http://forward.com/articles/175926/church-of-scotland-denies-jewish-claim-to-land-of/

Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jews, or any other
people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess
particular territory.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175926/church-of-scotland-denies-jewish-claim-to-land-of/#ixzz2SDWMx5u8

From Haaretz:

"[The report] reads like an Inquisition-era polemic against Jews and
Judaism," complained Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council
of Jewish Communities. "It is biased, weak on sources, and
contradictory." He accused the Church of Scotland of abandoning a
dialogue with the Jewish community and "claiming to know Judaism better
than we do."

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/church-of-scotland-jews-do-not-have-a-right-to-the-land-of-israel

Fair weather friends!

Maybe we should start a campaign in England, claiming that the Scots have no right to Scotland, thus preventing them going independent and claiming all the royalties from North Sea Oil. The referendum for Scottish independence is next year in September.

The only drawback to that is that a majority of English would happily see Scotland out of the Union.

I am sure that such a statement could be prosecuted under the race-hate legislation we have in the UK, after all there have been a couple of prosecutions this week that were successful - one for an Englishman talking about sheep-shaggers when referring to the Welsh (although he didn't mention the word 'Welsh', it was just that everyone knew who he meant) and one from a Welsh woman calling her father's mistress an English cow. These are considered race-hate crimes in the UK. It'd be like me calling ChuckD an Italian-American!

You must realise that the Church of Scotland is weird and has always been weird. But it serves a purpose - the purpose used to be to ensure all pubs were closed on Sundays, nowadays the purpose is to assert it's difference from all other churches.

I am sure that such a statement could be prosecuted under the race-hate legislation we have in the UK, after all there have been a couple of prosecutions this week that were successful - one for an Englishman talking about sheep-shaggers when referring to the Welsh (although he didn't mention the word 'Welsh', it was just that everyone knew who he meant)

I have gleaned an inking about this Scottish weirdness that you speak of ...

A little known nugget about the Church of Scotland is that they own and operate a luxury hotel (albeit not very successfully), in guess where...?

Israel.

See below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20126585

Anyway the Church of Scotland mirrors the Anglican church in its slide toward irrelevance, losing membership, attendees and the core business of baptism and marriages. A major split is possible this month over the subject of gay ministers (see below).

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/the-church-of-scotland-debates-gay-ministers-1-2903856

Bottom line: the CoS and its pronouncements really shouldn't be taken too seriously and certainly not as representing the opinion of the majority of Scots.

Church denominations in Scotland are confusing. This one is the main Presbyterian group, the Church of Scotland, not to be confused with the Scottish Episcopal Church, the United Free Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) and a few others.

Church denominations in Scotland are confusing. This one is the main Presbyterian group, the Church of Scotland, not to be confused with the Scottish Episcopal Church, the United Free Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) and a few others.

Similar to the People's Front of Judea haranguing their rivals the Judean People's Front, the Judean Popular People's Front, the Campaign for a Free Galilee, and the Popular Front of Judea as "splitters", and about as relevant to the majority of Scots!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

Stand by for another schism in the CoS as they address the issue of gay ministers later this month.

Quite bizarre in view of the Christian population of Israel increasing by 400% since 1947 and that in the rest of the middle east being in sharp decline. Perhaps the Church of Scotland want to give the Christians of Israel the chance to be ethnically cleansed, like their coreligionists in surrounding Countries.

Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jews, or any other

people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess

particular territory.

Seems like a fair comment to me, separation of Church and State, they do not single out Jews they do also say "or any other religion". If only it were so worldwide and all the zealots of all religions were removed from positions of power.

Quite bizarre in view of the Christian population of Israel increasing by 400% since 1947 and that in the rest of the middle east being in sharp decline. Perhaps the Church of Scotland want to give the Christians of Israel the chance to be ethnically cleansed, like their coreligionists in surrounding Countries.

And the Palestinians in Israel!

Only due to politicians in America, of either party, being afraid of upsetting the Jewish lobby there, the Israelis are allowed to get away with it.

Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jews, or any other

people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess

particular territory.

Seems like a fair comment to me, separation of Church and State, they do not single out Jews they do also say "or any other religion". If only it were so worldwide and all the zealots of all religions were removed from positions of power.

It's an anti-Israel comment is what it is.

