Category Archives: JBIG

ZIONISTS ON BACK FOOT OVER ISRAELI STATE FUNDING FOR FILM FESTIVAL

Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard

Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard

Jewish Leadership Council chief executive Simon Johnson

Jewish Leadership Council chief executive Simon Johnson

Two leading Zionist apologists had the thankless task on Wednesday of defending Israeli embassy funding for a film festival left homeless after the intended venue objected to links with the genocidal state.

After news broke of the decision by the Tricycle Theatre in northwest London to ask the UK Jewish Film Festival to sever its financial links with Israel because of its latest bloody assault on Gaza, Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard and Simon Johnson, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, tied themselves in knots in two separate radio discussions with supporters of the Palestinian call for a cultural boycott of Israel.

On Radio 4’s World at One, Laurie Penny, contributing editor to the New Statesman, slated Pollard for trying to equate a polite request to accept an alternative to Israeli state funding with rampant anti-Semitism.

The theatre had, after all, offered to replace the Embassy’s contribution with its own resources so that the festival could go ahead. It was the film festival organisers who had insisted on retaining their Israeli state link.

Pennie, herself of partial Jewish extraction, had written in the NS on July 23: “It is not anti-Semitic to suggest that Israel doesn’t get a free pass to kill whoever it likes in order to feel “safe”. It is not anti-Semitic to point out that if what Israel needs to feel “safe” is to pen the Palestinian people in an open prison under military occupation, the state’s definition of safety might warrant some unpacking. And it is not anti-Semitic to say that this so-called war is one in which only one side actually has an army.”

Radio 5 Live on Wednesday evening gave the Zionist camp another opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot, putting the JLC’s Johnson up against J-BIG’s Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. Listen from 02.39.30 to hear the discussion.

Johnson, claiming to represent the entire Jewish community in the UK, accused the Tricycle theatre of “opportunistically” picking on a Jewish event and undermining the “indelible link” between Jews in the diaspora and the state of Israel. He also insisted that cultural boycotts had never brought anyone closer to the peace and justice.

“Tell that to the people of South Africa,” said Wimborne-Idrissi, alluding to the long-running campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions, including cultural boycott, that eventually brought South African apartheid to its knees. She challenged Johnson’s shackling of Jewish identity with Zionism as both historically wrong and currently dangerous, promoting the very antisemitism he unjustifiably alleges.

She made clear that there was nothing opportunistic about the Tricycle, where management had been in dialogue with the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network about Israeli embassy funding since last year’s Jewish Film Festival. It was simply a case of people learning the truth about Israel’s cynical exploitation of cultural platforms to veil the state’s crimes against the Palestinian people and gaining the confidence to support the Palestinian call for cultural boycott.

It is telling that Stephen Margolis, chairman of the UK Jewish Film Festival, quoted in the Daily Telegraph accusing the Tricycle Theatre of politicising the affair, is trounced in the same report by no less a figure than National Theatre director Nicholas Hytner.

Giving  unreserved support to Tricycle director Indhu Rubasingham and the theatre’s board, Hytner said: “It is entirely understandable that they felt obliged to insist that no government agency should sponsor the festival.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why our boycott campaign against Israel makes sense

 

During London protests against Israel's renewed attacks on Gaza, anti-Zioniost rabbis stand on top of a double decker bus in Kensington High Street. Photos from Twitter/@EAli1 and @ImaniAmrani

During London protests against Israel’s renewed attacks on Gaza, an anti-Zionist rabbi stands on top of a double decker bus in Kensington High Street. Photos from Twitter/@EAli1 and @ImaniAmrani

The latest evidence of Israeli criminality has added urgency to the BDS campaign. Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods initiated a letter published in the Guardian on Saturday July 12, alongside another pressing the case for BDS, under the headline Why our boycott campaign against Israel makes sense.

The J-BIG letter, signed by Jewish figures including actor Miriam Margolyes and  writer and comedian Alexei Sayle, was also supported by author Ahdaf Soueif.

It said Israel was marking the 10th anniversary of the international court of justice  ruling that Israel’s apartheid wall is illegal and must be removed, by renewing its attacks on Gaza, again punishing the Palestinians for resisting the illegal occupation of their land.

