is based on the fact that it is a Jewish State.

February 3, 2008 7:31 PM

jacksondyer said:

glacialspeed, do you have anything pertinent to contribute here, or is it all about our "evil" host?

February 3, 2008 7:32 PM

basman said:

"Ginzy, none of those things you mention is antisemitism unless it is based on prejudice or hostility towards Jewish people"

Are you kidding me?  IE. You cannot be serious!

February 3, 2008 7:52 PM

sdemuth said:

Ginzy: Antisemitism is an unreasoned prejudice against Jewish people.  Holding a political opinion that is  antithetical to Israel's interests or even unfair to their situation, is not antisemitic, unless it springs from such unreasoned prejudice.

One can, for example, believe that Israel is an historical mistake, and that Jewish claims to a homeland in Palestine are illegitimate out of a purely historico-political analysis in which prejudice against Jewish people takes no part.  Many people who have Jewish colleagues, bosses, doctors, lawyers and friends, and who treat these Jewish people no differently than they treat any other fellow, in fact do so believe.

Treating every flawed analysis and view of Isreal as antisemitism only weakens your case against against those flaws by personalizing what is not in many cases personal at all.

February 3, 2008 7:56 PM

jacksondyer said:

sdemuth said:  “…Holding a political opinion that is  antithetical to Israel's interests or even unfair to their situation, is not antisemitic, unless it springs from such unreasoned prejudice. One can, for example, believe that Israel is an historical mistake, and that Jewish claims to a homeland in Palestine are illegitimate out of a purely historico-political analysis in which prejudice against Jewish people takes no part. “

Nice try sdmuth, but your point is not convincing. First you just shifted the grounds of the debate from holding wildly implausible views such as “Blaming Israel for all of the problems of the Arab world is antisemitism” to a question of historical legitimacy. I don’t know what a “historico political analysis” is. Do you? It reads very much like an oxymoron.

In any case, if the proposition you hold is not true and you still insist on believing it to be fact than you are with regards to said proposition prejudiced.

It is a fact that Jews inhabited the land of what came to be known as Palestine for thousands of years. They also held sovereignty over that land intermittently for hundreds of years. To argue otherwise is to deny history.

I assume one could say that since the Roman expulsion Jews have held no sovereignty over the land and hence are entitled to it now. This type of argument assumes that might makes right, that the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Arabs since each in turn had conquered the land have a greater right to it then the Jews. Now, neither the Romans nor the Byzantines are around to claim it. Only the Arabs can do so.

However, if you argue for rights of ownership based on possession then you must also allow that Jews now posses the land. Hence they are entitled to it and their presence there is legitimate.

If you argue from the point of view of dispossession saying that might does not make right and hence the Jews have no right to the land since they “dispossessed the Arabs,” then you must also allow that the Jews were dispossessed first. You must allow that no country from which groups of people were dispossessed is legitimate. The list is a long one: Turkey, Greece, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Cyprus, The United States, Canada, Australia, Poland, etc. etc.  

Add to this the fact that It’s not entirely clear who is at fault in the exodus of Arabs from Mandate Palestine in 1948 while it is clear what caused the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the late 40’s and 50’s: expulsion and confiscation and your case for the illegitimacy of the Jewish State doesn’t hold much water.

Of course you can still hold to this view, but it is not a view which justified either by history or by international law which sanctioned the creation of the Jewish State in 1948.

“Many people who have Jewish colleagues, bosses, doctors, lawyers and friends, and who treat these Jewish people no differently than they treat any other fellow, in fact do so believe.”

Doesn’t matter, they are still bigoted when it comes to the Jewish State and I wonder how many of “these people” openly discuss their views with their Jewish.

There is more than a whiff of Jew hatred in the view that Israel is “an illegitimate State.”

February 3, 2008 11:38 PM

ginzy said:

glacialspeed said:

"Ginzy, none of those things you mention is antisemitism unless it is based on prejudice or hostility towards Jewish people."

Given that Israel is so intrinsically identified with the Jewish people & that it is defined as the Jewish state, the things that I mentioned are symptoms and manifestations of prejudice or hostility towards the Jewish people.  Hence, by your definition it's antisemitism, whether or not you or others recognize or admit it.

See for example some of the distorting editorial cartoons which wrongly or unfairly condemn Israel for this or that act or non-act.  Many of these cartoons are quite reminiscent, if not close adaptations, of editorial cartoons and propaganda images used by the Nazis.

And being "progressive" does not render one immune to being antisemitic.  It only makes it easier to deny.  After all, Jews are supposed to be victims or disappear, but not uppity.

