Jewish Board of Deputies’ demands


by Sunny
24th September, 2009 at 8:38 pm    

According to Martin Bright in the Jewish Chronicle:

Also this week, the Board of Deputies has called on the government to impose strict conditions on Muslim groups wishing to engage with Whitehall. But [Communities minister John] Denham was resistant to taking a hardline view on groups advocating violence outside UK territory.

He confirmed he would be setting up a panel from the religious communities to advise on interfaith issues.

This sounds very peculiar. What are these conditions? Anyone know? I’d like to see what conditions are being demanded and whether those conditions then apply across the board with respect to all communities, not just Muslims.

On the face of it, it looks like the JBOD is only going to make any inter-faith dialogue more difficult if it is demanding that specific conditions of engagement apply to Muslims but not anyone else. That’s called discrimination.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Muslim,Organisations,Race politics






39 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Reza — on 24th September, 2009 at 9:00 pm  

    “…if it is demanding that specific conditions of engagement apply to Muslims but not anyone else. That’s called discrimination.”

    Not discrimination. Just rational, commonsense.

    The only religious ‘groups’ here who condone or even advocate their members to take up arms against British soldiers overseas are found among Muslim groups.

    The “strict conditions” I would most like to see is the proper application of our laws on treason.

  2. fugstar — on 24th September, 2009 at 9:34 pm  

    who is more ridiculous by virtue of hiring ideotic, arrogant and worthless soas students? JC or Qwillyam?

    john denham would eat them for brekfast. about time CLG got a minister with discernment and social awareness beyond white liberality.

  3. Katy Newton — on 24th September, 2009 at 10:35 pm  

    It’s just a suggestion, but shouldn’t you actually find out what conditions the BOD has asked for before you start accusing them of discrimination? Because otherwise I think what you’re doing is called “speculation”.

  4. Draman — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:42 pm  

    You’re right Sunny, this article in the same newspaper is even more alarming:

    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/board-muslim-council-britain-must-be-boycotted-until-reform

  5. Random Guy — on 25th September, 2009 at 12:07 am  

    Just read the article. On initial reading, the suggestion by the Jewish Board of Deputies is comedic at best, and provocative at worst. As an attempt to correlate “Islamism” with Anti-Semitism instead of Anti-Zionism, its just another way to stifle important debate.

    Ah well, good to know where they stand I guess. The least they can do is publicise what their strict conditions are. Anyone have this information?

  6. Sunny — on 25th September, 2009 at 2:43 am  

    Reza it doesn’t suprise me that you find discrimination as rational, common sense.

  7. Ben — on 25th September, 2009 at 4:48 am  

    “…if it is demanding that specific conditions of engagement apply to Muslims but not anyone else. That’s called discrimination…”

    Nonsense.

    The British Government has never engaged or tried to engage with Jewish groups that advocate violence abroad. So there is no need for the JBOD to campaign that they continue with this policy. But there are many voices, Sunny’s included, who want dialogue between HMG and the Islamist bombers and killers of Hamas.

    Furthermore, there are no Jewish groups that advocate violence in the UK. It’s insulting and disingenuous for Sunny to demand that the JBOD pretend that there are such.

  8. DavidMWW — on 25th September, 2009 at 8:32 am  

    I’d like to see what conditions are being demanded and whether those conditions then apply across the board with respect to all communities, not just Muslims.

    Do you have any evidence which suggests that the proposed conditions will apply exclusively to Muslim groups?

  9. Draman — on 25th September, 2009 at 8:40 am  

    “The British Government has never engaged or tried to engage with Jewish groups that advocate violence abroad. So there is no need for the JBOD to campaign that they continue with this policy. ”

    So condoning and supporting the violent, and illegal actions of the Israel Defence Force is not advocationg violence abroad? Holding receptions for Israeli ministers including the rabid anti-Muslim Lieberman is OK then is it?

  10. falcao — on 25th September, 2009 at 9:10 am  

    I see, i wonder what the The Board of Deputies of British Jews stance is regarding the violent israeli state. Which engages in levelling whole towns and cities killing women and children!

