Harry's Place

Crowley is well-respected in the Christian Identity movement, a racist and antisemitic Christian cult popular in the USA (more on this here)./i>

Popular in the USA? Give me a break! According to the site you linked, the Christian Identity movement is estimated to have 25,000 to 50,000 members in a country with a population of 300 million. And, I have never heard of Crowley nor his posse.

Can anyone explain how

a. A TV station supported by a state that regularly calls for ” Death to the UK ” can be allowed to operate in this country ?

b. Any British citizen can have the nerve to either give credence to their views or worse, take money for doing their bidding considering the true nature of the Iranian regime ?

I would imagine that these same people would have been quite happy to appear on Nazi radio in the 1930’s had they had the chance.

” Gee Adolf thanks for the cash but could you tone down the anti-Jewish stuff people might think you’re serious and you know that Lord Reith’s always misquoting you “

You’re right that Christian Identity represents a very small minority of Americans. Nevertheless, people within this movement are influencing Christians from more respectable traditions such as the CoE, which is evident in Rev Sizer citing Crowley on Press TV. Sizer is considered by many as the de facto world expert on Christian Zionism.

Nevertheless, people within this movement are influencing Christians from more respectable traditions such as the CoE, which is evident in Rev Sizer citing Crowley on Press TV.

There is nothing influential about the CI movement unless you are already rolling around in the mud, so to speak.

Of course, but Sizer then presents his views in the mainstream. Many people don’t consciously who don’t roll around in the mud are still heavily influenced by Sizer.

*Many people who don’t consciously roll around in the mud

^^ that should read

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/09/alan-hart-the-face-of-genteel-british-an/index.shtml

Alan Hart was the British journalist who wrote that if fellow journalist Alan Johnston were killed by his Gaza captors, it must have been the Israelis who did it (see the links).

The Reverend Dr Stephen Sizer, PhD is an antisemite – period.

I don’t know who writes “Seismic Shock” – but whoever it is, thank you, you do a fantastic job

Mike Gravel was a well respected if fringe element candidate for the far left in the 2008 election.

I came across a new USA Jew Hate broadcast phenomena from an Irish Catholic perspective. The host and caller both supported the notion that a Protestant/Zionist plot controls everything and that it is against the Catholics.

I then heard the caller praise that a tiny IRA brought the British Govy to a defeat and so a few American Irish boyhos could certainly re-claim America from this grip.

ie British Govt defeat meant Protestant/Zionist defeat.

They were also very Holocaust Denial and couldn’t understand the furore over the Bishop re-instated by the Pope. “Only 200 – 300 thousand Jews were gassed”

It seems to me that minority antisemites get maximum publicity?

Reason? Because closet antisemites can use the Useful Idiots for the ‘no smoke without fire’ argument

I came across a new USA Jew Hate broadcast phenomena from an Irish Catholic perspective.

Where do you find this crap??

I think it’s time for a HarrysPlace visit to Christ Church,Christ Church Road, Virginia Water, Surrey, GU25 4LD, England

.. one sunday mornng ….

a racist and antisemitic Christian cult popular in the USA

Sure it is, only in the sense that “popular” means an incredibly miniscule fringe group that most people in the USA have never heard of.

They are a crazy group that have spawned murderous pyschopaths like Eric Rudolph, yes, but popular? Only if the word has no meaning.

Where do you find this crap??

My guess would be something like Republican Radio, American Freedom Network or Alex Jones. I hear stuff like that all the time. I haven’t checked but these sort of people are probably somewhere in an ADL file

This post seems malicious though not perhaps to a website (”Seismic Shock”), set up partly to hound Stephen Sizer .He quotes this person when citing claims to numbers (having been asked about numbers)of followers of Christian Zionism- a movement he has rigorously exposed through his research and work.Whatever else Stephen Sizer may hold views on- a holocaust denying priest sympathiser he is not.Smearing him in such a way is appalling, perhaps one further tactic in the battle to bring him down- when all other tactics fail.

cath,

He quotes this person when citing claims to numbers

Maybe he shouldn’t be citing this person at all, then?

Now, I was the one who above said that Christian Identity is in no way, shape or form, popular in the U.S.

Having said that, if that is the the well Mr. Sizer is going to for research on anything, it deserves to be noted, condemned and exposed.

If he is so reputable, shouldn’t he be able to (and more than that, shouldn’t he want to) cite someone who isn’t a member of a group of psychotic white supremacist, abortion clinic bombers/murderers?

That he chose to do so speaks volumes, and nothing good.

In what country does the PRESS TV operate from?

On another, more obvious note, amongst the least credible critic of Zionism, colonialism or “empire” is the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, an organization that has stated it is the representative of Allah on earth with an expansionist ideology based on exporting the “revolution.”

That certain individuals take the opportunity to foment anti-Zionism/anti-colonialism/anti-imperialism on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s house organ speaks to the bankruptcy of the purveyor (not necessarily the merits of specific arguments) of those views.

Can anyone explain how a TV station supported by a state that regularly calls for ” Death to the UK ” can be allowed to operate in this country?

It’s a metaphor. By “death to the UK” they actually mean, a peaceful, Islamic, natural end to the UK. No death involved actually.

“cath palasz”, this piece, like others on Seismic Shock, is not a smear. It raises legitimate questions of concern about a Christian minister who associates with holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis and whose anti-Israel fanaticism extends to visceral prejudice. As to whether he has “exposed” Christian Zionism: Christian Zionists are hardly secretive. Sizer demonises Christian Zionism and exaggerates its influence as part of his fanatical propagandising against the Jewish state.

