Eric Yoffie, the liberal Zionist rabbi who defended the Gaza slaughter, has a chilling editorial up at Haaretz, titled, “Heading toward an irreparable rift between U.S. Jews and Protestants,” suggesting that 15 church leaders who have called for a congressional investigation of aid to Israel are anti-Semites. The world hates Jews and always has, so you have no standing, Yoffie is saying. You Protestants were silent during the Holocaust and again when Israel needed support in 1967 (a cakewalk started by Israel, with disastrous political results).
And Yoffie seeks to circle the wagons in the American Jewish community by commanding us that we are all for giving US aid to Israel no matter what happens in the West Bank– apart from some fringe groups.
There have always been ups and downs in the relations between mainline Protestants and American Jews, but they have now hit a 45-year low. And this time, they may not recover….
Criticism of settlements [the basis of the Protestants' letter] is completely legitimate; I am an outspoken settlement critic myself. But the Protestant leaders made no effort to include in their letter words that might have reassured Jews and others that this effort was not motivated by hostility to Israel. They could have expressed the hope that the Palestinians would return to the negotiating table in the days ahead. They could have said that just as the Jewish people must welcome the Palestinian people as neighbors in a sovereign Palestinian state, so too must the Palestinian people welcome the Jewish people as neighbors in a sovereign Jewish state. They could have said that just as a two-state solution will require Israel to radically change its settlement policy, so too will it require the Palestinians to renounce the Right of Return and to declare the conflict with Israel over—once and for all.
But the Protestant leaders did none of these things. And by failing to do so, they aroused all of the suspicions that exist in the Jewish community about the real intentions of the letter.
To be sure, no matter what the wording, Jewish leaders would never agree to a reduction of American aid to Israel. Except for a few fringe groups, this is a consensus position of the Jewish community.
My friend Ilene Cohen has this highly-perceptive take on Yoffie’s comments, and his arrogance about who has a right to have an opinion:
Per Yoffie and the others like him, there are strict rules. Only they may criticize the settlements and then with the clear understanding that such criticism is not a call for consequences. More than half a million settlers illegally occupy stolen Palestinian land (that elusive, future Palestinian state), part of a settlement program that has been ongoing for forty-five years (without criticism by Yoffie for most of that period), leaving Palestinians to struggle to survive under military occupation. (Just last week, Palestinian high school students couldn’t take the SATs because the Israelis wouldn’t release the tests—to cite one of the more absurd facts that constitute the occupation.)
But again—here’s the key—nobody’s allowed to do anything about it—not use leverage with the EU, not use BDS, not call on the US to withhold funds, not engage in noviolent resistance if you’re in Palestine. Because all of that “delegitimizes” the occupier and hurts the feelings of American Jews. Boo-hoo.
The implicit message that the Palestinians are not entitled to resist is, I think, deeply offensive given who the guilty party is.
So doesn’t Israel deserve to be delegitimized? Think about it—had its best friends told them the truth long ago—that stealing Palestine, obliterating the Green Line, and setting the border of Israel at the Jordan River was not going to end up eventually legitimized the way the 1949 armistice line (the Green Line) was—they might not be in the pickle they’re in today, as an increasingly isolated state that lives from war to war.
Bottom line: people like Yoffie are very, very worried for Israel. But Netanyahu apparently hasn’t a care in the world over the matter of the occupation: just this week, he reaffirmed his commitment to continuing to colonize occupied East Jerusalem.
The Cassandras among his friends in America are obviously not getting through to him. And, worse, they’re not even offering anything that resembles a solution, except hysteria that we’ve got to return to negotiations over that pie in the sky—the 2SS. They don’t understand that Netanyahu has already euthanized it.
“To be sure, no matter what the wording, Jewish leaders would never agree to a reduction of American aid to Israel.”
That is tail wagging dog . Are there any examples from history of such imperial access working indefinitely ?