Hershel Ginsburg

(complete with the requisite horns and pointed tail)

Jerusalem / Efrat

February 4, 2008 10:05 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Jackson, in my experience most hostility to the state of Israel as such is in fact based in anti-Semitism. Though generally a very mild form of anti-Semitism, often latent and unexamined in the holder. I mean, really, has there ever in history been a place as friendly to the Jewish people as America, or a people as welcoming to Jews and Jewish culture as Americans generally? American anti-Semitism is to, say, European or Arab anti-Semitism as Boston anti-Yankeeism is to a lynch mob's racism. But, yeah, reflexive anti-Israelism often does reflect some underlying personal alienation from the concept of Jewishness.

But to say that all anti-Israeli sentiments necessarily reflect abiding anti-Semitism is simply ridiculous. Plenty of Americans, for example, object to the notion of a state based on religious identity as a matter of first principle. Lots of people didn't much care for the Taliban, not so much because the Taliban were bad guys, but because they were theocrats. It doesn't matter that the state of Israel is not in any other way comparable to the Taliban's Afghanistan; both states defined themselves by religious identity, and that is an anathema to many Americans. One might argue that this is a flawed or mistaken application of the principle of separation of church and state, that Israel isn't really a "Jewish state" in the sense that Vatican City is a "Catholic state," but even if such an argument is correct, those who disfavor Israel on these grounds are not acting out of specific Jew-hatred, they are acting out of an uninformed application of a universal principle.

There is also a common American phenomenon of preferring the underdog. In Israel, Jews are strong, recently the aggressors in some wars and the victors in most, while the Palestinians are weak. In leftist Christian circles, in my experience, sympathy for the Palestinians is largely a result of exactly the phenomenon of sympathy for the weaker against the stronger. Call it a David and Goliath response. Many people are just going to take the side of the weaker party in a fight, regardless of the merits. If the state of Israel happens to be the stronger party in the Middle East, then some people are just going to be biased against it, not out of Jew-hatred but out of a preference against siding with the stronger party. If, say, the Kingdom of Jordan ruled all the way to the sea, and Jews were a politically excluded minority in Jordan, you'd see most of these same mainline Protestants working just as hard to make political and economic statements against the Jordanian state on behalf of the Jews.

Obversely, I've encountered examples of Americans supporting Israel precisely because it is an overtly religiously defined state, and because the Jews of Israel are strong. Some people like the notion of explicitly sectarian states. Many others like to side with a winner. "Israel kicks ass," I've heard said admiringly. Neither of those sentiments reveals any actual philo-Semitism; nor do their opposites reveal any actual anti-Semitism.

Now, sure, saying "all the problems of the Middle East are Israel's fault" is almost unavoidably expressive of anti-Semitism. But then again, saying, "none of the problems of the Middle East are Israel's fault" is also expressive of anti-Arab bigotry. Sweeping statements of that sort are always wrong, and therefore always revealing of the speaker's deepest bigotries.

February 4, 2008 10:57 AM

jacksondyer said:

“Plenty of Americans, for example, object to the notion of a state based on religious identity as a matter of first principle. Lots of people didn't much care for the Taliban, not so much because the Taliban were bad guys, but because they were theocrats. It doesn't matter that the state of Israel is not in any other way comparable to the Taliban's Afghanistan; both states defined themselves by religious identity, and that is an anathema to many Americans. One might argue that this is a flawed or mistaken application of the principle of separation of church and state, that Israel isn't really a "Jewish state" in the sense that Vatican City is a "Catholic state," but even if such an argument is correct, those who disfavor Israel on these grounds are not acting out of specific Jew-hatred, they are acting out of an uninformed application of a universal principle.” Rhubarbs

As you yourself said the view that Israel is a ‘theocratic’ state is uniformed. By definition then an uninformed view on an issue is driven by pre-judice in the original sense of the word. To be prejudiced is to prejudge issues rather than offer an informed judgment on persons or state of affairs.

A Jewish State need not denote a religious State. Jews are a people, Judaism is their religion for the most part, though many Jews are not religious.

“There is also a common American phenomenon of preferring the underdog. In Israel, Jews are strong, recently the aggressors in some wars and the victors in most, while the Palestinians are weak. In leftist Christian circles, in my experience, sympathy for the Palestinians is largely a result of exactly the phenomenon of sympathy for the weaker against the stronger. Call it a David and Goliath response.”

