Bertrand Russell once said, “Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so.” A recent research study at the University of Iowa, seems to confirm that. Researchers found that people are reluctant to change their minds and adapt their views, even when new information has been presented. This holds true even if they stand to lose money.
The phenomenon is called “confirmation bias” and apparently operates at a subconscious level at all times. The new research confirms numerous previous studies which show people invariably stick to their original viewpoint even when new facts contradict those beliefs. When faced with facts that don’t fit, we tend to ignore or change them to fit our beliefs.
In our gospel reading this morning, Mark 3:20-35, we see confirmation bias at work. Faced with the same facts, people reach very different conclusions about Jesus. Continue reading →
“Treacherous colleagues, competitive friends, bloody-minded commuters – it’s a war out there. And according to Robert Greene, it’s a conflict we’re ill-equipped to deal with. After analysing the moves of history’s great military leaders, he’s written a rulebook to achieving victory in life’s daily battles.”
Spanning world civilizations, synthesizing dozens of political, philosophical, and religious texts and thousands of years of violent conflict, The 33 Strategies of War is a comprehensive guide to the subtle social game of everyday life informed by the most ingenious and effective military principles in war. Abundantly illustrated with examples from history, including the folly and genius of everyone from Napoleon Bonaparte to Margaret Thatcher, from Shaka the Zulu to Lord Nelson, and from Hannibal to Ulysses S. Grant, each of the thirty-three chapters outlines a strategy that will help you win life’s wars. Learn the offensive strategies that require you to maintain the initiative and negotiate from a position of strength, or the defensive strategies designed to help you respond to dangerous situations and avoid unwinnable wars. Continue reading →
You will probably be well aware by now of a new European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which is being introduced later this month. This is about your data protection and privacy. You have probably received several emails and letters from organisations and charities asking you to respond if you wish to continue to receive communication from them. If you don’t, they will no longer be able to contact you, legally. As the founder and director of a small Christian charity, Peacemaker Trust, www.peacemakers.ngoit has consumed a lot of time and energy to comply. But as the recipient of a large amount of junk mail, I think it is a positive step. We are fascinated when secrets are revealed in the media – except it seems when they are, our own.
Those deeply personal things that matter the most to us – our children, our family, our bodies, our emails, our text messages, our age, our photos, our income, our bank accounts, we keep these private, and in many cases wisely so. The more important, the more personal, the more sensitive the information, the more likely, we will want to keep it private, confidential, or concealed. And many people feel the same way about their religious faith. Its personal. Its private. And it remains concealed.
Ten years ago, in September 2008, an anonymous ‘Mordechai Maverick’ sent a defamatory message about me to everyone in our church Facebook group. The message drew attention to a new but anonymous blog called Seismic Shock (intended apparently to sound like my name), which described me as a “dangerous anti- Semite” and promised to publish articles to expose me. The anonymous author(s) then began to write articles about me on a weekly basis, sometimes daily. These were subsequently re-posted on other websites such as Rosh Pina Projectand Harry’s Place. In a one year period September 2008-to July 2009 well over one hundred articles about me were published on the Seismic Shockwebsite.
Surrey police took an interest and provided me and my family with additional security. On 29th November 2009, I received a report from West Yorkshire Police to advise that they had identified and visited an individual and asked him to desist writing defamatory material about me and remove from his website material of that nature. I was asked to contact them if I became aware of further articles by the same individual “causing you harassment”. Despite the fact that at the time I did not know the name of the author, he subsequently went public and then accused me of using the police to suppress free speech on the internet. Continue reading →
Did you watch the crime drama Maigret recently on TV? They were adapted from the novels by Georges Simenon and portrayed the French detective Jules Maigret. What made the new series stand out from previous ones, however, was the main character. The role of Mairget was played by Rowan Atkinson. I think Rowan portrayed Maigret very well indeed, but I kept expecting him to turn to the camera, open his eyes wide and grin like Mr Bean. That is the challenge for an actor portraying a serious role when he is associated with a very funny one. Rowan is in fact a very good hypocrite.
Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry, and David Schwimmerwere the six actors in the TV series… that’s right – Friends. It is hard to believe Friends first aired 24 years ago and lasted 10 seasons. You either loved it or hated it. If you’re a fan, you probably binge-watched Friends growing up. And in 2004 you may have bought the exclusive, limited edition “Friends are Forever” season finale from Warner Brothers and possibly even the Friends Party Pack which enabled you to host the perfect evening to watch the final episode with your own friends, complete with the Friends party invitations, a commemorative serving tray, coffee, party recipes, coasters and trivia card game.What made Friends as a series so popular? I don’t think it was simply the acting, the folksy humour or even the static between six young and attractive men and women living in close proximity. I think what made Friends so popular as a series was because friendship and companionship touches our deepest need. And in this fictional encounter between six different people who became friends, millions of people have lived out their own hopes, struggles and dreams. While millions without Netflicks may have mourned the end of the series, the amazing truth of the Bible is that God wants to be your best friend forever.
An interview with Roshan Muhammed Salih for Press TV on the weaponisation of antisemitism together with Jonathan Rosenhead, Emeritus Professor of Operational Research at the London School of Economics.
How are anti-Semitism accusations being misused by the Israeli lobby?
The Israel Lobby has an impossible task defending the illegal occupation and colonisation of Palestine. Many liken the policies of Israel to a form of apartheid. The denial of Palestinian human rights and breaches of international law are flagrant and systemic. One way to deflect attention and silence criticism, is by seeking international acceptance of a broader definition of antisemitism that conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism.
Antisemitism is generally understood to be “hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.” It is a form of racism and should be repudiated unequivocally. However, Zionists insist Israel is a Jewish state and therefore claim criticism of Israel is synonymous with criticism of Jews and therefore is a form of antisemitism.
Identifying Israel as a Jewish state is problematic not just for its two million Palestinian citizens but also the further three million living under military rule in the Palestinian territories.
Antony Lerman traces the historical development of the ‘new antisemitism’ and draws out how the new definition differs from traditional descriptions.
“In a word, classical anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever society they inhabit. The new anti-Semitism involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations, with Israel as the targeted ‘collective Jew among the nations’.”
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, recently accepted by the British government, reads:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The IHRA acknowledge “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” So what is wrong with equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism? Ben White cites several anti-Zionist Jewish campaigners:
“For Rebecca Vilkomerson, Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a group with more than 200,000 online members and 60 chapters across the US, “equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism obscures the long history of Jewish anti-Zionism and diasporism.” According to the UK-based group Jews for Justice for Palestinians, fusing “Jewishness/Israel/Zionism” enables antisemitism to become “a weapon for imposing conformity on dissidents within the Jewish community.”
Chicago-based Rabbi Brant Rosen has described how “growing numbers of Jews” identify as anti-Zionists for “legitimate ideological reasons”, motivated “by values of equality and human rights for all human beings.” His words chime with those of a former President of Edinburgh University’s Jewish Society, who recently wrote of “the growing frustration felt by many millennial Jews about the default positioning that support for Israel receives amongst Jewish civil society organisations.”
But what about the claim that, since Zionism is simply Jewish self-determination, anti-Zionism is anti-Jewish bigotry? This is also misguided; put simply, “self-determination does not equate to statehood.” As legal scholar Michael Kearney has explained, self-determination is “less understood these days as a right to one’s own exclusive state, and more as a right to non-discrimination and to democratic participation in society.”
Israel’s supporters, however, are deliberately conflating terms such as ‘homeland’, ‘home’, ‘state’, and ‘self-determination’. The concept of a Jewish homeland is one thing; the creation and maintenance of a ‘Jewish state’, in Palestine, at the expense of its non-Jewish inhabitants, is another. The right to self-determination is never a right to colonisation, whoever is doing it.