  11. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 9:10 am  

    Draman & falcao

    I’m not going to waste my time getting into the rights and wrongs of the Israeli situation with you. But here your attempts at moral equivilism are feeble and irrelevant.

    Britain is a supporter of Israel. And neither Jews (British or otherwise), nor Israelis are fighting British soldiers anywhere.

    If the situation were different then yes, it would be wrong for the government to engage with Jewish groups that condoned or promoted attacks on British soldiers.

    I’d go further. The members of those Jewish groups ought to be prosecuted for treason and thrown in jail.

    Exactly as should be the case for the Muslim groups that are treasonously condoning and advocating attacks on British soldiers.

    So you see Sunny, I don’t discriminate.

    And unlike your intellectually bankrupt moral equivilism, there is complete rationality in my world view.

    @Ben

    Well said. However, you’ll find that moral equivilists don’t allow simple facts to detract them from their wretched world view.

  12. falcao — on 25th September, 2009 at 9:31 am  

    reza

    your argument is childish and stupid the israeli state has been accused of committing war crimes and you say oh its ok as long as those war crimes don’t have british victims lets hug them with open arms!

  13. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 9:47 am  

    @ facao

    I say no such thing. It is perfectly appropriate for our government to condemn the Israeli actions it chooses to condemn. Which it regularly does, as well as, obviously, condemning the war crimes of the Palestinians.

    However, as long as Israel is a diplomatic friend of Britain, and as long as Jewish groups that support Israel are not advocating attacking British interests then there is no legitimate reason as to why the British government should not engage with those groups.

    Some Muslim groups here ARE condoning or even advocating attacks on British interests. They openly support RECOGNISED terrorist* organizations.

    And that is treason, pure and simple. Not only should the government refuse to engage with them, their members should be jailed.

    *(Please don’t waste my time by arguing that Israel is a ‘terrorist organization’ because it isn’t recognized as such by the British government, nor most of the civilized world. Regardless of how much the far left and the Islamists say it is.)

  14. Draman — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:19 am  

    Oh Reza, where do I start. You’re talking about British interests? Before I begin to engage with your more tiresome points, answer this. Since you are in the business of condemning those who threaten British interests, do you condemn the founder of Israel who attacked and killed British soldiers in the 1930 and 1940s? Do you also think it is right for British Jews to enlist in the army of a foreign power (the IDF)?

  15. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:31 am  

    Draman

    “…do you condemn the founder of Israel who attacked and killed British soldiers in the 1930 and 1940s? ”

    Of course I do. At that time he was clearly an enemy of this country. And any British citizen supporting him was guilty of treason.

    “Do you also think it is right for British Jews to enlist in the army of a foreign power…”

    No. It is wrong. I would like to see it proscribed by British law. However, it does not change the salient issues here.

    A little time ago, our government discovered what I and many other rational people who understand Islamism have known for a long time: That some of the Muslim ‘groups’ they were talking to, supported attacks on British interests and also supported RECOGNISED terrorist organisations.

    Therefore, under those circumstances, they must not be engaged with.

    Bash Israel all you want. It really makes no difference what you choose to believe. Israel is not a RECOGNISED terrorist organisation. Jewish groups do not support attacks on British interests.

    How can you not see the difference?

  16. resistor — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:47 am  

    ‘Bash Israel all you want. It really makes no difference what you choose to believe. Israel is not a RECOGNISED terrorist organisation.’

    It is by me

  17. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:48 am  

    “Since you are in the business of condemning those who threaten British interests, do you condemn the founder of Israel who attacked and killed British soldiers in the 1930 and 1940s?”

    Talking of which, anyone else notice how netanyahu was allowed into the country without a peep after openly celebrating the king david hotel attacks in 2006 ? That’s glorifying terror which last time I checked is illegal. Odd how the sun didn’t have a picture of him on the cover branding him a ‘preacher of hate’ or some such, demanding his arrest.