Protests have been widespread and growing. See Jews for Justice for Palestinians’ (JfJfP) website for a useful compendium of reports and comment.

 

FULL TEXT OF PRO-BDS LETTERS IN THE GUARDIAN

It is now 10 years since the international court of justice  ruled that the wall built by Israel in the occupied West Bank contravenes international law and must be removed.

Israel is marking this anniversary with renewed attacks on Gaza which continue to punish the Palestinians for resisting the illegal occupation of their land (Israel turns screw on Hamas as 300 targets are hit in a single night, 11 July).

The apartheid wall is still there, making any kind of normal life for Palestinians an impossibility, as well as stealing their land. It is 47 years since Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, thus extending the process (begun in 1948) of ethnically cleansing the indigenous population and then installing settlers.

All this is illegal under international law, which has been flouted by Israel, aided by the complicity of western governments. The media too, especially the BBC, must bear some responsibility with its grotesquely biased reporting which, as Owen Jones notes (9 July), portrays Israel as an innocent victim, exempt from any norms of behaviour.

Our government will not hold Israel accountable, so we have a responsibility to do so, especially through the civil society campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions  (BDS).

Miriam Margolyes, Mike Marqusee, Alexei Sayle, Ahdaf Soueif, Prof Haim Bresheeth, Prof Jonathan Rosenhead, Prof Moshe Machover, Prof Nira Yuval-Davies, Seymour Alexander, Rica Bird, Elizabeth Carola, Mike Cushman, Judit Druks, Nancy Elan, Mark Elf, Deborah Fink, Sylvia Finzi, Kenneth Fryde, Claire Glasman, Tony Greenstein, Abe Hayeem, Rosamine Hayeem, Selma James, Riva Joffe, Michael Kalmanovitz, Adah Kay, Leah Levane, Les Levidow, Mica Nava, Diane Neslen, Susan Pashkoff, Roland Rance, Leon Rosselson, Maureen Rothstein, Michael Sackin, Ian Saville, Miriam Scharf, Sam Weinstein, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Devra Wiseman, Ben Young
Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (J-BIG)

 

• Debate about strategy is vital for good politics. We welcome Noam Chomsky‘s admonitions as a stimulus to the debate and education which the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions movement has enabled globally. Aside from the errors of fact in Chomsky’s Nation article reported on by Ian Black (Israeli sanctions campaign: Chomsky’s boycott warning, 2 July), the timing of his intervention is unfortunate since the BDS movement has now reached even American campuses, occasioned Israeli cabinet deliberations as to how to counter it, and caused reputational damage to corporations working with Israeli firms in occupied Palestine.

Chomsky also ignores that BDS is fully backed by Palestinian civil society and a growing number of Israelis. In this difficult period for progressive politics and international solidarity, the BDS movement builds across the globe. In its stead Chomsky proposes nothing.
Hilary Rose Professor emeritus of social policy, BradfordMartha Mundy Professor emeritus in anthropology, LSESteven Rose Professor emeritus of neuroscience, Open University, Sami Ramadani London Metropolitan University

WHOEVER THE BRUSSELS MUSEUM KILLER WAS, ISRAEL CAN’T BLAME FRIENDS OF PALESTINE

The fatal attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels on May 24 has given rise to speculation about the identity of two of the dead as well as of the possible perpetrator, most recently identified as a French citizen who had fought with Islamic militants in Syria. Was it a random attack by an anti-semite targeting a Jewish institution? A carefully planned retaliation by an expert hitman against former Mossad agents? Or something else altogether?

Theories abound, some of them entwining the Belgian incident with the rise of the Right in the recent Europe-wide elections and the Papal visit to Israel and Palestine.

One thing is clear: Binyamin Netanyahu’s attempt to blame criticism of Israel for the Brussels deaths was a despicably cynical move that demanded a response.  Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods combined forces with the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network to put out a statement dissociating us from Netanyahu’s assertion that the fate of every Jew is shackled to that of the Israeli state.

Perhaps we should welcome the fact that most media outlets seem to have ignored the Israeli PM’s rant. However, it is regrettable that both of the two national daily papers which published it – the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times – turned down the opportunity to give their readers access to an alternative Jewish perspective.

For the record, we publish the letter here.