The lies about 1967 war has been exposed by Begin and by other military figures of Isreal. Still liberal Rabbi uses it ( or may be he knows and is telling 1967 war was started by Israel but still should have been supported by US .Isreal was supported then by letting USS go down memory hole but then again liberal rabbi may be asking that US should have done more like doing the actual fighting for Isreal )
Rabbi knows Palestinian has agreed to 2 state solution with Jews /Arabs living side by side and within the lands as co equal. Rabbi knows like evryone else the Church knows it and does not have to remind the Palestinian to remember what Palestinian already fully remembers . Church also knows that return of refugees or partitioning of Jerusalme is not an only Palestinain issue but one that is upheld by UN and US (until now ) .Unless the Rabbi is asking the church to throw those established positions under the bus the way Saban and sheldon -money-soaked Romney and Obama are doing along with the rest of the crowd looking for a chair in Congress and Senate ,his convoluted lies about the past that have been expsoed by israel itself is an exrcise in obfuscation and d elays and slanderings with more lies.
His other assertion that he was a critic of settlement is reminiscent of those lies by Ben Gurion ,Herzl,and person like Elizer Ben -Yehuda who asked in 1880s ” We shall not set up committees so that the Arabs will know what we are after,we shall act like silent spies” and Ben Guron writing this ” I am certain we will be able to settle in all other parts of country,whether through agreement..with our Arab neighbours or in another way.Erect a Jewish state at once ,even if not the whole land.The rest will come in the course of time.it must come” to his son Amos. Jabtosnky urged American to raise money to scatter Palestinians to other parts of Arab lands. Herzl was soothing the fears of Arab notable by picturing and promising of co existence and joint enterprises and of mutual benefits while planning for ‘an outpost of civilsation” aginst barbarism for the benefit of the West in addition.-(ref Herzl’s Nightmare by Peter Rodgers )
Eric Yoffie speaks only for himself, or at most the born-again Zionist wing of the Reform movement (it was once fiercely anti-Zionist). But it is also interesting that Yoffie has jilted JStreet and praised AIPAC, so his remarks should be measured by fealty to the talking points that come from the Israeli Foreign Ministry direct to AIPAC and its sister organizations.
I am sure the Churches and leaders were aware their action would create a riff, they aren’t politically naive, the riff was inevitable.
The best course of action for the Churches now is to not dignify the accusations of anti semitic intent with a reply or lower themselves to publicly denouncing the smear, thereby giving it any oxygen to change the subject or take away from the real purpose of their letter to congress.
Hopefully they will just proceed on doing what their conscience dictates is necessary.
Notice that when Zionists attack the letter from Protestant church leaders, they rarely provide a link to the text so that people can judge for themselves whether or not the message is “anti-Israel”.
Here is the link:
The third paragraph of the letter states ( before the proposal to re-examine the appropriateness of military aid to Israel): link to globalministries.org
“Through this direct experience we have witnessed the pain and suffering of Israelis as a result of Palestinian actions and of Palestinians as a result of Israeli actions. In addition to the horror and loss of life from rocket attacks from Gaza and past suicide bombings, we have witnessed the broad impact that a sense of insecurity and fear has had on Israeli society. We have also witnessed widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinians, including killing of civilians, home demolitions and forced displacement, and restrictions on Palestinian movement, among others. We recognize that each party—Israeli and Palestinian—bears responsibilities for its actions and we therefore continue to stand against all violence regardless of its source. Our stand against violence is complemented by our commitment to the rights of all Israelis, as well as all Palestinians, to live in peace and security.”
Just what more could they have written — other than refraining from criticizing Israel at all? Of course, as Phil writes, the idea is that they should just shut up. . .
“we have witnessed the broad impact that a sense of insecurity and fear has had on Israeli society. ” And they could have been even-handed and said: “we have witnessed the broad impact that a sense of insecurity and fear has had on Palestinian society. ”
When they pander to Israel (the criminal whose criminal acts are being discussed), Protestants (so well-mannered and well-trained) nod to Israeli pain. What they should do is say:
Jeff Klein October 25, 2012 at 1:23 pm
“Notice that when Zionists attack the letter from Protestant church leaders, they rarely provide a link to the text so that people can judge for themselves whether or not the message is “anti-Israel””
Standard Hasbara MO
>> But the Protestant leaders … could have expressed the hope that the Palestinians would return to the negotiating table in the days ahead.
Israel refuses to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace. There’s nothing at the table for Palestinians to return to.
>> They could have said that just as the Jewish people must welcome the Palestinian people as neighbors in a sovereign Palestinian state, so too must the Palestinian people welcome the Jewish people as neighbors in a sovereign Jewish state.