This is probably true. However, here again Israel is stronger only because it has so far been able to defend itself successfully. The Jewish State is in conflict not just with the Palestinians but also with a host of Arab and Muslim nations. Iran is not in any way inferior to Israel, not does Hezbollah think of itself the underdog.

The leftist Christians you describe can only hold on to their view either out of ignorance or some kind of unspoken, a sort of ‘gentleman’s agreement’ form of bigotry.  

It is not possible to be anti-Israel without being also antisemitic. It is possible though to be critical of certain Israeli government policies and not be antisemitic. Such criticism can at least be debated.

February 4, 2008 11:33 AM

jacksondyer said:

“Now, sure, saying "all the problems of the Middle East are Israel's fault" is almost unavoidably expressive of anti-Semitism. But then again, saying, "none of the problems of the Middle East are Israel's fault" is also expressive of anti-Arab bigotry. Sweeping statements of that sort are always wrong, and therefore always revealing of the speaker's deepest bigotries.” Rhubarbs

This doesn’t follow, Rhubarbs. To say that all of the problems of the United States are the fault of say the Chinese is an expression of anti-Chinese sentiment, but to say that none of the problems of the US are due to the Chinese is not an expression of anti-American bigotry.

You probably meant all Palestinian Arab problems; here too the question is complex. One can say that most Israeli problems are due to its conflict with the Arabs, but this is because the country is so small and the conflict with the Arabs has had a huge influence on the society. The same can be said about the Palestinian Arabs: their society has been hugely affected by its conflict with Israel. (However, to say that the any of the problems in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Algeria, or even Egypt are due to Israel’s existence is an expression of bigotry. To deny that any of their problems are due to Israel is a statement of fact.)

Finally even in the Israel Palestinian conflict one cannot say that all of the problems in Israel or in the Palestinian territories are the fault of the other side. Many of their problems have more to do with internal social issues to many too elaborate here.

February 4, 2008 11:45 AM

sdemuth said:

jacksondyer: By your analysis, anyone who does not believe that North America in general, and the US in particular should be returned to Native Americans/First Nations people, are anti-European. After all, those peoples lived  here for thousands of years, and clearly held sovereignty over the land for extended history.

Or, to use more likely example, Spanish-American Mexicans have an inherent right to recolonize and make once again Spanish-American the Gadsden territories , based on their several hundred years of sovereignty in those areas, before their expulsion by the United States.

I would deny both these propositions, just as I would deny the right of Arabs or Palestinians to displace the internationally recognized state of Israel.  That doesn't mean I think the creation of Israel was historically or rpolitically  "right" at the time it happened, only that it is a fait accompli endorsed by international law, and the undoing of which cannot be accomplished without causing more pain and dislocation than the alternatives.

You also wrote "In any case, if the proposition you hold is not true and you still insist on believing it to be fact than you are with regards to said proposition prejudiced."

The notion that there is one single, discernible truth about the situation of Israel vis-a-vis the people displaced by Israel is nonsensical.  Political rights and wrongs are not scientific facts, amenable to unambiguous proof or disproof.  The implication in this that those who take a view of Israel that does not fully endorse a Jewish "right" to Palestine are prejudiced against Jews, because of some truth about the situation, while those do so endorse, are prejudice-free by virtue of the same truth, is ludicrous.  

February 4, 2008 12:02 PM

jacksondyer said:

sdemuth “jacksondyer: By your analysis, anyone who does not believe that North America in general, and the US in particular should be returned to Native Americans/First Nations people, are anti-European. After all, those peoples lived  here for thousands of years, and clearly held sovereignty over the land for extended history.”

I was responding to the view that you said many of your friends hold that the creation of Israel was illegitimate. In fact your analogy argues my point. Modern Israel is as legitimate as the US and perhaps more so because the Jews are in the position of both the Indians displaced by Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, etc as well in the position of the European settlers who created the United States.

Notice, though, sdemuth, how you are trying to have it both ways just as you are arguing for the legitimacy of both the US and Israel on the grounds that it is an established fact and  you are also saying that it was a mistake to create Israel in 1948 on humanitarian grounds.

Here is your argument

“I would deny both these propositions, just as I would deny the right of Arabs or Palestinians to displace the internationally recognized state of Israel.  That doesn't mean I think the creation of Israel was historically or rpolitically  "right" at the time it happened, only that it is a fait accompli endorsed by international law, and the undoing of which cannot be accomplished without causing more pain and dislocation than the alternatives.”

Do you also believe that the US should not have been established in 1776 or Australia, or modern Turkey and Greece, Pakistan, India, etc?