An outrage against humanity, not Israel

We deplore the murder of visitors to the Jewish Museum in Brussels and feel the grief of their families and friends.

We find it shocking that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has rushed to exploit the killings in order to demonise Israel’s critics.

By blaming what he calls “Slander and lies against the State of Israel” for an assault on a Jewish institution in Belgium, he asserts that Israel represents all Jews and acts on their behalf. We reject this absolutely. Israel’s racist crimes against the Palestinian people provide ample grounds for criticising it without recourse to “slander and lies”.

With hate speech and discrimination on the rise, in Europe and elsewhere, our priority must be to combat the virus of racism regardless of whether its victims are Jews, Muslims, Romanians, Sudanese or indeed anyone.

When atrocities occur, it is our humanity that is outraged, not our national, ethnic or religious identity.

Signed

Jews for Boycotting Israeli Good
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network

George Abendstern

Seymour Alexander

Craig Berman

Rica Bird

Haim Bresheeth

Elizabeth Carola

Linda Clair

Mark Elf

Thomas Eisner

Deborah Fink

Jan Hardy

Abe Hayeem

Rosamine Hayeem

Selma James

Riva Joffe

Michael Kalmanowitz

Leah Levane

Les Levidow

Rosalind Levy

Moshe Machover

Helen Marks

Simon Natas

Diana Neslen

Susan Pashkoff

Roland Rance

Valerie Remy

Frances Rifkin

Leon Rosselson

Amanda Sebestyen

Glyn Secker

Leni Solinger

Glyn Secker

Stanley Walinets

Sam Weinstein

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi

 

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN, CRITIC OF ISRAEL AND BDS, SPEAKS IN LONDON

nwi chairing norman finkelstein nov2011 credit brian robinson

Norman Finkelstein debates BDS at SOAS, November 2011

Norman Finkelstein, both celebrated and reviled for his brilliant demolitions of Zionist propaganda, will be launching his latest book in London on May 31 at an event hosted by Jews for Justice for Palestinians.  Full details below.

Finkelstein’s views on the Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign have made him a controversial figure in the BDS movement. In November 2011 he debated with Jonathan Rosenhead, chair of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, on a J-BIG platform at the School of Oriental and African Studies.

The event, pictured above, exposed disagreements between Finkelstein and BDS activists who he accused of building a “sect”.  As the JfJfP notice below says, his May 31 book launch could prove “a bumpy ride”!

LONDON BOOK LAUNCH

Old Wine, Broken Bottle:
Ari Shavit’s Promised Land

Saturday 31 May 2014 *  6.30 for 7pm start
Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL

Norman Finkelstein is a strong speaker celebrated for his brilliant demolitions of Zionist propaganda and full-tilt attacks on the American Israel Lobby.

His new book is a take-down of Ari Shavit’s “My Promised Land”, which he finds is an attempt to repackage Zionist propaganda and win back Diaspora Jews. “Old Wine, Broken Bottle” is a devastating and very entertaining critique that concludes that Shavit will not succeed, and that a broad-based mass movement is now growing that can pressure the Israeli government to withdraw to the 1967 borders.

But Finkelstein is nothing if not controversial: having defied the Zionist establishment, he now stands apart from the mainstream of Palestine solidarity by denouncing the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement as a marginal “cult”. His vehement insistence on the Two State Solution has also been widely challenged.

Professor Finkelstein will open with a conversation with JfJfP signatory Stephen Marks.
Then fans and critics alike can put their own questions to him. All are welcome.

Expect a bumpy ride!

Free event, but please help towards costs: £3 donation suggested
Apologies for Saturday timing; this was the only slot available”Old Wine, Broken Bottle” reviewed by a member of the JfJfP Exec http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1939293464/ref=sr_cr_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0

 

 

JEWISH CHRONICLE LASHES OUT AS UK ARCHITECTS CALL ISRAEL’S SETTLEMENT BUILDERS TO ACCOUNT

2013-05-16-p8hilltopsettlement

On March 19 the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) became the first UK professional association to take action against Israel for its breaches of international law.