  18. chairwoman — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:58 am  

    May I suggest, Sunny, that you actually buy the print version of the JC?

  19. Sunny — on 25th September, 2009 at 1:10 pm  

    o you have any evidence which suggests that the proposed conditions will apply exclusively to Muslim groups?

    That is what the wording suggests.

    And this is what I’m assuming they demanded:
    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/board-muslim-council-britain-must-be-boycotted-until-reform

    And I think it’s a bit lame of them to be honest.

  20. cjcjc — on 25th September, 2009 at 1:23 pm  

    Are there many non-Muslim groups which might fail to meet the conditions?

  21. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 1:42 pm  

    Sunny

    The MCB were caught out supporting a terrorist organization which was recognized as such by the British government.

    The fact that you, and the sundry far-left Trots and Islamists believe that the JBD’s support for Israel is somehow equivalent is irrelevant here.

    Those views are not government policy.

    And the government acts according to its policy and not according to the pathetic moral equivilism of individuals.

  22. marvin — on 25th September, 2009 at 2:44 pm  

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article727952.ece

    Nearly two fifths (37 per cent) believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”. Moreover, only 52 per cent think that the state of Israel has the right to exist, with 30 per cent disagreeing, a big minority. One in six of all Muslims questioned thinks suicide bombings can sometimes be justified in Israel, though many fewer (7 per cent) say the same about Britain. This is broadly comparable to the number justifying suicide attacks in ICM and YouGov polls of British Muslims after the July 7 attacks.

    So of course Sunny’s hypothetical gripe (!) is that it’s well racist…. against Muslims…. to focus on Muslim groups saying bad things about Jews…

  23. marvin — on 25th September, 2009 at 2:52 pm  

    I suspect the terribly racist conditions would include prohibitions on the supporting of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah… A tricky one for many in the liberal commentariat, let alone religiously inspired ‘brotherhood’…

  24. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 3:04 pm  

    Very well put marvin.

  25. Sunny — on 25th September, 2009 at 3:39 pm  

    Nearly two fifths (37 per cent) believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”.

    Actually, this kind of stupid thinking infects you two as well – who are happy to target all Muslims for behaviour they are not collectively responsible for.

    You’re justifying discrimination on the basis that one group is collectively responsible… which is what the people in the survey are doing.

    But I suspect that sort of irony is lost on you two.

  26. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 25th September, 2009 at 3:56 pm  

    I agree with marvin, his friends in the JDL, kahane chai and temple mount faithful would likely be exempted.

  27. chairwoman — on 25th September, 2009 at 4:42 pm  

    Did you read the whole piece Sunny?

    I am sure that I read something about the majority of Muslims not being extremists and horrified by those that are. I’m sorry not to be able to give you chapter and verse but I’ve already passed my JC on to a friend :) .

  28. Sunny — on 25th September, 2009 at 5:16 pm  

    Hi chairwoman,

    I saw this piece, which mentions what they said:
    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/board-muslim-council-britain-must-be-boycotted-until-reform

    I don’t find that very encouraging at all. It’s not for the JBOD to dictate who the govt should speak to or not and what their ideological backgrounds are.

    But the full evidence they gave is not yet available. The JC found it by writing directly to the House of Commons, and I believe the JBOD resisted giving them the text of that evidence. I’m trying to get hold of it too.

  29. marvin — on 25th September, 2009 at 5:23 pm  

    Actually, this kind of stupid thinking infects you two as well – who are happy to target all Muslims for behaviour they are not collectively responsible for.

    Would it be immoral for Stonewall to target ‘all Muslims’ in a battle with homophobia, seeing as a recent survey, for the Guardian, out of 500~ Muslims participants, zero said homosexuality were ever morally acceptable. That’s 0.00%. The. Guardian.

    You’d happily target ALL Tories or any other political or ideological group if that figure even approached 5%!

    Why ring fence religious groups?! Would you ringfence Christian groups from ‘demands’ about Jewish concerns?