A Palestinian state can be secular, democratic and egalitarian. Israel currently is not a secular, democratic and egalitarian state – it is a supremacist “Jewish State” – and Zio-supremacists have no intention of seeing it become one.
>> They could have said that just as a two-state solution will require Israel to radically change its settlement policy, so too will it require the Palestinians to renounce the Right of Return …
If Palestinians are expected to renounce their RoR, Israel must renounce its settlement policy and dismantle its settlements.
>> … and to declare the conflict with Israel over—once and for all.
The Palestinians can declare their conflict with Israel over once its over.
Thank you Phil. Eric Yoffie gets the symmetry wrong when demanding the Protestant leaders be fair and balanced when leveling criticism against the settlements:
To be more fair, the Protestant leaders should have come out strongly and unequivocally for a Congressional inquiry into all US aid supporting the demolition of Jewish housing, the establishment of Arab-only towns and villages, and the construction of Palestinian-only highways west of the Green Line.
In other words, they failed to blame the Palestinians for the lack of peace; failed to feign equivalence where there is none; and failed to express unqualified support for Israeli negotiating positions that have nothing to do with the violations of US law about which they have expressed concern.
In theological terms, they have failed to worship at the altar of Yoffie’s idolatry, and have rejected the premise that atonement for past Christian sins can only be achieved through complicity in present and future Jewish sins.
Well put.
Liberal Zionist?
I still don’t get it.
Just sounds like plain old Zionism to me.
@ Zrow
First line of Phil’s text: “… the liberal Zionist rabbi who defended the Gaza slaughter …”
So that’s what liberal Zionists do, right? Shall we please get rid of this misleading adjective?
Dutch October 26, 2012 at 7:48 am
“So that’s what liberal Zionists do, right?”
No Pajero! This is what was written. “.. the liberal Zionist rabbi who defended the Gaza slaughter …” You cut and pasted it yourself, then had to reword it to make it say what you’d like it to have said. I believe its call being deceitful or in common parlance ‘a strawman’.
Yoffie was right about one thing. Protestant silence in 1967. President Johnson, a Protestant, squelched any serious investigation into the near sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty.
“President Johnson, a Protestant”
I thought he was a Texan, a Democrat, and a Navy vet (?). I always miss the important stuff.
In the US the only sane religionists are the mainstream Protestants, the Catholics, the Muslims and the Jews plus the established minorities like the Hindus. But perhaps with this Yoffie bombshell the Jews are now going over to planet wacko to join the do it yourself Protestants . Jesus wants you to be rich/Gd wants you to starve Gaza into submission
Maybe there is some good news here, Shmuel? Below is link to Rabbi Brant Rosen’s web site…he has posted what seems like a very heartfelt and sincere review of this issue. This is how he ends his post…
“We can only hope that these Christian leaders will stand firm and that this sad episode will lead us to a new kind of interfaith covenant — one based on trust and respect, a willingness to face down our fear and suspicion of one another, and a readiness to discuss the painful, difficult issues that may divide us.
Will the American Jewish establishment be up to such a task?”
link to rabbibrant.com
Also a link to another article by Rabbi Rosen, and Rabbi Alissa Wise addressing the same topic…
link to huffingtonpost.com
Maybe there is some good news here
I think there is definitely good news here. The Christian leaders may have been surprised by the immediate consequences of their letter, but I’m sure they were expecting a strong institutional Jewish response (see e.g. the response to the Presbyterian divestment efforts). Nevertheless, they chose to break with the paradigm of interfaith dialogue described by Rabbi Rosen, in favour of a principled position and a healthier basis, in the long term, for Christian-Jewish relations.
It is also good news that Jewish leaders like Rabbis Rosen and Wise have decided to show public support for this and other Christian efforts to address injustice in Palestine. JVP is circulating a petition (and an appeal by Rabbi Rosen) to that effect: link to salsa.democracyinaction.org
In the absence of western political will, it is up to civil society – in which progressive Christians play a central role – to show the way. Foxman and Yoffie fully understand this – hence their wild overreaction to what is, in the end, a very mild and sensitive initiative.
“We can only hope that these Christian leaders will stand firm and that this sad episode will lead us to a new kind of interfaith covenant — one based on trust and respect, a willingness to face down our fear and suspicion of one another, and a readiness to discuss the painful, difficult issues that may divide us.”