You suggest that it is OK to investigate or “expose” Christian Zionists, but not to investigate the connections between a Christian minister and racist extremists, dissemblers and hate-mongers. Bad luck: the resurgence of Christian anti-Semitism will continue to be challenged by anti-racists.

Why Alan? What goes on there?

Israelinurse

It is the church where the Reverend Dr Stephen Sizer, PhD and antisemite, is the Vicar ……

I can’t say whether or not Rev. Sizer is an antisemite, but there appears no doubt that he cited antisemitic and white supremacist literature in pursuit of his argument against Israeli policy. This happens a lot:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1856

Cath, I would ask you to apply the same dispassionate self-analysis that you *are* capable of:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1192#

Here was Judy’s post (slightly edited) on a previous thread about Sizer

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/12/09/is-the-reverend-doctor-sizer-an-islamophobe/
(Dec 2008)

“Don’t know whether Sizer is an Islamophobe or not. He’s certainly a down the line anti-semite. Melanie Phillips wrote this summary of his attitudes towards Jews and his anti-Israel diatribes back in February 2002. I can’t imagine his attitudes haven’t got even more off the wall since then:

“Sizer is a leading crusader against Christian Zionism. He believes that God’s promises to the Jews have been inherited by Christianity, including the land of Israel.

He acknowledges that Israel has the right to exist since it was established by a United Nations resolution. But he also says it is ‘fundamentally an apartheid state because it is based on race,’ and ‘even worse than south Africa’ (this despite the fact that Israeli Arabs have the vote, they are members of the Knesset and one is even a Supreme Court judge).

He therefore hopes Israel will go the same way as South Africa under apartheid, ‘brought to an end internally by the rising up of the people’. So despite saying he supports Israel’s existence, he appears to want the Jewish state to be singled out for a fate afforded to no other democracy properly constituted under international law.

But perhaps this is not surprising given his attitude towards Jews. ‘ The covenant between Jews and God’, he states, ‘was conditional on their respect for human rights. The reason they were expelled from the land was that they were more interested in money and power and treated the poor and aliens with contempt’. Today’s Jews, it appears, are no better. ‘In the United States, politicians dare not criticise Israel because half the funding for both the Democrats and the Republicans comes from Jewish sources’. ”

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000765.html ”

On the same thread ClapHammer wrote: “Perhaps a delegation of possible converts should be dispatched to the Church of Perpetual Virginity, Surrey, to listen attentively to one of his sermons.”

And David Hirsh wrote:

“Sizer has form:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=259 ”

And ami wrote:

“From this comment on seismicshock, it seems the faith moves are more the other way:

Just for the record, the “reverend” Garth Hewitt is not an Anglican Bishop. He’s an “Honorary Canon” of St George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem. Ibrahim [Ibrahim Hewitt, chairman of Interpal] is Garth’s nephew!! He must be a VERY proud uncle! He is a Minister of the “Gospel”, whose nephew has converted to a radical form of Islam. .

see this link from seismic, where the author expresses concern with Sizer’s association with Islamic ministries. From this link, it seems Sizer is a very busy bee in those circles.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7831429/Stephen-Sizer-The-Theological-AntiZionist-Crusade “

I am battleworn but feel I have to return to the frontline about these unspeakble Holocaust deniers that have been re-embraced in the Church. Holocausts or no haulocasts, they knew exactly what was happening to the Jews in Germany and Italy. The pope was born in 1927 so must have been about 15 in 1940. Toward the end of the war he was conscripted in to the army.

On my way from shopping this evening I stopped in a Bar and sat down to read a magazine called Oggi. LIke a fool I didn’t take down the details, dates, names, but it must have been one the latest issues, as it featured remembrance day.

In it I saw a picture of a large happy picture of Jews celebrating the Sabbath. The patriarch of the family was 80 years old, a survivo of the concentration camps. For many, many years he has been unable to speak about his experiences and told his children that the number branded on his arm was a telephone number. So I am inclined to believe what he says. He was fifteen years old when his family were sent to concentration camp, and apart from his parents had two younger sisters with him. The SS had his younger sister torn to pieces by a dog for their amusement, while the older sister had to watch.Frankly, I would rather have gone into a gas chamber Later the boy saw newborn Jewish babies being thrown up into the air for traget practice. all his family were killed immediately – it must have been during the later part of the war. The boy escaped because a French doctor did not inject him with cyanide as he was supposed to. I didn’t read the rest of the article, as I was in a state of shock, but the boy must have escaped and has lived to a ripe old age.

Those priests who have been gathered back into the fold,quibbling about gas chambers, should hang their heads in shame and be whipped out of the Catholic church. If the German pope does not do this, he is a criminal himself.

No wonder an English priest who availed himself of the sexual services of a male prostitute, who was a friend of mine, wanted to play at black mass to get himself sexually aroused.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/12/09/is-the-reverend-doctor-sizer-an-islamophobe/

Please see the December thread on Sizer.

Especially the comments by Judy, David Hirsh and ami

I made some corrections of dates and ages, but I had to write this bleeding letter 3 times over as it kept disappearing, so I grew impatient and sent it as it was, without corections.

Felix

I am going to raise merry hell about Bishop Richard Williamson (Holocaust Denier) at an event this week at which very senior Catholics will be present.

The extreme disgustingness of the acts which we all know happened in the Holocaust and which Felix described is breath stopping. For a while after reading about them you cannot believe that even nazis could be so cruel.

But it does explain why so many lefties want to reclassify nazis and the bnp as right-wing and far-right when they were and are socialists and therefore of the left.

Why are lefties not similarly ashamed of the record of russian communism (56 million slaughtered) and chinese communism (93 million slaughtered)?