To create these modern States lots of people had to be killed and displaced.

It is antisemitic to hold Israel to a different standard, sdemuth.

February 4, 2008 1:12 PM

sdemuth said:

jacksondyer: I have no doubt that large parts of the US were acquired by illegitimately displacing their existing occupants  - outright stolen, in other words - even by the standards of the time, and certainly by the standards of our time.   My own great-grandparentsdid their own small part in this disposession.

I don't however think that means we should try to reverse the result, and return the country wholesale to the remnants of the aboriginal peoples.  The injustice involved in undoing in the present the injustice done in the past dictates against such a plan.  It is still important, though, that we recognize that our nation was built on the backs of historically illegitimate actions perpetrated  by our founders against weaker aborigines.  We cannot possibly hope to learn from a past that we mischaracterize for our own comfort.  For my part, I have long come to peace with knowing that I am beneficiary of a great wrong; what would and does make me uncomfortable is not opposing wrongs in my own time that I could hope to avert or diminish.

Likewise, it is not inconsistent to believe that the creation of Israel was an historical wrong that nonetheless created facts that it is now too late to reverse, but which nevertheless puts a moral burden on its beneficiaries.

As for holding Israeli's to a higher standard than other nations being anti-semitic: baloney.  I hold myself and my own children to higher standards than I hold others who have had fewer advantages than we have, and I certainly hold my nation to a higher standard than I hold other nations that have not had the historical good fortune that we have.  I think, for example, that it is absurd to suppose that Russia can in less than a generation transition to a robust, multi-party liberal democracy, but I fully expect this country to continue to maintain our own democracy.  Yet for all of this, no one would say I am anti-my family or anti-American.  

Indeed, I would say that holding someone to a high standard is a complement, not a deprecation.

February 5, 2008 1:35 AM

jacksondyer said:

sdemuth said:  “As for holding Israeli's to a higher standard than other nations being anti-semitic: baloney…. Indeed, I would say that holding someone to a high standard is a complement, not a deprecation.”

You keep changing the terms of the debate.

I said that holding Israel to a DIFFERENT standard is antisemitism. I never said anything about a higher standard, for the simple reason that there is no legal standard.

The law applies equally to all or it is not law but an arbitrary system of rule which favors some and disfavors others.

Your injection of personal morality (your personal morality) is touching but it does not apply.

“I hold myself and my own children to higher standards than I hold others who have had fewer advantages than we have, and I certainly hold my nation to a higher standard than I hold other nations that have not had the historical good fortune that we have.

Indeed, I would say that holding someone to a high standard is a complement, not a deprecation.”

I think not. If someone with fewer advantages were to murder a member of you family, I doubt that you would hold him or her to a lesser standard of justice. Nor, I suppose would you not defend your life and your property on such grounds.   If you did acquiesce in such an assault you wouldn’t be holding yourself to a “higher standard” but the criminals to a lower standard of justice.

In any case as I said above your view about Israel’s founding is not historically accurate:

“jacksondyer: I have no doubt that large parts of the US were acquired by illegitimately displacing their existing occupants  - outright stolen, in other words - even by the standards of the time, and certainly by the standards of our time.   My own great-grandparentsdid their own small part in this disposession.”

The two case are not comparable. Israel was not founded on stolen land. When the UN voted for partition all the land Israelis possessed was bought and had been worked on by them for almost a century.

The Jews accepted partition while the Arabs did not and invaded the Jewish areas. The Jews fought back and in the fighting acquired more territory. In international the country which initiates hostility and then loses territory is not entitled to getting it back.

This is what happened in WW2 both in Europe and in Asia. I see no calls for redrawing the European map and giving for example, Germany back its lost territories.

As to your personal story, sdemuth, if you hold yourself morally to a “higher standard” why don’t you return the property you say your family acquired?

“My own great-grandparentsdid their own small part in this disposession.”

Finally, when you say that,

“… it is not inconsistent to believe that the creation of Israel was an historical wrong that nonetheless created facts that it is now too late to reverse, but which nevertheless puts a moral burden on its beneficiaries.”

You forget that all the other cases of dispossession one can mention, the US, Australia, Turkey, Greece, Pakistan, India, etc. are not in any danger of being “reversed” as you call. It’s only in the case of Israel were there is a well financed movement of Arabs, and yes antisemites to reverse this “historical wrong.” This is what makes all the difference and this is why the Methodist and the Presbyterian call for divestment is antisemitic.  

February 5, 2008 9:53 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.