Like the Jewish establishment devoting itself to a criminal enterprise? Even Rosen’s got the ‘beyond chutzpah’. “Once you get started, oy! it’s hard to stop”, as Chaka Khan once wailed in another context, and very appealing she was at it, too.
All true, Shmuel!
Mind you I don’t think that the headline is quite right – Yoffie doesn’t, as far as I can see, say ‘you may speak against the settlements, but only if you’re Jewish’ but ‘everyone may speak against the settlements, but nothing much else’.
Mind you I don’t think that the headline is quite right
I agree. The problem lies in the overstepping of what Yoffie considers the legitimate boundaries of criticism (whether by Christians or members of “fringe groups” within the Jewish community). He is bothered by the fact that the letter fails to express undying support for Israel (“with all its flaws”, as the current hasbara meme goes), reflected not only in the affirmations he would have liked to see in such a letter, but primarily in its heresy against the sacred cow (or golden calf) of US aid to Israel. As Yoffie himself puts it:
“To be sure, no matter what the wording, Jewish leaders would never agree to a reduction of American aid to Israel.”
And if they do, since “Jewish leader” is an entirely arbitrary term, we’ll just get some new ones who toe the line.
The settlements are illegal. They violate the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights. They are in contravention of the resolution of the United Nations and are a criminal act in the judgement of the International Court of Justice.
That being the case, those ministers responsible in the Knesset should stand trial before the ICJ.
NB. This comment is not anti-Semitic, nor anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-White or anti-Black. It is pro-justice, pro-international law, pro-peace and pro-human rights.
You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to be ignorant and misleading, although it helps.
Let’s take your thinking to another place. We term Nazereth, Um El-Fahm and Rahat “Arab settlements” and we call them illegal. What then? After all, the world recognizes Israel in (at least?) its pre-1967 boundaries. If Jews can’t live in “Palestinian territory”, we should Arabs be permitted to live in Jewish territory?
“You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to be ignorant and misleading, although it helps.”
ymedad, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a succinct self-description. And as far as I can see, you’re “all three”.
ymedad October 26, 2012 at 8:23 am
“….We term Nazereth, Um El-Fahm and Rahat “Arab settlements” and we call them illegal”
On what legal basis would they be illegal? Israel was declared and recognized as ” an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ link to wp.me . Corpus separatum was never instituted, the Jerusalem area has never been legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared and recognized as independent of Palestine link to wp.me
” If Jews can’t live in “Palestinian territory.. “
Under the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold, ISRAELI’s Jewish or not, are prohibited from settling in “territories occupied” (UNSC res 476, one of EIGHT reminders of UNSC res 252 link to wp.me) and earlier (link to wp.me )
but I was referring to the final status resolution. if the establishment of a “Palestine” requires removal of Jews from that territory, all for peace mind you, why not achieve a ‘better’ peace and remove Arabs from Israel. no friction, no animosity, no minority discrimination. just challenging logical processes.
If Jews can’t live in “Palestinian territory”, we should Arabs be permitted to live in Jewish territory?
Jews can and do live in Palestinian territory. What is illegal and a violation of international law is Jewish Israelis moving into and inhabiting the occupied territories of Palestine as citizens of Israel under civil Israeli law. The reason that its only Jewish Israelis in violation of the law is because Israel is a racist country and is creating “Jewish only” settlements illegally in the occupied Palestinian territories. If Israel allowed non-Jewish citizens to live in those Jewish only settlements those citizens would also be in violation of the law. But it doesn’t, so it is only Jewish Israelis committing the illegal act in this case.
Israel is NOT “Jewish territory”. Any citizen of Israel has a right to live in Israel, regardless of their ethnicity, although I’m sure you’d like to change that. This is a simple concept, but I guess being a bigot makes the obvious obscure to you.
But didn’t the UN decide a Jewish state be established?
Are we always on the wrong side of the divide between the rational types and the raving Judeaphobes?
Yoffie is a liar. He implied that “the effort was motivated by hostility to Israel”, or at least that reasonable Jewish leaders could think so. At the very least, he was explaining Protestant motivations to fellow Jews in Haaretz on July 11, 2012 (as he proudly shows on his website):link to ericyoffie.com
Yoffie knows perfectly well that expansion of the settlement and increasingly open ideological stress on the settlements is (a) totally wrong and (b) perceived as totally wrong (surprise!) (c) he had no way to explain Israeli position so he tried to lamely divert the attention to “doubts about the Palestinian committment”.