Quite apart from being unsavory, Crowley’s old-fashioned christian anti-semitism is highly unusual for a supporter of the US christian right, which has been consistently pro-Israel, purportedly for millenarian reasons but due more, I suspect, to ingrained hostility to Arabs and Muslims. Surely the real scandal is that the ‘decent left’ stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the Pat Robertson’s of this world in its increasingly morally untenable support for Israel.

Surely the real scandal is that the ‘decent left’ stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the Pat Robertson’s of this world in its increasingly morally untenable support for Israel.

Assuming this is true (I’m being sardonic, by the way), any reason that both cannot be addressed? Or is this simply an attempt to deflect attention from the glaringly unpleasant views of Sizer et al?

‘But it does explain why so many lefties want to reclassify nazis and the bnp as right-wing and far-right when they were and are socialists and therefore of the left.’

Maybe because the ultra nationalism of fascism is a seperate political genus to socialism. Maybe because rightists such as Von Papen, Franco, Antonescu and indeed Lord Beaverbrook were happy enough to cosset fascism as a kindred spirit. Maybe because while leftists from Liberals to Maoists celebrate (blindly to my mind) the revolutions of 1789 and 1848, fascists along with many on the traditionalist and radical right deplore them as shady plots, conjurned up by rabbis and deistic freemasons. Maybe because the vast majority of scholarly opinion sees Fascism as a rightist ideology so on the one hand you have the great intellect of Stanley Payne and on the other Jonah Goldberg. Or maybe you have strayed into the deep end sans your water wings

‘Why are lefties not similarly ashamed of the record of russian communism (56 million slaughtered) and chinese communism (93 million slaughtered)?’

I am a socialist and proud to be on the left and I am ashamed of the horrific murderousness of the Bolsheviks and the CCP as well as the Angka. Indeed it ashames me so much I can barely quibble with your inaccurate figures (Applebaum places the dead from the period on the USSR 1917-53 at 12-13 million, Jung Chang places the dead in China at 70 plus million from 1948-1979). I have too much respect for the dead and those who had loved ones taken from them to be so cursory.

You will no doubt find many leftists on this site who also feel shame and horror of those crimes, many thoughtful people who do seek social transformation in the name of equality but are just as determined not to seek at that price. Sorry to disappoint you

Surely Bishop Richard Williamson is a much bigger issue.

Alec- I see no evidence on the link which links to Pappe.What support have you he is a holocaust denying sympathiser.He cites him negatively, it like saying -so if you believe Nick Griffin -the numbers are …..- such and such claims this.
He works against extremist thinking of Christian Zionism which promotes end -time theology and theological expansionist based justification for illegal settlement building.This informs his attitude to Christian Zionism.
The way the piece is linked with the holocaust denying Bishop is a smear tactic on him- in my view.

http://www.moriel.org/MorielArchive/index.php/news/uk/response-to-stephen-sizers-open-letter-2

http://www.sizers.org/Persia.pdf

In October 2007 Sizer went to Iran to denounce Christian Zionism. There is no evidence that when he was in Iran he protested against the government’s policy of the murder of Christians. He is alsoon record as defending Ahmadinejad:

Speaking on a radio show in Florida, Sizer said:

“I would disassociate myself from some of the ways in which Ahmedinejad’s statements have been interpreted from Farsi into English. I believe you’ll find he looked forward to the day when Zionism ceased to exist. So we can talk about Ahmedinejad trying to drive the Jews into the sea which we would abhor, but the reality is that Israel is driving the Palestinians into the desert.”

http://seismicshock.blogspot.com/2008/09/stephen-sizer-ahmedinejad-apologist.html

In October 2007 Sizer went to Iran to denounce Christian Zionism. There is no evidence that when he was in Iran he protested against the government’s policy of the murder of Christians. He is also on record as defending Ahmadinejad:

Speaking on a radio show in Florida, Sizer said:

“I would disassociate myself from some of the ways in which Ahmedinejad’s statements have been interpreted from Farsi into English. I believe you’ll find he looked forward to the day when Zionism ceased to exist. So we can talk about Ahmedinejad trying to drive the Jews into the sea which we would abhor, but the reality is that Israel is driving the Palestinians into the desert.”

This is all documented on ‘Seismic Shock’ (I cannot for technical reasons post the links here).

mrs ben

Williamson is a f***ing enormous issue.

Senior Catholics will be publicly denounced at an event this week for not criticising the Pope (remember he is German…).

Cath, Pappé’s various claims, both of Israeli history and of his supposed treatment by Haifa University, have been shown on this site, but notably Engage, to be fantastical at best and deliberately mendacious at worst. The link to Holocaust Denial and white supremacy is that he agreed to be interviewed by a publication which anyone who claims to be have any knowledge of European far-right politics should have known was a far-right hate-rag. Even if he can be excused for the decision, the questions he was asked should have set alarm bells ringing.

Yet, as with so many “anti-Zionists”, he turned out to be flirting with full-blown antisemites. Weird, isn’t it? As Pappé et al. are always keen to stress that they ain’t antisemitic bottom-feeders or bottom-feeding apologists for antisemitism, it should be considered a serious failure in their data gathering that they end up doing just that.

He says:

Had I known that I would appear in this newspaper, I would have not agreed to do that.

Yeah, he got caught. Echoes of Chomsky and Faurisson.

I do not blame that paper,

Don’t blame a bunch of neo-nazis???

but myself from not inquiring to whom I am giving press conferences and interviews.

Basic tenet of academic research, I would have thought. Why should he be trusted on anything if this is his sloppy approach?