Quite bizarre in view of the Christian population of Israel increasing by 400% since 1947 and that in the rest of the middle east being in sharp decline. Perhaps the Church of Scotland want to give the Christians of Israel the chance to be ethnically cleansed, like their coreligionists in surrounding Countries.

And the Palestinians in Israel!

Only due to politicians in America, of either party, being afraid of upsetting the Jewish lobby there, the Israelis are allowed to get away with it.

The Palestinians in Israel are called Israeli Arabs, they are given rights unheard of in surrounding Countries, which is in marked contrast to the treatment of Christians living in Palestinian controlled areas. Alas,the local clergy keep silent about it, probably due to fears for their own safety, which is not an excuse the church of Scotland can fall back on.

I see some posters have their selective reading blinkers on again, man up the outrage bus.

Quite bizarre in view of the Christian population of Israel increasing by 400% since 1947 and that in the rest of the middle east being in sharp decline. Perhaps the Church of Scotland want to give the Christians of Israel the chance to be ethnically cleansed, like their coreligionists in surrounding Countries.

And the Palestinians in Israel!

An ignorant statement. Most of the Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were offered Israeli citizenship, but refused. They still have the right to apply for citizenship, are entitled to municipal services, and have municipal voting rights.The Arabs who accepted citizenship vote in national elections and have the same rights as other citizens. From 1948 until the early 1970s, 800,000–1,000,000 Jews were expelled from their homes in Arab countries and lost everything..

Sorry I failed to understand.

Illegally annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, illegally building Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory, building walls to keep the Palestinians out of lands which are rightfully theirs, etc., etc.

All ok because the people whose land the Israelis stole have been offered Israeli citizenship!

I'll leave this topic to the Israeli apologists.

None of that comes close to "ethnic cleansing" and it is historically inaccurate. Hateful political rhetoric is no substitute for facts.

None of that comes close to "ethnic cleansing" and it is historically inaccurate. Hateful political rhetoric is no substitute for facts.

While an Israeli presence on the West Bank is "de facto'", on what legal grounds are they there...?

PS what happened in places such as Saliha, Deir Yassin, Lydda, and Abu Shusha, in 1948, certainly helped precipitate a self-inflicted and desired (at least by one side) ethnic cleanse...

No one is claiming that Israel is perfect, but you are referring to a major war that the Arabs started and in which the Arabs would have wiped Israel off the map if they had been victorious. Of course, the fact that the Arab leaders asked the Arabs living in Israel to leave to "make it easier to wipe out the Jews" did not help anything. In short, the Jews wanted to get rid of their enemies and they did some nasty things, but after it was over, they offered them the option to stay. Would the Arabs have done the same?

As to the West Bank, Israel took it from Jordan who had attacked Israel and it was not theirs either. It was never part of an Arab "Palestine", so who owned it? The "Palestinians" never objected to being ruled by Jordan because they were very aware that they had never had their own state. They were mostly recent immigrants from surrounding countries, just like most of the Jews were immigrants from Europe and from Arab countries that had forced them to leave. The truth is that there had been both Arabs and Jews on the same land for many years - one side did not have any more right to it than the other- but the Arabs refused the UN's peace deal, declared war on Israel and LOST. The Israelis did not "steal" anything.

Sorry I failed to understand.

Illegally annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, illegally building Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory, building walls to keep the Palestinians out of lands which are rightfully theirs, etc., etc.

All ok because the people whose land the Israelis stole have been offered Israeli citizenship!

I'll leave this topic to the Israeli apologists.

One people, one nation.

No one is claiming that Israel is perfect, but you are referring to a major war that the Arabs started and in which the Arabs would have wiped Israel off the map if they had been victorious. Of course, the fact that the Arab leaders asked the Arabs living in Israel to leave to "make it easier to wipe out the Jews" did not help anything. In short, the Jews wanted to get rid of their enemies and they did some nasty things, but after it was over, they offered them the option to stay. Would the Arabs have done the same?

As to the West Bank, Israel took it from Jordan who had attacked Israel and it was not theirs either. It was never part of an Arab "Palestine", so who owned it? The "Palestinians" never objected to being ruled by Jordan because they were very aware that they had never had their own state. They were mostly recent immigrants from surrounding countries, just like most of the Jews were immigrants from Europe and from Arab countries that had forced them to leave. The truth is that there had been both Arabs and Jews on the same land for many years - one side did not have any more right to it than the other- but the Arabs refused the UN's peace deal, declared war on Israel and LOST. The Israelis did not "steal" anything.