All muttering about “anti-Israel sentiments” is simply bunk. Yoffie was explaining in July what will happen and why, and in October he is “dismayed and surprised”. I cannot phatom how Reform rabbis think. They are not deluded, they are not fanatic. Yoffie seems to be doing a job he is paid to do without any kind of inner morality.
Yoffie is a Grade A hypocrite. He is ultra liberal on the right of Jewish women to pray at the Kotel but ultra conservative on the right of Palestinians to declare East Jerusalem as their capital.
Remind me, exactly how did Israel “start” that 1967 war? You know, the one after a half-dozen years of fedayeen terror. After two-and-a-half years of Fatah terror. The closing of the Tiran Straits. After kicking U.N. peacekeeping forces off the Egypt-Israel border. After verbal threats about the liquidation of the Zionist existence and the wiping of Israel off the face of the map and mass demos and mobilization. Etc., etc.
Yes, we all know that Tom Segev thinks that the fears of Israel of an Arab attack “had no basis in reality.” But we all know Segev … and the Arabs. As I was in the country that year and suffered terror attacks at my moshav site of Amatzia, I’ll go with my memory of the period.
Israel started that war with the first aliyah, habibi
The war goes on as long as you claim all of the land.
“at my moshav site”
For those not fimiliar with Hebrew, moshav can be translated as “Hole-in-the-Wall”, or “Brown’s Park” or “Robber’s Roost”.
ymedad October 26, 2012 at 8:18 am
“exactly how did Israel “start” that 1967 war?
With a preemptive attack OUTSIDE the State of Israel. The preemptor ‘starts’ their preemptive war.
” The closing of the Tiran Straits”
A blockade that hasn’t been enforced, ISN’T legally considered to be a blockade. On what date was Israeli shipping actually physically prevented?
“After kicking U.N. peacekeeping forces off the Egypt-Israel border”
Within Egypts’s sovereign rights. Also within a sovereign state’s rights to move their military anywhere within their territory at any time they wish.
<em"After verbal threats about the liquidation of the Zionist existence and the wiping of Israel off the face of the map…"
Now you’re just listing irrelevant twaddle. The Iranian statement was made AFTER the ’67 war and is virtually the same as UNSC resolutions against the regime illegally in Jerusalem link to wp.me . There has never been an official threat to wipe the State of Israel off the map. Unlike the reality of Israel wiping over half of Palestine off the map since being declared independent of Palestine link to wp.me
“As I was in the country that year and suffered terror attacks at my moshav site of Amatzia, I’ll go with my memory of the period”
The site of Amatzia isn’t in Israel. The area was a part of the territories allocated for the Arab State. link to docs.google.com Illegally acquired by war by Israel by 1949 and never legally annexed to Israel.
By your post, it’s probably best not rely on a Ziocaine addled ‘memory’.
There is a long history of Israeli agression against its neighbours. It’s true the Arabs wouldn’t shut up with the neverending rhetoric and verbal threats to do this and do that to Israel, but they never posed a real existential danger and Israel capitalized on all this empty noise to continue attacking and stealing more and more land. Getting back to 1967 that want to discuss, here’s a description of what actually happened in 1967 from the Council for the National Interest, a group that is looking out for America’s interest by keeping both eyes on Israel:
1967 – Israel violates the 1949 Armistice Agreement, launching a surprise attack against Egypt and Syria. Despite claims Israel is acting in self-defense against an impending attack from Egypt, Israeli leaders are well aware that Egypt poses no serious threat. Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli army during the war, says in a 1968 interview that “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” And former Prime Minister Menachem Begin later admits that “Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
link to councilforthenationalinterest.org
The above link includes several other instances of Israel breaking the ceasefire.
Walid, it’s not fair claiming that Arabs “never posed a real existential danger”. They (you?) tried very hard. They effected ethnic cleansing of various Jewish communities all throughout the Mandate period, including the ancient Hebron community centuries old. As a result of the 1948 war, newer communities (Atarot, Neveh Yaakov, 4 kibbutzim in Gush Etzion, Bet Haaravah, for example) and much more ancient ones (like Jerusalem’s Old City Jewish Quarter) were also ethnically cleansed. That was very very existential. Fedayeen operations of infiltration followed by PLO/Fatah terror prior to 1967 not to mention threats of extinction from 1948 on sort of unnerves people.