As for Sizer, I don’t know the providence of “people in the shadows”, but I detect similar undertones as when (?) my admirer John Wight started blathering about the “scales” falling from eyes (i.e. Acts 9:18). That is, the same feeling I get when anyone quotes religious texts which have their basis in Jewish/Christian rivalry and which they then use to justify an adversarial, nay, hate-based attitude towards certain groups of Jews.

By appearing on PressTV, The Reverend Dr Stephen Sizer, PhD (Oakhill Theological College) is simply jumping on the current bandwagon of antisemitism.

The US libertarian-left hasn’t risen to this level yet. But it’s close. Pundits like Glenn Greenwald, self professed protectors of free speech, who, if you dare question their antisemitism will censor you on their blogs, are quite comfortable with the Christian Identity Movement. They hide behind the 1st Amendment as an excuse to prop up this point of view and worse. Go see any Greenwald column on Salon.com and read the letters. Nothing raving insanely antisemitic is impermissible yet anything remotely not in alignment with this is routinely deleted. DKos, Crooks&Liars, FDL are all very similar in this regard. You can see long columns calling for the WMD annihilation of Israel yet they all line up to proclaim “I don’t hate all Jews, just the ones in Israel, all the Zionists….etc. etc.” I would also point you to the recent 60 Minutes Hamas Whitewash, The cover of Time Magazine that tried as hard as I’ve ever seen in the US to equate Jews with Nazis, and the obligatory appearance of Christiane Amanpour on CNN who practically hefts an RPG on her own shoulder as she sticks a mike in the face of any Jew hating terrorist she can find, for the opportunity to preach, unimpeded for minutes at a time.

We’re not at the point of outright holocaust denial yet, but we’re close. Soon they will want ‘equal time’ the same way the creationists want equal time against evolution.

Surely the real scandal is that the ‘decent left’ stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the Pat Robertson’s of this world in its increasingly morally untenable support for Israel

You mean, those nasty Joos who dare defend themselves? Yes, they are bad, bad Joos.

He works against extremist thinking of Christian Zionism which promotes end -time theology and theological expansionist based justification for illegal settlement building

Care to cite chapter and verse as to why they are ‘illegal’?

It’s a metaphor. By “death to the UK” they actually mean, a peaceful, Islamic, natural end to the UK. No death involved actually.

Tsk, tsk, get with the plot. It’s all a mistranslation. You see, the word is actually de’ath’i, which means ‘prosperity’ in a dialect of Middle Friesian spoken in north-eastern Iran.

The full interview with Sizer:
http://www.presstv.ir/Programs/player/Default.aspx?id=74692

“America is doing Israel’s Dirty Work” (11:00)
“Current policies will result in the end of the Jewish State” (18:00)
“The UN must impose its will on the Zionists” (20:00)

Cath

There is no backing for your statement that the settlements are illegal. The US government has not said they are illegal since the Reagan era.

Israel should withdraw from settlements when there is peace but they are not illegal.

@socialrepublican

Or maybe I got the idea from the 1933 nazi manifesto:

“We are socialists and mortal enemies of the present Capitalist economic system”.

Here’s a website that gives more examples that back me up:

http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html

I remember the figure of 56 million as being what the government of the (then) ussr had officially owned up to by the mid 1980’s.

You say the chinese reds murdered 70 million not 93 million. They are both estimates and both sufficiently above 6 million slaughtered by nazis to mean my point still stands.

I still dont understand why lefties are indulgent towards communist history but so earnest about showing their need to disassociate from their nazi fellow travellers.

The implication is Stephen is a sympathetic holocaust denier on line with an outright holocaust denier.There is no direct evidence in any citations of that claim and as such the posting makes an unsubstantiated smear of holocaust denial against him and an outright comparison of him with Richard Williamson.His website suggests other than that- by brief perusal.He refers to the Royal Holloway conference on the Holocaust in Berlin- I suggest no holocaust denying sympathiser would.
“There is no backing for your statement that the settlements are illegal.”laughable Alan.

“There is no backing for your statement that the settlements are illegal.”laughable Alan.

OK Cath – where is it? You were asked to produce documentation at 9:51 pm and you have so far failed.

Felix- “Holocausts or no haulocasts, they knew exactly what was happening to the Jews in Germany and Italy. The pope was born in 1927 so must have been about 15 in 1940. Toward the end of the war he was conscripted in to the army.”

Actually no. There is no evidence, nor any reason, to think that anyone much knew what was happening to the Jews during the Holocaust. It was a secret in a repressive one party state. They may have known bad things were going on, but not what or how bad.

In fact the insistence that the Pope must have known is not that different to claims Jews really run the world. There is some little evidence, but the rest is supposition which is clear to everyone who believes it and no one else.

The implication is Stephen is a sympathetic holocaust denier on line with an outright holocaust denier.

I disagree. The implication is that he has, over an extended period, used overtly antisemitic imagery in his writings/speeches, and cites approvingly a Holocaust denier and reactionary anti-Jewish racist. I draw no inference that he either claims the Holocaust did not take place or denies its significance.

There is no direct evidence in any citations of that claim and as such the posting makes an unsubstantiated smear of holocaust denial against him and an outright comparison of him with Richard Williamson

Sorry, Cath, this is back to the same blindness to the Strasserite Left or Christian antisemitism which you began to see past in the Engage article. Bishop Williamson is not to be considered the gold standard in Christian antisemitism, just as Nazism is not to be considered to be only accompanied by buzz-cuts and jack boots.

I don’t think Rev. Sizer is a Denier like Bishop Williamson, and nor did Seismic Shock make this claim. I believe, though, that, in line with so-many anti-Zionists who insist they are not guided by antisemitism or Nazism, he’s rather unfortunately found common cause in antisemitic and Nazi literature. Why does this keep happening with anti-Zionists?