I think it's a war that the British and Western allies started in the late 1940s.

The British had control of the area from the end of the First World War, as the Palestine Mandate.

The authorities had dealt mainly with the wealthy (Arab) landowners, who exercised control over much of the land. The Jews were left very much on the sidelines until the late 30s, when Aliyah Alef brought in refugees legitimately from Germany and the annexed countries of Austria and Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland). At the end of the thirties and during the Second World War more refugees were brought in illegally through Aliyah Bet. This increased immediately after WWII, but was very much opposed by the (British) authorities, who were still maintaining their relationship with the remaining Arab landowners, although some of the leaders were infra dig due to their support of the Nazis during the war. But the Brits did not want to deal with the Jews. Good old-fashioned upper-class prejudice. This had to change, of course, in 1948 when the state of Israel was recognised by the majoity of the UN.

The British had control of the area from the end of the First World War, as the Palestine Mandate.

The authorities had dealt mainly with the wealthy (Arab) landowners, who exercised control over much of the land. The Jews were left very much on the sidelines until the late 30s, when Aliyah Alef brought in refugees legitimately from Germany and the annexed countries of Austria and Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland). At the end of the thirties and during the Second World War more refugees were brought in illegally through Aliyah Bet. This increased immediately after WWII, but was very much opposed by the (British) authorities, who were still maintaining their relationship with the remaining Arab landowners, although some of the leaders were infra dig due to their support of the Nazis during the war. But the Brits did not want to deal with the Jews. Good old-fashioned upper-class prejudice. This had to change, of course, in 1948 when the state of Israel was recognised by the majoity of the UN.

As a side note 48 British officers took extended leave in order to fight alongside the Jordanians during the 1948 war of independence. The RAF flew reconnaissance missions on a daily basis from Egyptian airfields.

The British had control of the area from the end of the First World War, as the Palestine Mandate.

The authorities had dealt mainly with the wealthy (Arab) landowners, who exercised control over much of the land. The Jews were left very much on the sidelines until the late 30s, when Aliyah Alef brought in refugees legitimately from Germany and the annexed countries of Austria and Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland). At the end of the thirties and during the Second World War more refugees were brought in illegally through Aliyah Bet. This increased immediately after WWII, but was very much opposed by the (British) authorities, who were still maintaining their relationship with the remaining Arab landowners, although some of the leaders were infra dig due to their support of the Nazis during the war. But the Brits did not want to deal with the Jews. Good old-fashioned upper-class prejudice. This had to change, of course, in 1948 when the state of Israel was recognised by the majoity of the UN.

As a side note 48 British officers took extended leave in order to fight alongside the Jordanians during the 1948 war of independence. The RAF flew reconnaissance missions on a daily basis from Egyptian airfields.

I presume you are referring to the British officers who made up the operational command of Transjordan's highly effective Arab Legion, the only competent, well-equipped, well-led Arab formation in the late 1940's.

In the spirit of source "directioning" have a read of this excellent account of the tangled nature of late 1940's realpolitik in the Middle East.

http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/diplomacy/Shlaim,%20Britain%20and%20the%20Arab%20Israeli%20War%20of%201948.pdf

In a nutshell the British clearly signalled to Haganah prior to the conflict that British priorities were concentrated on creating a "Greater Transjordan" at the expense of the assigned Palestinian Arab territory and that they had no intention of moving on to Israeli designated territory as per the 1948 partition agreement. Hence the successful push into the West bank by Glubb's Arab Legion and their relatively civilised approach to prisoners in comparison to the rabble, Arab irregulars, explains why the Jewish defenders of the Old City, sought out the Arab Legion to surrender to.

Re air bases in Egypt, Britain had also secured airbases in Transjordan as part of the independence agreement with Transjordan in 1946 (plus financing, training and commanding the Arab Legion), and had extensive air bases in iraq having established the Hashemite dynasty there post WW1, and crushed nationalistic uprisings in the meantime, often with air delivered chemical weapons. The joys of colonial policing.....

Recce flights from Egypt almost ended in tears when the Israelis shot down a handful of Spitfires, almost provoking a more direct British intervention in the campaign.

Meanwhile the Church of Scotland fulminates and in the meantime sells expensive stays in its Tiberias boutique hotel. God and mammon, a winning combination....