Finally, to maintain that anti-Zionism is antisemitism is to deny the historical and contemporary reality of the Palestinians’ experience, and to dehumanise them as a people. For the Palestinians, Zionism has meant violent displacement, colonisation, and discrimination – are they ‘antisemitic’ for refusing to cheer their own dispossession? By extension, as orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor Charles H. Manekinput it recently, labelling Palestine solidarity activists as antisemitic is to imply that “the Palestinians have little justified claim to sympathy.”
Frances Webber of the Institute for Race Relations raises another concern.
“This conflation of anti-Israelism with anti-Semitism has a history … but what particularly concerns us here is the way that the definition of anti-Semitism is moving from deed to thought, from the objective to the subjective, from action to attitude.
The IRR has always maintained that it was important to distinguish between prejudices – the subjective – and the acting out of those prejudices – the objective – in discriminatory acts, physical attacks, government edicts etc. Penalising people for racist feelings or attitudes leads to thought-policing, whereas racist acts are measurable and therefore prosecutable before the law if needs be. And there are specific laws relating to incitement to race hatred, the committing of racially-motivated crimes, discrimination in provision of goods and services whether direct or indirect. But, recently, emanating in part from cultural/identity studies in academia, a kind of victimology, a subjectivism is creeping into policy. Anything that is said or might be said that upsets people, gives hurt, merely makes them uncomfortable, is becoming equated with outright discrimination and liable for a prohibitive ban.”
Webber emphasizes that causing office is not synonymous with racism.
“The conceptual flaw underlying Pickles’ definition is to equate racism with anything that gives offence. For while racism is offensive, not everything which gives offence is per se racist. Objections to cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist or paedophile are made not on grounds of their offensiveness – although they undoubtedly are – but on the grounds of the use of crude racist images to depict a religious minority as quintessentially evil. Although it might cause offence to some, it is no more inherently racist to attack Israel’s policies than it is to demand that ‘Rhodes must fall’ or to denounce US or British imperialism or these states’ complicity in torture. So Pickles’ definition not only appears to make an exception of Israel but also to close down on freedom of speech and of expression when it comes to defining what it is permissible to say about a particular country.”
What then is wrong with the new definition of antisemitism?
“Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence political debate.”
Antony Lerman goes further, arguing that perversely, the new definition actually provokes antisemitism.
“The de-coupling of the understanding of antisemitism from traditional antisemitic tropes, which thereby made criticism of Israel in and of itself antisemitic, necessarily made the opposite – support for Israel – into a touchstone for expressing sympathy with Jews. This opened the door to the phenomenon of Jewish support for far right, anti-Islam, anti-immigrant parties keen to whitewash their pasts and sanitise their anti-Muslim prejudice by expressing support for Israel and seeing the country and its Jews as the front line against Islam’s ‘incursion into Europe’. It is not surprising, therefore, that acceptance of the ‘new antisemitism’ theory has contributed to the exacerbation of tensions between Muslims and Jews in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe). There is, however, mutual pre-existing misunderstanding and mistrust, while negative images of Jews unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict are common among some Muslims.”
The children’s story of Chicken Little who thought the sky was falling in when a leaf fell on his head is pertinent. The danger is that by broadening or diluting the definition of antisemitism, people could easily become complacent and immune to genuine antisemitism and when it rears its ugly head not resist it. Brian Klug argues,
“When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing—the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance.”
Antony Lerman adds,
“Given the misery and murder that antisemitism has caused over the centuries,” … “one might expect pro-Israel groups to be more circumspect before using it indiscriminately as a political tool.” … “not everything that offends Jewish sensibilities is antisemitism”, and by labelling BDS as antisemitic, Israel advocates “are draining the word of any meaning.”
Ben White concludes,
“This politicised redefining of antisemitism should worry us all: it dehumanises Palestinians and delegitimises solidarity, imperils the fight against real antisemitism, and constitutes a much broader attackon our democracy and political freedoms.”
What is the agenda behind these accusations (against the Labour Party)?
In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are repeatedly being accused of antisemitism. Zionists know that a Labour government under Corbyn will introduce major changes to British foreign policy. Jeremy Corbyn would recognise the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders, (like most of the rest of the world – 136 out of 193 countries in 2015), and likely introduce sanctions against Israel and punish international companies profiting from the occupation.