@gordon-bennett

Ah, the ‘Its called I can’t believe it’s not butter thus it must be butter’ defence. Strangely, the Catholic church, the Paternalist Junkers of Prussia, the German professional associations, the Reichwehr, Spengler, Maurras and pretty much every idealist vitalist thinker of the fin de siecle period was opposed to the ‘present Capitalist economic system’. I believe both Mohammed and my mum both dislike dogs, so is my mum the last prophet of Allah? If you know anything about the political scene in late 19th/early 20th century Europe, you will have no doudt processed the information that titles such as socialist, national, radical and Liberal were frequently syncretised. So Viennese theocrats might call themselves radicals and good liberal workers in Prague might call themselves National Socialists. It was their ideas that matter in classification.

Thanks though for the link to the TFP. If I need some updates on homophobic culture war activities near me or how to reaffirm theo-volkisch ‘identity’, i’ll give it a try. Try reading some Payne, or Roger Eatwell or Emilio Gentile or Leev Barbu or Walter Laquer or Radu Ioanid. Or many just get self-serving cleansing from such great luminaries such as this

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/TFPCommentary/craig_article.htm

or this gem

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/tsunami.htm

or this fellow

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/sao_paulo_homosexual_parade.htm

See how far that gets you…

‘I still dont understand why lefties are indulgent towards communist history but so earnest about showing their need to disassociate from their nazi fellow travellers’

What is indulgent in getting history as accurate as possible? Or is it merely so some illusionary entity called ‘the right’ can claim some moral highground. I research fascist violence so does that mean I am an apologist for fascism or merely that I believe that the history of the Bucherest Slaughter house is just as worthy of good analysis as sevententh century field rotation.

Please tell me, when Antonescu ordered the Jassi pogrom, did that suddenly come from some long dormant ‘lefty’ gene? Were Burke’s fine warriors of British freedom suddenly taken up radical socialism as they murdered the wounded at Gibbet Rath, New Ross and Enniscorthy? When Suravov fiiled the streets of Praga with blood, was he acting on the behalf of Tom Paine? Was the Damascus blood libel directly from Robert Owen’s scheming head?

Frankly your efforts and those similar are just as disgusting and nauseating as the leftist denial you decry. Murderous ideology is not the monopoly of any political stripe

Christian Zionists are nutters too – pity “Seismic Shock” didn’t make that clear in his post having a go at Sizer.

Of course, Christian Zionists are nutters too, and Siesmic Shock does not make that clear in his post having a go at Sizer. That’s not discussed. Therefore he gives the impression of smearing Sizer to undermine what he says.

Of course, more generally, the notion that Zionists would ever smear by association, badmouth, or accuse critics of Israel or critics of Israel’s supporters of being antisemites is of course an outrageous suggestion and would never happen. Perish the thought.

The link to Holocaust Denial and white supremacy is that he agreed to be interviewed by a publication which anyone who claims to be have any knowledge of European far-right politics should have known was a far-right hate-rag. Even if he can be excused for the decision

“Even if he can be excused that decision”. As you know, Pappe clearly states he made no such decision at all, and that he was unaware of the publication’s name. There is absolutely no way Pappe would agree to be interviewed by a far right rag.

Predictably Engage made a meal of it – its important to insinuate, suggest associations, etc. They also appear to claim that its somehow significant that a far right rag was interested in him.

Well, its only significant in the sense that a far right paper would of course criticise Israel, but for very different reasons than Pappe. They would love to interview a non-racist, non-extremist critic of Israel to give them “credibility”, but that’s generally impossible – so they hoodwinked one into a “granting an interview”. Pappe did no such thing.

So Much for Subtlety:

“Actually no. There is no evidence, nor any reason, to think that anyone much knew what was happening to the Jews during the Holocaust.”

When I wrote that people in Germany and Italy knew exactly what was happening to the Jews, I meant in the preholocaust phase which left nothing to the imagination about what was going to happen next. I have written about this before,so don’t want to repeat the whole recital.

Everyone could see that Jews were losing their jobs, having their property confiscated, being beaten up, being herded through the streets loaded onto cattle trucks, disappearing forever, like my father’s Jewish cousin. Did it require much imagination to conjecture what might happen next? They must have known about the Kristallnacht.

My German uncle was beaten up badly for being married to a half Jew, my father’s sister. In fact she was about one quarter Jewish via her grandmother. People knew this was happening.

Friends of the poetess Lasker-Schueler thought she was speaking metaphorically when she said that she was beaten by Nazis every day; then one evening, when they had driven her back to her hotel, they looked back and saw two Nazis hitting her as she went through the door. These thugs waited there all day just to have a go at her whenever she went in or out of the hotel. This was in full public view and officially sanctioned.

I have only given a very few examples of what ordinary Germans knew. Their protests that they did not know are akin to holocaust denial, and you, with a singular lack of subtlety, come within an inch of resembling them. But there are high IQ human beasts who specialise in clever cunt subtleties. Bishop R. Williamson admits to 200- to 300.OOO Jews dying in the camps. Isn’t that enough?

Benjamin,

“Of course, Christian Zionists are nutters too, and Siesmic Shock does not make that clear in his post having a go at Sizer.”

Many to most North American Christians are sympathetic to Israel and Zionism without subscribing to the extreme beliefs that Sizer uses to define “Christian Zionism” per se.

It is the oldest rhetorical trick of polemic: define your opponent in the most extreme, lurid manner possible. And always judge him by his highest standards, but your client or yourself by your or his lowest.

