IF the Bishop of Edinburgh has the humility to reconsider his actions, he might wonder whether he has been too hasty to conflate “anti-Semitism” with a dislike of the actions of the Israeli state (“Holy row breaks out as Loach accuses Bishop of censorship” and Letters, The Herald, March 28).
Anti-Semitism, in its current (and narrow) meaning of “anti-Jewish”, implies a dislike of Jews because of their religious or ethnic background. It is irrational.
The complaint of the pro-Palestinians in contrast is in part about the behaviour of the Israeli state. That is a distinct political and legal entity, susceptible to criticism in its own name separately from the religious beliefs or racial background of the people who are its constituents.
Unless the Bishop has good reason to believe that the opportunity for discussion would be abused, he is both pusillanimous and wrong in denying the use of his church’s facilities for a topic where denial of human rights may well be a significant element.
Brian Chrystal,
55 Craiglockhart Road,
Edinburgh.
THE conclusions of human rights reports on systematic abuse against the Palestinian people by the Israeli state are very clear.
I can only assume that Edinburgh Bishop John Armes has not done his research before banning a meeting in an Edinburgh Church hall by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign over last weekend.
He feigns neutrality between two antagonists. I hope he will weigh up the evidence again and remember the words of the great cleric Rev Desmond Tutu who had the courage to make tough choices: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
Paul Laverty,
c/o Sixteen Films,
187 Wardour Street,
London.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here