Protestants are alone on Israel’s case, last month the Pope in Beirut took a swing at Israel too in his Apostolic Exhortation, “Ecclesia in Medio Oriente” that was based on the concluding remarks of the October 2010 Bishops’ Synod in Rome. The Bishops had concluded among other things, that:
a. Jews shouldn’t be using Biblical references to claim the land of the Palestinians and to dispossess them and continue occupying them as the promise made to them was nullified by the arrival of J-C.
b. Jews should drop the exclusive “Chosen People” tag since with the arrival of J-C, all of humanity became God’s chosen people.
These 2 conclusions provoked a strong response at the time and accusations of the Vatican bordering on antisemitism from Abe Foxman and the ADL:
The following is the full text of the letter from Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, to Cardinal-elect Kurt Koch, the newly appointed President of the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews:
Dear Cardinal Koch:
We write to protest the shocking and outrageous anti-Jewish comments made by Greek Melkite Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros in connection with the final communique of the Bishops Synod on the Middle East.
By stating that God’s Covenantal promise of land to the Jewish people, “was nullified by Christ” and that “there is no longer a chosen people,” Archbishop Bustros is effectively stating that Judaism should no longer exist. This represents the worst kind of anti-Judaism, bordering on anti-Semitism.
Archbishop Bustros contradicts decades of official Vatican and papal teachings which affirm God’s ongoing Covenant with the Jewish people at Sinai, and calls on Christians to appreciate the Jewish people’s religious self-understanding, including its spiritual attachment to the land of Israel (CF. The 1985 “Notes on the Correct Way To Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church 25″).
As we prepare to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the Vatican Second Council and the adoption of Nostra Aetate, which launched a historic new and respectful theological and familial relationship between Catholics and Jews, we urge that you swiftly and publicly correct Archbishop Bustros’s shocking and damaging statements.
We also respectfully ask that the Vatican clarify whether Archbishop Bustros’ interpretation of the Synod’s final report reflects the intention of the Synod on these profound theological matters.
We look forward to your response
link to adl.org
After the stink raised by Foxman, the Apostolic Exhortation’s final wording although somewhat watered down (still refered to the Jews as the Chosen People, it said that Jesus being a Jew was also a Chosen One and all those followers became consequently chosen), the essence of the 2 initial torpedos remained in it. Foxman probably hasn’t yet read between the Exhortation’s lines.
“By stating that God’s Covenantal promise of land to the Jewish people, “was nullified by Christ” and that “there is no longer a chosen people,” Archbishop Bustros is effectively stating that Judaism should no longer exist. This represents the worst kind of anti-Judaism, bordering on anti-Semitism.”
As if Jews were of the opinion that Christianity should exist. Thinking about it, Buddhists, Hindu, native religions in Africa and among Amerindians all deny Jews the status of Chosen people. Of course, to Catholics, Jews were Chosen to be the first people to listen to the Good News from the lips of our Lord and Savior, but, alas, some did not make constructive use of that opportunity (and today the latter are called Jews).
I think that religious tolerance is not about finding some consensus meta-theology.
“Protestants are alone on Israel’s case”
Ooops, that should have been “are NOT alone”. Sorry.
Question to commentors:
The rabbi high echelon had invited for a meeting with the 15 Church leaders for 22 October,and the signatories of the letter to the Congress were told as giving the invitation a thought.
Does anybody know, whether such meeting did take place,after all?
And if yes, is anything known about its outcome??
ADL and B’nai B’rith and 5 other groups called off Jewish participation on October 11th. Some of the Protestant signatories had been scheduled to participate.
Haaretz from 2 days back: “The letter by the Jewish representatives was signed by the American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith International, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Rabbinical Assembly, the Union for Reform Judaism and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. The Anti-Defamation League had announced earlier this week that it would not attend the meeting.
The Jewish groups quit their participation, Ethan Felson, vice president and general counsel of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs umbrella group told JTA, because “There’s been a betrayal of trust. … We have to discern if there’s a positive path forward.”