I don't think Stephen Hawking would think much of the Church of Scotland, but he doesn't think much of Israeli treatment of Palestinians either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-israel-academic-boycott

I'm not sure what Hawking's opinion has to do with anything, but he was mistaken about the Black Hole Paradox too.

I have gleaned an inking about this Scottish weirdness that you speak of ...

Hey that's not fair!

T'was the English who gave the world black pudding.

I have gleaned an inking about this Scottish weirdness that you speak of ...

Hey that's not fair!

T'was the English who gave the world black pudding.

One of our greater culinary creations. The Scots competed with haggis, then put salt on porridge, instead of honey.

And that was a terrible shock when I was stationed at RAF Leuchars. I wandered into the mess at some ungodly hour and had SALTED PORRIDGE dumped in front of me! Yeeeeuuggggghh!!

(But ive eaten it that way ever since). I was on dawn-to-dusk duties on 275 squadron (air-sea rescue helicopters) and in the winter that was a good duty, although we had to pick walkers and climbers off the mountains almost every day. But in summer it was a one-in-the-morning until midnight duty and that was not good. Then it was pulling people out of the North Sea, when they had been swept away from St Andrews beaches.

(Except on Sundays, of course, when the Church of Scotland frowned deeply on any activity other than going to the local kirk)

(Fortunately, being an English sassenach, I could drop into St Mikes hotel on a Sunday, as a traveller, and drink all day)

I have gleaned an inking about this Scottish weirdness that you speak of ...

Hey that's not fair!

T'was the English who gave the world black pudding.

One of our greater culinary creations. The Scots competed with haggis, then put salt on porridge, instead of honey.

And that was a terrible shock when I was stationed at RAF Leuchars. I wandered into the mess at some ungodly hour and had SALTED PORRIDGE dumped in front of me! Yeeeeuuggggghh!!

(But ive eaten it that way ever since). I was on dawn-to-dusk duties on 275 squadron (air-sea rescue helicopters) and in the winter that was a good duty, although we had to pick walkers and climbers off the mountains almost every day. But in summer it was a one-in-the-morning until midnight duty and that was not good. Then it was pulling people out of the North Sea, when they had been swept away from St Andrews beaches.

(Except on Sundays, of course, when the Church of Scotland frowned deeply on any activity other than going to the local kirk)

(Fortunately, being an English sassenach, I could drop into St Mikes hotel on a Sunday, as a traveller, and drink all day)

Now they are moving all of the planes to Lossiemouth and filling up the local pubs with squaddies!

We live in terrible times.....

The British had control of the area from the end of the First World War, as the Palestine Mandate.

The authorities had dealt mainly with the wealthy (Arab) landowners, who exercised control over much of the land. The Jews were left very much on the sidelines until the late 30s, when Aliyah Alef brought in refugees legitimately from Germany and the annexed countries of Austria and Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland). At the end of the thirties and during the Second World War more refugees were brought in illegally through Aliyah Bet. This increased immediately after WWII, but was very much opposed by the (British) authorities, who were still maintaining their relationship with the remaining Arab landowners, although some of the leaders were infra dig due to their support of the Nazis during the war. But the Brits did not want to deal with the Jews. Good old-fashioned upper-class prejudice. This had to change, of course, in 1948 when the state of Israel was recognised by the majoity of the UN.

My bolding: So to be clear: illegal immigration to Palestine in the '40s was a good thing, but illegal immigration to the UK now is a bad thing. Right?

From JT's original posts, the most objectionable view of the Church of Scotland, which he found deserving of specific quotation:

Quote

Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jews, or any other

people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess

particular territory.

so I assume that JT believes Jews, and any other people, may make a claim for divine privilege to territory, and that Christians should support them. Is that correct? Personally, I don't see God as the grantor of territorial claims and I would concur with the Church of Scotland on this one. The right to exist for the state of Israel is a matter of temporal politics, not theology

SC

Quote

The right to exist for the state of Israel is a matter of temporal politics, not theology

SC

I've always thought it was a gigantic political mistake, too, though now that it exists, the West has to give it a certain amount of support. Israel is after all part of the Western power bloc. The theological argument is the ONLY justification for putting Israel where it is and not somewhere else. Surrounding a Jewish state with potentially militant Arabs has to be the idea of a genius!

And before JT and UG jump on me, I'm not anti-Jewish at all! I just don't think the location of a Jewish state where it is was politically very bright.