Sizer’s agenda is to promote the belief that any kind of Christian sympathy or support for Israel or Zionism is heresy.

And, technically, given Christianity’s long anti-Judaism-that-was-also-anti-Zionism i.e. saw the Jews as dispossessed for their rejection of Christ, he may be right.

But that isn’t a good thing.

Cath Palasz,

“He works against extremist thinking of Christian Zionism which promotes end -time theology and theological expansionist based justification for illegal settlement building.This informs his attitude to Christian Zionism.”

Not true, Cath, I’m afraid. He seeks to make Christian sympathy or support for Israel or Zionism heresy full stop.

http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2008/10/sixty-academics-endorse-christian.html

“Christian Zionism: The new heresy that sways America

The Political Agenda of Christian Zionism

By Stephen Sizer…

…Christian Zionism Defined

Christian Zionism is essentially Christian support for Zionism. Zionism is a political system based on ethnic exclusivity giving Jews preferential political rights which are denied to Palestinians. The United Nations has defined Zionism as a form of racism and apartheid. Nevertheless, in the words of Grace Halsell the essential message of the Christian Zionist is this: “every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.”[3]”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12516.htm

It’s also very revealing that he offers as a definition of ‘Christian Zionism’ that of someone deeply hostile to Israel and Zionism i.e. that of Grace Halsell.

Here’s a choice quotation from that same Grace Halsell:

“Israelis today, explains the anti-Zionist Jew Israel Shahak,

“are not basing their religion on the ethics of justice. They do not accept the Old Testament as it is written. Rather, religious Jews turn to the Talmud. For them, the Talmudic Jewish laws become ‘the Bible.’ And the Talmud teaches that a Jew can kill a non-Jew with impunity.”

In the teachings of Christ, there was a break from such Talmudic teachings. He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden. ”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12516.htm

What an arrogant a–hole that Stephen is.
The british ‘gave’ palestine to the jews, part of the empire control thing.
Oh yeh, and the beginning of zionism, or back to the homeland concepts for jews, was a european christian movement, together with political motives……
just utter bullshit…..fucking christian european arrogance………….
Jews had been trying to re populate their homeland throughout the rule of the caliphate, and went there in the thousands each year on pilgrimages, but were not allowed to resettle there.
There was even a major, if bizarre political effort to regain some control of palestine from the caliphate, 1660’s maybe.
Despite the best efforts of the caliphate, in the mid 1850s, the plurality of the population of jerusalem was jewish.
With the final collapse of the weakened caliphat after ww1, with the palestinian jews fighting with the brits to defeat the ‘turks’, jews were going to make a major play for their homeland…had to, finally in play after hundreds of year…….with a real chance of finally getting it back.
Did the brits help for a while, sure; it suited their interests, however jews had been pushing back into palestine as the caliphate weakened, and would have continued to flow back, regardless of what britain said or did.
Stephan’s track, israel was a british, christian, european folly, and oh well, it was our mistake, and we are thus entitled, as it’s creater, to destroy israel………..in the best interests of whole planet of course.
Sorry baby, you didn’t create israel, in fact britain did their flipping best from 1937 onwards, using steel, to still birth what jews were trying to create.

The danger with Sizer is that his anti-Israel view is founded in theology, which means that it is neither sane nor rational but a form of mania. And the theology is explicitly anti-Jewish, not just anti-Zionist. That Sizer is a minister of the Church with these odious views and associations is bad enough, but unfortunately he is representative of a much wider movement within the C of E that is promoting anti-Jewish prejudice.

Benjamin, please clarify: when Sizer promotes the work of holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, is that a good thing? Is it justified because he is “anti-Zionist?” Why is it a smear to publicise Sizer’s promotion of holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis?

When Stephen Sizer put the words “Arbeit macht frei” underneath an image of Israel’s security fence, was that reasonable comment?

Sorry to disappoint you

Ah, it had to come, the nasty dig from SR at those who point out the sick pathology of communism. According to SR, they do it out of schadenfreude. Never mind that 50 million died … or, according to SR, maybe it was only 20 million … a triviality, a storm in a teacup.

Of course, Christian Zionists are nutters too

When someone like the Sage In His Own Lunchtime starts off a post with ‘of course’, you know that the rest of the drivel will be of a particularly choice nature.

Benjamin, please clarify: when Sizer promotes the work of holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, is that a good thing? Why is it a smear to publicise Sizer’s promotion of holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis?

All those are issues are legitimate criticisms. However, framing is important. The issue under discussion was the Christian Zionists, who – as far as I can tell – are perhaps crazier the more dodgy Judaic chaps. Since there was no discussion of the centrality of the posited discussion, one is left with a feeling that it was a smear by association job to distract from the nub of the discussion.

Let’s face it lads, we need to dispense with dodgy, messianic religious justifications for states – be they Judaic, Christian or Muslim. The existence of Israel and Palestine can be justified on pragmatic and humanitarian grounds, with religion a factor, no doubt, but not the prime argument for sensible peacemakers.

Another institution which seems lately to have let its mask of impartiality slip is the IAEA.
Last week Mohamed Elbaradei cancelled an interview with the BBC because they hadn’t broadcast the DEC appeal.
This week he’s been talking to Newsweek.
“Israel violated the rules of international law by bombing alleged Syrian nuclear reactor in September 2007″.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3664768,00.html

The subject of the various UN agencies which have long ceased to even pretend to be impartial needs to be addressed seriously and immediately. This organisation no longer serves the interests of the free, democratic and liberal world.