Its council passed a motion, proposed by former RIBA president Angela Brady and backed by Architects and Planners for Justice for Palestinians (APJP), calling on the International Union of Architects to suspend the Israeli association from membership, “until it acts to resist [these] illegal projects, and observes international law”.
Full details can be found in a media statement from the APJP.
It took barely 24 hours for the Zionist apologists at the Jewish Chronicle to wheel out the tired and discredited allegation of anti-semitism. A hysterical leader on March 20 read:
Be in no doubt. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) is now officially antisemitic. On Wednesday, it voted to support a ban on Jews from joining the International Union of Architects. It didn’t put it quite like that, of course. The wording of its motion referred to ‘Israelis’ rather than ‘Jews’. But in singling out the Jewish state for opprobrium, over and above every other nation on earth, and in seeking to ban Jews — sorry, Israelis — from membership, the driving force behind both the BDS campaign and its RIBA conspirators is clear. Jew hatred lives on in RIBA.
The Jewish chair of APJP, J-BIG supporter Abe Hayeem, is waiting to see if the JC will publish his letter in reply.
Abe Hayeem chairs Architects and Planners for Justice for Palestinians

Abe Hayeem chairs Architects and Planners for Justice for Palestinians

Follow this link to read his presentation to the RIBA council, explaining in detail the complicity of Israel’s architects in pushing forward the illegal colonisation and settlement of Palestinian land.

Israeli architecture association faces ban from international forum – Guardian

 

 

 

 

J-BIG – THE JEWS WHO BACK THE BOYCOTT – WRITE UP IN MORNING STAR

Today’s MORNING STAR (“The People’s Daily”) carried this feature about the foundation and work of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods.

DEBORAH FINK and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi are co-founders of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (J-Big), a group which has scored major successes as progressive Jewish people respond to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

The pair met through Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP), founded in February 2002 in response to the second intifada.

Fink joined in July that year. Coming from a conservative, pro-Israel background, she found it reassuring to meet fellow Jews who were against Israel’s policy in Palestine.

She sees JfJfP as an important organisation.

“It shows the world that Israel does not represent all Jews, that it cannot count on all Jews for support,” she says.

“And to a certain extent it protects non-Jewish critics of Israeli policy from bogus charges of anti-semitism.”

Anti-semitism is often the accusation thrown at Israel’s critics, with the aim of intimidating them into silence.

Fink felt there needed to be a specifically Jewish voice supporting the campaign to boycott Israeli goods, so with Wimborne-Idrissi she founded J-Big in 2006.

They chose the tongue-in-cheek slogan “it’s kosher to boycott Israeli goods,” highlighting the fact that many Jews are involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, so it’s “kosher” to take part.

Wimborne-Idrissi comes from a left-wing Jewish household. Her father used to sell the Morning Star’s predecessor the Daily Worker, so solidarity with oppressed peoples is something she grew up with.

She discovered JfJfP in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003.

A speaker at a Stop the War demo was speaking, as a Jew, for Palestinian rights. Wimborne-Idrissi signed up there and then.

She felt that JfJfP, while doing great work in the Jewish community, did not go as far as she and others wanted in the boycott campaign. A further step was needed.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign had set up a Boycott Israeli Goods campaign and was showing an interest in getting a specifically Jewish voice involved.

Wimborne-Idrissi and Fink pulled together some like-minded people and set up J-Big. A founding statement was published, a banner sporting the “kosher” slogan produced and J-Big set about mobilising support.

Wimborne-Idrissi says it wasn’t long before the expected deluge of venomous accusations flooded in.

They were denounced as “self-hating Jews” and “traitors to the Jewish state of Israel.”

“We had no illusions that the campaign would bring the Israeli economy crashing down,” she says.

“Boycotting avocados and peppers grown on illegally occupied Palestinian land and then sold as Israeli would not bring the country’s economy to its knees, but the immorality of how and where these goods are produced is an important message to get across.”

J-Big became more interested in boycotting Israel at an institutional level — by, for example, boycotting cultural events such as when Israeli musicians come to Britain under the Israeli flag to perform here while Palestinian artists are suffering under the occupation.

Here Fink’s musical training — she’s a bachelor of music and a trained soprano — came to the fore.

Working with others in the BDS movement Fink debuted by interrupting the Jerusalem Quartet at the Wigmore Hall in 2010, singing a parody of Jerusalem, Holy City.