Ben White cites Richard Kuper, spokesperson of Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP) as saying,
“there is clearly also a coordinated, willed and malign campaign to exaggerate the nature and extent of antisemitism as a stick to beat the Labour party”
Ben White observes,
“The Labour Party has more than 400 MPs and peers at Westminster, in addition to almost 7,000 local government officials and some 390,000 members. The antisemitism ‘crisis’ has involved half a dozen individuals, most of whom have either never held, or no longer hold elected office. Corbyn himself has repeatedly condemned antisemitism since becoming leader, while according to Party General Secretary Iain McNicol, everyone reported for antisemitism has been suspended or excluded.”
Ironically, a March 2018 You Gov survey found that Conservative supporters were more likely to hold racist views than Labour supporters and that evidence of antisemitism has declined in the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected as leader.
How can pro-Palestinians counter these attacks?
Repudiate all forms of racism including antisemitism, unequivocally.
Repudiate the small minority of antisemites using the Palestinian cause for their own agenda.
Cooperate with Jewish organisations committed to both repudiating antisemitism and Zionism. Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JFJFP). The Israeli Committee Against House demolitions (ICAHD). Natura Karta. Women in Black.
Remain determined to hold Israel accountable to international law for its racist policies toward Palestinians.
Continue to draw parallels between Zionist settler colonialism with the way native Americans were treated in the USA, Blacks in South Africa, the Aborigines in Australia, etc.
Are these attacks a sign of the success of the pro-Palestine lobby?
Yes. The attempt to broaden the definition of antisemitism is paralleled by the attempt to criminalise the BDS movement. This is because non-violent, peaceful activism poses the greatest threat to the Zionist cause.
“What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)
This short article, its title and questions arose from an interview with Roshan Mohammed Salih and Jonathan Rosenhead for Press TV’s ‘The Sun Will Rise’.
Five Strategies used by the Israel Lobby to silence critics. Recorded for Press TV.
Get alongside your opponent and try and turn them, buy them, befriend them, bring them on-side. If that doesn’t work, move to level 2.
Don’t like what they are saying or writing? Then bombard them with emails, letters and phone calls. Put them on the defensive. Intimidate them with accusations of anti-semitism, holocaust denial, etc. If that doesn’t work, move to level 3. Continue reading →
Photos of yesterday’s conference organised by King’s College, London & Balfour Project: 1st May 2018.
Speakers included Sir Vincent Fean (former British Counsel-General, Jerusalem), Alon Liel (former Director-General, Israeli Foreign Ministry), Ghada Karmi (Palestinian doctor, writer, Research Fellow, Exeter University), Peter Shambrook (British historian specialising in the Middle East), Leila Sansour (Palestinian film maker based in Bethlehem) and Menachem Klein Department of Political Science, Bar-Ilan University, Israel and Visiting Professor, Kings College Middle East Studies Department). Continue reading →
I wonder if you are old enough to remember the early Beatles hit, “Help”? How do the lyrics go? “Help. I need somebody. Help. Not just anybody. Help. You know I need someone. Help!” Some people view prayer that way. They only call on God when they have a problem.
Corrie ten Boom, knew the importance of prayer. She once asked the question, “Is prayer your steering wheel or your spare tyre?” While your car has both, they have very different purposes. When you are driving, your need to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times.
The steering wheel allows you to navigate and gets you to your destination safely. But the spare tyre plays a secondary role. You may never have touched the spare tyre in your car. You may not even know where it is. It is probably new and unused because it is only needed in case of an emergency.
How is your prayer life defined by this question? Is prayer like your steering wheel or a spare tyre? Does your prayer life guide you in every facet of your life? Is it something you have your hands on every waking moment of the day? Or is it like a spare tire, something you only use in times of emergency? For most of the day you forget that it’s there. You’re not even sure how to use it and find yourself struggling when you need to use it. Continue reading →