Israelinurse

Well, its fascinating that you think support for showing a humanitarian appeal for Palestinian folk in desperate need of the basics of life, by such respected charities as Christian Aid, Save the Children and Oxfam, to name just three, demonstrates bias against Israel. An appeal that went out on three other channels in the UK. It’s also fascinating that you think giving an opinion on international law also demonstrates bias against Israel.

The nationalist mindset is rather interesting, if somewhat disturbing at times.

This is from the South African newspaper, Mail & Guardian

It is a “Thought Leader” by Sentlese Diayanko. Notice that he starts by quoting Mark Weber from the IHR.

Jews do wield immense power and influence

In 2002 Mark Weber, a director of The Institute for Historical Review wrote an article about the powerful Jewish Lobby in the United States (US). What Weber articulates in his article is very relevant to the current brouhaha about the alleged comments made by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fatima Hajaig. As a result of those alleged comments, the Deputy Minister has now been vilified and accused of anti-Semitism, hate speech, bigotry and all manner of things that are intended to whip up the emotions of the Jewish community and social activists and inflate her comments beyond what they truly represented. In his article Weber beautifully outlines how Jewish money influences and controls the US Congress.

The Deputy Minister is alleged to have said: “They in fact control [America]. No matter which government comes into power, whether Republican or Democratic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush. The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else.”

It is important to examine whether there is any measure of truth to claims by detractors of the Deputy Minister that she had indeed been anti-Semitic. A common understanding of anti-Semitism would generally refer to prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, although the appropriate meaning is not limited to Jews. I would immediately dismiss as utter rubbish claims that the above comments by the Deputy Minister are prejudicial against and hostile towards Jews. Moreover, these comments have no relevance whatsoever to Jews in South Africa.

The SA Jewish Board of Deputies is reported to have lodged a complaint against the Deputy Minister with the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). Wendy Kahn, who is a director of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies, is also reported to have said that the alleged comments by the Deputy Minister were classic anti-Jewish stereotyping and conspiracy-theory mongering, which were typically used by those seeking to portray Jews as scheming, manipulative and disloyal to the countries in which they lived. In her tirade against the Deputy Minister, Kahn went further to state that, “the Jewish community is outraged by such a public display of bigotry by a senior government representative. As South African citizens, we cannot allow this kind of comment to be brought into this country”.

The action by the SA Jewish Board of Deputies is an abuse of such national institutions such as the SAHRC. The SAHRC has a constitutional mandate to promote the protection of human rights of citizens of South Africa. Unless the SA Jewish Board of Deputies regards those South African Jews they represent as Westerners, their much-reported tirade is misguided and appears to be a publicity-seeking stunt.

The temptation after reading newspaper headlines and listening to the SA Jewish Board of Deputies go off at a tangent would be to lambaste and condemn the Deputy Minister and opportunistically rally behind the Democratic Alliance’s Tony Leon who called for her head and demanded her to apologise to the US President Barack Obama. Tony Leon may perhaps plead ignorance to Obama’s speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference when he said, “Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security … I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran … As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30-billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade.”

Given this unequivocal support of Israel none of us should impose the Deputy Minister’s confidence on Obama’s administration, or any other before. The behaviour and over-reaction of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies is tantamount to fear mongering and a despicable attempt at playing victim to some invented threat to their dignity and human rights. The question we should all ask is whether or not Jews wield immense power and influence in the US. By answering this question we would arrive at an informed conclusion on whether these absurd attacks on the Deputy Minister are warranted instead of immediately dismissing them as I have.

Benjamin Ginsberg, a Jewish author and political science professor, in his book he published in 1993, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, said that, “Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade’s corporate mergers and reorganisations.”

Mark Weber also wrote that, “though barely 2% of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation’s largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times … The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked.

Jews are only 2% of the nation’s population, yet comprise 11% of what this study defines as the nation’s elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25% of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17% of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organisations, and more than 15% of the top ranking civil servants.”

Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, both Jewish writers, agree with the assertion that Jews in the US wield disproportionate political power and validate the alleged comments by the Deputy Minister. In their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene, they say that “during the last three decades Jews (in the US) have made up 50% of the top two hundred intellectuals … 20% of professors at the leading universities … 40% of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington … 59% of the directors, writers and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58% of directors, writers and producers in two or more prime time television series.”

Instead of condemning the Deputy Minister she should have been commended for her will to trounce the preservation of falsehoods and expose these self-evident yet unspoken and vexing truths about the influence and power of Jews in America. There is this fear to speak truth to power that is prevalent everywhere and so is the risk present of having one’s voice silenced with a nauseating anti-Semitism card. It is those of robust constitution who, regardless of the awful consequences of revealing these truths, rise above feeble others who allow suppression of their voices. Criticism of Jews has far too often triggered a backlash of unimaginable proportion, a sign of ingrained intolerance to robust and unflattering appraisal.

The SA Jewish Board of Deputies should perhaps inform the rest of us, who struggle to see hate, anti-Jewish stereotyping and conspiracy-theory mongering in the alleged comments of the Deputy Minister, whether the US congress is not biased towards Israel; whether they disagree with Dr. Stephen Steinlight, Fellow at the Centre for Immigration Studies in the US when he says, “… we (Jews) will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress … power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel …”; and whether Hamas possesses the capacity to destroy Israel.

The Archbishop Desmond Tutu also lamented this intolerance to criticism that pervades a larger section of Jewish communities when he said, “The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US] and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic.”

The SA Jewish Board of Deputies needs to get over themselves!