J-Big was involved when the campaign tackled a more high-profile target, encouraging as many as possible to join in the protests when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra played the Royal Albert Hall in 2011.

There were many disruptions to the orchestra’s performance, the first of which involved 13 activists in a choir led by Fink.

Sue Blackwell, a prominent member of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine who had written the words to the Wigmore parody, wrote a new version of Ode to Joy as Ode to Boycott, including the words “Israel end your occupation, Palestine must now be free, ethnic cleansing and apartheid should belong to history.”

Protesters, who came from as far afield as Edinburgh and Brighton, were strategically seated around the auditorium and their interventions carefully timed.

During a quiet musical passage protesters in vacant choral seats stood up with cloth banners which together spelled Free Palestine.

The protesters were eventually escorted out of the hall, but the protest made global news.

Fink explains the controversial action by pointing to the way the orchestra operated as a cultural ambassador, making Israel appear civilised.

“As a musician I find it hard to disrupt beautiful music,” she says. “But basic human rights are more important.

“It’s not just about influencing the audience at a prom, but about influencing world opinion. You can’t do that by handing out a few leaflets.”

Wimborne-Idrissi adds that the protests were planned to disrupt the beauty of the music as little as possible.

The Bruch violin concerto was part of the programme, for instance. So “free Palestine!” would be shouted when the conductor was raising his baton at the start of a piece, but not once the violin had started playing.

The disruptions were done to be in keeping with the performance, turning it into a weapon for the Palestinians.

The concert was not aborted. It was the BBC that cut the broadcast — which had never happened before in the history of the proms.

It was an even more successful protest than the previous action at Wigmore Hall.

I suggested that what this party of 30 or more people had done that night at the Albert Hall was not so much to disrupt Beethoven, who featured, but to be true to his spirit.

Fink and Wimborne-Idrissi agree: “Beethoven was a revolutionary.”

Wimborne-Idrissi stresses that the global boycott movement, started by the Palestinians themselves, does not target individual Israelis — and certainly not Jews as Jews.

It targets institutions and aims for equality for Palestinians living in Israel, freedom for Palestinians living in the occupied territories and justice for Palestinian refugees, including the right of return for all those forced to flee their homes since the Nakba (“catastrophe”) of 1948.

Together, these movements hope to win justice for Palestinians — something the UN has signally failed to achieve.

 

 

Methodist consultation on BDS: J-BIG response

When the UK’s Methodist Council endorsed BDS, it met Zionist condemnation and threats regarding interfaith relations.  This response led the Council to initiate a public consultation on the issues.   On4 November J-BIG submitted the statement below.

===============================================

What Methodist relations with the Jewish community?
Submission from Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (J-BIG)

Les Levidow and Diana Neslen

There is some concern within the Methodist community that support for BDS will harm community relations and dialogue-based initiatives with the leadership of organised Jewry.  At first glance these threats do not seem to be idle.  Past decisions by the Methodist conference have induced a flurry of activity by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.  The Board hascondemned these actions and threatened a breakdown of relationships with the Methodist Church. Speaking for ‘the Jewish community’, in 2010 the Board expressed their ‘hurt and anger’ at the Methodist Church adopting the Justice for Palestine and Israel report.[1]

The Board stated that the decision ‘shattered the good relations’ between the Jewish Community and the Methodist Church.  This strong statement seemed to presage a divorce between the two organised communities, but this was not to be.   A communal Seder seemed to repair rifts [2].Soon after this the Board of Deputies was engaging in dialogue with the Inter-faith group on issues of concern to the Jewish community and the Methodists, like challenging anti Semitism[3].  Clearly it was one thing to engage in bluster, but another to make divorce a reality.

The same behaviour is manifest with respect to the Coop, which took the decision to boycott agricultural products from occupied Palestinian territory.  Since Israeli agricultural companies source agricultural products from the occupied territories, this means that all Israeli agricultural companies are subject toboycott. The reaction from the organised Jewish community was immediate and highly critical.  Efforts were made to overturn the Coop’s action.  Many Israel supporters joined the Cooperative movement for the express purpose of overturning the decision, but they had no arguments worthy of considerationin open debateand were unable to achieve their objectives. Consequently the Leeds Lobby Network, an organisation that gives unqualified support to Israeli policies, is now telling the Jewish Telegraphthat it is engaging in a dialogue with the Cooperative movement.  So the Board’s earlier threats were not fulfilled.

