Comments: General Synod: Tuesday

Who is pushing divestment?

In 2002 this article appeared in a Christian web site in Nazareth, a site not noted for its support of Israel, Anglican Bishop Abu Asal openly endorses suicide bombers.

Now we read that Bishop Abu El-Assel is a moving force behing Anglican divestment from Israel.,,2-2028504,00.html

Should questions be asked about the motivations of those pushing for divestment?

Posted by Diana at Tuesday, 7 February 2006 at 5:39pm GMT

No. Perhaps we should question instead the motives of Christian Zionists who support illegal occupation of another country.

Posted by Merseymike at Wednesday, 8 February 2006 at 12:59am GMT

Well it is clear that questions should be asked of what Bishop Abu El-Assel was actually saying in the speech, ie: what was the occasion, purpose and context of it and what was the full text etc (although, from a universalist perspective, from the quotes, he wasn't saying anything untrue - 'martyrs' of whatever religious or political pursuasion like everyone else will finally be with the Lord for eternity).

The link you gave to the Nazareth website clearly states he was speaking about Arab Christians:

"Bishop Abu Asal was speaking about the Christian Arabs and their unique role through History within the Arab World. The lecture was given in the Arab Anglican Episcopalian Center in Ramallah."

Why do you translate that as "endorses suicide bombers"? Are there many Arab Christian suicide bombers?

And then you use this one man's quote out of context to generalize by putting a question-mark over the motivations of all 'those pushing for divestment'.

Are you thinking of anyone else pro-divestment in particular who might be motivated by a wish to see Israelis blown up? Or are you implying that all pro-divestment Anglicans have suspect motivations?

Posted by Augustus Meriwether at Wednesday, 8 February 2006 at 10:42am GMT

Is anyone else bothered by the *qualitative distinction* drawn between Palestinian suicide-bombers, and Israeli air-fired missiles (or tank rounds)?

*Both* are trying to solve problems using violence.

*Both* using human-killing weapons via the delivery systems they have available.

*Both* methods of violence theoretically targeted (even the entirely pro-Israel U.S. media occasionally reports "the bus system is frequented by Israeli soldiers"), but *practically indiscriminate*.

In short, both sides are reprehensible (and Anglicans shouldn't materially support them---while they are war-making---in the least) . . .

. . . but *one side* is occupying the other. *One side* has the discretionary power-to-make-peace (which would then---and only then---challenge the other to "put up or shut up". Israel: *withdraw to your 1967 borders*. It is the ONLY way to peace).

I support the CofE GS decision.

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Thursday, 9 February 2006 at 11:42pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.