Church of England cleric tells you how disgusted and sickened he is by Israel

The Rev George Pitcher is a serving cleric of the Church of England.

And this Sunday, he's been telling us that he's "almost as disgusted by the BBC as he is by Israel."

Not the Israeli government. Not the Israeli armed forces. But Israel.

Why? Here are the reasons he offers:

Chickening out of showing an appeal for charitable aid for Gaza is hardly on a scale with using white phosphorous on its civilians and shooting its children in the back of the head, but the moral weakness that the BBC exhibits in hiding behind claims to impartiality induces the same sort of nausea.

My knowledge of Christian doctrine is admittedly rudimentary, but I rather thought there was some commitment amongst its adherents to speaking (or writing) the truth, and having some regard to evidence and its quality before ascribing guilt to anyone, let alone a particular country. Here, he seems to be implying that these actions have not only taken place, but they are the systematic and deliberate policy of Israel against the population of Gaza.

Maybe he sees his stance as moral strength.

One over the top Church of England cleric might not amount to much. But the Rev. Pitcher is no ordinary cleric. He's the Religion Editor of the Daily Telegraph. As such, he's accorded a blog on the Daily Telegraph website to broadcast his views to a huge worldwide audience. One wonders what sort of principles and judgement he brings to his post as Religion Editor. 

And besides, the Church of England is an established Church--the official Church of the British state. It has huge rights of involvement in British legislation and policy consultation at every level, from the twenty six bishops with seats in the House of Lords, to the CofE-packed local area "SACRE" committees which are appointed to recommend and approve compulsory religious education programmes in all UK secular state schools. Daily religious broadcasts on BBC Radio 4 give pride of place to Church of England speakers and clerics.

Meanwhile, on the subject of using phosphorus on the citizens of Gaza, here is the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the question:

The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using the incendiary agent, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.

The International Committee of the Red Cross urged Israel to exercise "extreme caution" in using the incendiary agent, which is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks, said Peter Herby, the head of the organization's mines-arms unit.

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."

Is the Reverend Pitcher aware of the ICRC Report, or does he just reproduce atrocity stories without bothering to ask himself any questions about whether they are reliable?

As for the "shooting children in the back of the head" atrocity story, has it not occurred to the Rev. Pitcher that if it were true, there would be ample evidence through hospital records and photographs and now that the press are able to enter Gaza, any such evidence would be being trumpeted to the heavens by a press keen to publicise atrocity stories about Israel? Perhaps he got his information from this article in the Daily Telegraph. But even that article ends by stating that the accusations that Israeli soldiers shot a number of children in the head cannot be verified. And if you read the account, it's not at all clear that such shots, even if they happened, were deliberately aimed at children with intent by Israeli soldiers. Of this being in any way a deliberate policy of Israel, you will look in vain for any evidence of that, apart from routine and totally unevidenced propaganda statements from pro-Hamas supporters.

Clearly, the Rev. Pitcher isn't a man to let such cold questions of rational analysis stand in the way of such intense emotions as disgust and nausea where Israel is concerned.

However, we need not jump to the conclusion that the Rev. Pitcher is anti-semitic. After all, on his blog he has published a post expressing his admiration for the self-proclaimed pluralist, tolerant stance of the minority group of non-orthodox Jewish religious movements in the UK. So he couldn't possibly be anti-semitic when it comes to his approach to the Jewish state, could he?

Comments

[Catholic Zionist]

I don't know if this helps, but Damien Thompson (editor of the Catholic Herald) also has a religion blog at the Telegraph, and he has a much better attitude:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/01/25/the_bbc_tries_to_be_impartial_over_israel__and_look_what_happens

[nigel regan]

Israel! guilty as charged! this latest bout all stems back to the democratic election of Hamas by the Palenstinian people which neither the US nor Israel could stomach so you blockade Gaza under disguise of needing to close tunnels used by Hamas. Chicken & egg, get off the Golan Heights, get out of Gaza, restore the pre 1967 borders & you might just find the Palenstinians easier to get along with. You are the local bully on the block & like all bullies your day of reckoning will come & not too soon.

[Boris]

Churches have recovered!Israel and Christian zionism are too much for them.Once the churches of Jerusalem,later the US consil of churches have attactked both enemies.It`s the several years` fight.