What kind of dialogue is sought by the Board? As the mouthpiece for Israel, it is committed to ‘an unwavering relationship with the state of Israel’,[4]so the parameters of dialogue are very limited.

Discussion of this issue is all the more urgent in the light of recent developments following the statement by Jonathan Arkush of the Board of Deputies[5]. In October the Jewish Chronicle reported that after talks with the Board of Deputies, the Methodists are considering abandoning the boycott.[6]   According to the report both sides ‘agreed to explore approaches, distinct from the BDS [boycott, divestment, sanctions] consultation on which the Methodist Church is presently engaged, including investing in peace, dialogue and reconciliation projects’.

At first sight this would seem to preclude the outcome of the consultation exercise.  Therefore the Methodist Church should consider carefully the character of the dialogue on offer.  Those who give unqualified support to Israel’s policies find that they cannot defend them to those who believe in universal human rights. Rather than acknowledge Israel’s transgressions, the Board resorts to subterfuge and propose something else like ‘dialogue, peace and reconciliation projects’.

Why? Precisely because nothing changes as a result.While people talk to each other, Israel grabs more territorywithout any penalty, as it is doing through the current ‘peace process’.  Dialogue is used to impose Israel’s distorted perspectives, rather than consider opposing viewpoints and change behaviour accordingly.  The Council of Christians and Jews illustrates how an organisation promotes Israel as a victim while paying lip service to Palestinian rights.[7]

Dialogue may be worthwhile if there is any chance that it will be used to encourage insight and change, towards respecting Palestinian rights.  Instead it is used to bully others into acquiescence with the powerful – the Board’s main aim for dialogue.  At this stage, the Israelis seek to reconcile their self-portrayal as the victim with the reality that they are oppressors.  Meanwhile the Palestinians need liberation rather than ‘reconciliation’.  A free people can enter into dialogue and indeed reconciliation, but the first objective must be freedom and equality. Anything less undermines the possibility of an equitable dialogue.

Israel is still the powerful player pulling the strings.  Let us be quite frank:  Israel wants more territory and in that quest is happy enough to allow her army to maintain ‘peace’ and to contract out the policing of Palestinians to the Palestinian Authority.  Israel lives under a peace that works for her.  Treated as lesser beings, the Palestinians live under oppression and dispossession, the very opposite of peace.

BDS is a non-violent means of trying to bring about change for Palestinian rights.  It raises awareness, engages the activists and slowly and inexorably changes the nature of the conversation from one of dominion to one of rights.   In fact the World Council of Churches supported BDS with respect to apartheid South Africa. The same must be true for the issue of Palestine.  Weneed to enhance the voice of those under the yoke of occupation.

The question then arises as to whether a BDS stance is the best available option.  The issue is whether Israel has any incentive to change its behaviour.  Unfortunately the evidence shows that without sanctions Israel continues to take advantage of its dominant position. It is the reaction of Israel and its supporters to BDS that tells us how profoundly this affects them.  Two members of the Israeli embassy in London are employed to challenge BDS.  This is how seriously the state takes this matter.  There are no members of the embassy employed to advance ‘peace, dialogue and reconciliation’.

There are those who say, not necessarily with tongue in cheek, that the time has come for dialogue, but not between organised British Jewry and those who support BDS.  Instead the time is ripe for dialogue between organised British Jewry and their contacts in the Israeli political establishment.  The purpose of this dialogue should be to advise Israel that the country need to change course before it is too late. It is time for the organised Jewish community to rescue Jewish values from the militaristic, nationalist ideology undermining them.  This viewpoint is being increasingly expressed by many Jews – not represented by the Board of Deputies.

In sum: The Zionist establishment (claiming to represent ‘the Jewish community’) seeks types of interfaith dialogue which reinforce Israel’s occupation of Palestine and lead other faiths to collude. If such dialogue is jeopardized by Methodists’  support for BDS, then this result would be no loss for the Methodist community.  To support Palestinian rights, the Methodist Church should support BDS and seek forms of dialogue which challenges the Occupation.

Notes