  30. Shatterface — on 25th September, 2009 at 5:42 pm  

    I’d like to ringfence all religious nutjobs.

    The higher the fence the better.

  31. Sunny — on 25th September, 2009 at 6:11 pm  

    Would it be immoral for Stonewall to target ‘all Muslims’ in a battle with homophobia, seeing as a recent survey, for the Guardian, out of 500~ Muslims participants, zero said homosexuality were ever morally acceptable. That’s 0.00%. The. Guardian.

    Still justifying your discrimination I see marvin. The survey said most Muslims found homosexuality unacceptable within Islam. It doesn’t naturally follow they then want to kill all homosexuals or are all homophobic.

    I know you’re a bit slow sometimes. But let’s say that I’m not particularly religious. Which I’m not. That doesn’t mean I hate people who are religious – they just choose to be different.

    When you say Stonewall should “target” them – what do you suggest? Lynching them? Forcing them all to accept homosexuality and whip them until they do?

    You’d happily target ALL Tories or any other political or ideological group if that figure even approached 5%!

    Target in what way? There is rampant racism within the Tory party. But shock horror – I have friends who work at the Tory party! And no I don’t go around advocating locking them all up because so many are racist. You don’t have any coherent point to make, do you?

  32. grapesoda — on 25th September, 2009 at 9:38 pm  

    British board of deputy jews need to shut their mouth, they are bunch of hypocrites they support a racist war criminal nation in israel, and then they have the nerve to tell the british government who is ok on their list of approved muslim groups!

  33. chairwoman — on 25th September, 2009 at 10:40 pm  

    “British board of deputy jews need to shut their mouth, they are bunch of hypocrites they support a racist war criminal nation in israel, and then they have the nerve to tell the british government who is ok on their list of approved muslim groups!”

    Feel better now?

  34. damon — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:57 am  

    I’ve missed it if it’s been discussed on Pickled Politics before, but the link from the Times that Marvin did which had the figure that 37% of Muslims believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target is pretty shocking, if true.

    Not something to be glossed over.
    My feeling is (because I want to believe so) is that this is an exaggeration, or a flawed poll, or the question asked to get this figure of 37% was a leading one.

    I don’t like the Harry’s Place way of talking about issues like this, but if that figure was anywhere near the truth, I’d think that Sunny’s response to Marvin @ 25 was somewhat unfair.

    That’s a big ‘if’ though, because I can’t believe that figure.

  35. chairwoman — on 26th September, 2009 at 9:46 am  

    damon – judging by the abuse heaped on me and the other Jewish Picklers by certain Muslim Picklers over the last year I would say that, unfortunately, the figure’s pretty accurate.

    I would estimate that a third of all social and ethnic groups are basically mindless idiots with their own prejudices. Why should Muslims be any different?

  36. mindthegap — on 26th September, 2009 at 12:23 pm  

    the cheek of board of deputies what are they the government in power all of a sudden? If any religious group said ok ban the board of deputies because they are pro Israel and defend the israeli state even when they bomb the living crap out of gaza there would be outcry of anti Semitism within 3 seconds flat!

  37. chairwoman — on 26th September, 2009 at 1:31 pm  

    Any group or individual can ask the Government to do anything. The Government is there to listen and make a sensible decision.

    When the Government acts then you can start foaming at the mouth.

    Meanwhile I suggest you read the whole 2 page spread before you have a hissy fit.

  38. thabet — on 1st October, 2009 at 12:43 pm  

    I am unlikely to agree on the views of the BoD wrt Palestine-Israeli conflict, or their broader political views, but charges that they are “telling the government” are silly.

    AFAICS, they are submitting their view to a parliamentary committee — something which they are perfectly entitled to do:
    http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/clg/clgpn090721pve.cfm

    The MCB also made a submission (as reported by the JC).

    Perhaps all those people screaming their heads off should have taken the time their own research and document the evidence and send it in to the committee…

  39. thabet — on 1st October, 2009 at 12:46 pm  

    On a different note altogether, I see the House of Commons is still using Word 2003.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.