Edward Teller at FDL:
“… Each new month brings another Christian group to question what its relationship should be with the increasingly hostile, increasingly racist and overtly apartheid state of Israel. And increasingly, Jewish groups in America are being asked to be openly critical of these moves, whether it be this one, or votes to consider divesting from businesses in Israel, or with firms which enable the occupation and colonization of the West Bank.
Rather than inquire as to why these spiritually-founded religious bodies feel impelled to sanction Israel, many Jewish organizations, commentators and public figures are likening these moves to anti-Semitism, which it most certainly is not. These Jewish protesters seem to fail to understand that these labels, thrown around like they are in such cases, not only will not stick or sting, they will further alienate Christians who are already committed to courses of action they have tied to the doctrines of their beliefs.
Marc Ellis observed the following, while covering the debate during the Presbyterian assembly vote on divestment, last summer:
> When it became clear that Israel as a state wasn’t interested in justice for Palestinians and that Jewish leadership in America was only interested in silencing Christian misgivings about Israeli occupation policies, it was only a matter of time before the Jewish-Christian love fest came to an end.
Among the liberal Christian denominations, Christian support for Israel is on life support. The back-up oxygen tanks, already in use, are running empty. There isn’t any way of resurrecting the interfaith ecumenical deal. The “Christians are evil/Jews are innocent” genie is out of the bottle, never to return.>
link to my.firedoglake.com
Yoffe doesn’t mention that security council resolution 465 calls for the dismanteling of all settlements and that there’s no resolution demanding from the Palestinians to give up their right to return. And by failing to do so, he aroused all of the suspicions that exist in the non Jewish community about the real intentions of his hasbara. Yawn.
“Yoffe doesn’t mention that security council resolution 465 calls for the dismanteling of all settlements and that there’s no resolution demanding from the Palestinians to give up their right to return.” (Talkback)
Maybe not a UNSC resolution, but there is a US Congressional one negating the Palestinians’ right of return to any lands other than to a future Palestinian state. That same resolution also negated the 67 borders by refering back to the 48 ones and recognized as legitimate, the settlements on the occupied lands on the WB. Since the US carries a bigger stick than the UN, this is good enough for Israel to keep laughing in everyone’s face. This US resolution was the real objective of the Gaza disengagement plan of 2005, according to Dov Weisglass, that also declared that eventhough it’s not binding, morally it’s good enough for Israel to continue doing its thing because America would never backtrack from it. This Gaza pullout gimmick is what made Bush call the butcher of Sabra and Chatilla, the “Man of Peace”.
The pertinent sections of H. Con.Res. 460 of June 23, 2004:
“… Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities;
Whereas the President acknowledged that any agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a permanent alternative and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel;
Whereas the principles expressed in President Bush’s letter will enhance the security of Israel and advance the cause of peace in the Middle East;
Whereas there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until Israel and the Palestinians, and all countries in the region and throughout the world, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations;
Whereas the United States remains committed to the security of Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders, and to preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any threat;
Whereas Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism, including the right to take actions against terrorist organizations that threaten the citizens of Israel;
Whereas the President stated on June 24, 2002, his vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security and that vision can only be fully realized when terrorism is defeated, so that a new state may be created based on rule of law and respect for human rights… ”
link to gpo.gov
RE: “The world hates Jews and always has, so you have no standing, Yoffie is saying. You Protestants were silent during the Holocaust . . .” ~ Eric Yoffie’s views per Weiss
SEE THESE EXCERPTS FROM “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict”,Third Edition (2001), Published by ‘Jews for Justice in the Middle East’:
ENTIRE “ORIGIN” BOOKLET – link to archive.org
P.S. FROM ‘The Hidden History of Zionism’, by Ralph Schoenman [EXCERPTS]:
SOURCE – link to marxists.de
This letter was fair. It acknowledged suffering and violence on both sides. The “hard core” expansionists in both the U.S. and Israel don’t want fair; they want a “favored relationship” with the mainstream voters in the U.S. Just like what the ADL said when George Mitchell was assigned as chief envoy to Israel-”he’s too fair” link to walt.foreignpolicy.com
Wasn’t this “dialogue” group started by Jewish secular groups to stem the rising tide of calls for boycotts and divestment among these protestant groups? I think they just got frustrated and said “The hell with it. Enough is enough. We’re perpetually the losers in this dialogue.” It’s a bold and timely move. We’ll see…