Sorry to intrude on a discussion that has moved on but just to add-
“Following the recent controversy surrounding Richard Williamson, Christian denominations may also wish to reconsider their opinions about Rev Stephen Sizer.”
I disagree Alec -that it is not a smear tactic- and before such attempts to link reactions to Stephen Sizer with Richard Williamson I would want substantiated evidence of such symapthises in his personal writings,doings and actions.Quotes, evidence he devalues the holocaust and values the friendship of holocaust deniers and the like.After all it is a powerful tool to imply and suggest someone has “actual” sympathise towards holocaust denying as we evidenced last week- with the justified outrage against Bishop Williamson.
My name appears on this website under the Engage posting and that I deeply regret because of “the way” it operates and treats people.

Benjamin: Sizer is opposed to Christian Zionism because of his xenophobic religious beliefs, i.e. Jews don’t deserve Israel because they are bad. This is the central issue, not peripheral. You don’t need to be a zionist (Christian or otherwise) to understand this.

DEC: Oxfam, Christian Aid and War on Want campaign politically against Israel and therefore cannot by broadcast by the BBC under their impartiality rules.

Cath palasz:

I would want substantiated evidence of such symapthises in [Sizer's] personal writings,doings and actions.

Fortunately the Seismic Shock blogger has provided this evidence. Read it and if you are able to refute any of the detailed points then I am sure everyone would be grateful to you for moving the discussion along.

Sizer is opposed to Christian Zionism because of his xenophobic religious beliefs, i.e. Jews don’t deserve Israel because they are bad.

I was under the impression that Sizer was a British conservative Christian: not particularly my cup of tea, but actually sane. It seem to me any person with a reasonable grounding in reality would be in a position to criticise Christian Zionists because a fair chunk of them seem absolutely barking. Its not difficult being in position to criticise them, especially if you are from the more moderate British scene. Sizer has also stated clearly he supports the existence of Israel, whilst criticising it too.

Oxfam, Christian Aid and War on Want campaign politically against Israel and therefore cannot by broadcast by the BBC under their impartiality rules.

Absolute poppycock.

Sizer is opposed to Christian Zionism because of his xenophobic religious beliefs, i.e. Jews don’t deserve Israel because they are bad.

I was under the impression that Sizer was a British conservative Christian: not particularly my cup of tea, but actually sane. It seem to me any person with a reasonable grounding in reality would be in a position to criticise Christian Zionists because a fair chunk of them seem absolutely barking. Its not difficult being in position to criticise them, especially if you are from the more moderate British scene. Sizer has also stated clearly he supports the existence of Israel, whilst criticising it too.

Oxfam, Christian Aid and War on Want campaign politically against Israel and therefore cannot by broadcast by the BBC under their impartiality rules.

Absolute poppycock. Some part of these organisations may or may not criticise the policies of the Israeli government from time to time; however this campaign was about raising money to assist a humanitarian crisis.

No Benjamin, the BBC was asked to cede editorial control of broadcast material to political campaigns that have been strongly criticised in the past for their bias. Either we have a balanced BBC, or we don’t. You’d prefer it to be biased to your views.

Regarding Sizer, please read what he actually says, rather than “being under an impression”. I know reading isn’t your forte but if you don’t do it your opinions look like bollocks.

Cath palasz

Still nothing from you to justify your statement that the settlements are illegal.

Don’t bother with research and verification. Stick to assertion. It’s much easier isn’t it Cath …

Don’t bother to read the evidence on Seismic Shock either, it might spoil your preconceptions.

Cath. “My name appears on this website under the Engage posting and that I deeply regret because of “the way” it operates and treats people.”

Care to back up this ridiculous smear with specific examples Cath ?

Cath Palasz – if I were to dismiss you by saying “Cath Palasz has maliciously joined this discussion to sully the name of Seismic Shock”, then that would be evasive of me. So too I feel that it is evasive of you to be more concerned by accusing me of having dubious motives rather than looking at the evidence.

Jonathan Hoffman – thank you.

Benjamin – I am well aware of some of the extreme positions Christian Zionists can hold. Yet Sizer spends a lot of time talking about “the Christian Right” whilst saying nothing of his own connections with the Christian Far Right.

If Sizer can analyse and criticise the movers and shakers in the Christian Zionist political world (Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, etc.), it’s only fair that others can analyse and criticise the political Christian anti-Zionist world.

Senior Catholics will be publicly denounced at an event this week for not criticising the Pope (remember he is German…).

Your remark in parenthesis is truly amazing.

Do you hope to combat bigotry by engaging in it?

Germany and german culture are about much more than nazism.

There is also Goethe, dirndles and lederhosen.

And if being Roman Catholic required that one be anti-Israel and anti-semitic, then why would such luminary converts as author Anne Rice and journalist Magdi Allam express such glowing support for both Israel and Jews in general?

They, in fact, cite both as a major reason for becomming Catholic.

And to judge by this thread, shrill anti-Christian bigotry is the last socially acceptable prejudice.

And this, even though most of Israel’s non-Jewish supporters are Christian.

Alan Hart’s contribution at the 3rd conference of the International Union of Parliamentarians for Palestine (a Hezbollah front organisation) held in Brussels in May 2008.

“The research of the British writer Alan Hart entitled The Christian Zionism and the Secular Zionism, considering that there is a contradiction between Judaism and Zionism, which insults the Jewish principles, and is being supported by the U.S.A. financially, politically, economically and through media, calling for uniting the efforts and the ranks in order to establish an international lobby opposed to Zionism and to work on pushing it forward.”

http://philosemitism.blogspot.com/2008/10/british-writer-david-hart-calls-for.html

John P. – Thank you for reminding us that Germany has given lederhosen to the world (as well as Pope Benedict)

I take it then that you have protested to the thus far silent Catholic hierarchy about the Pope’s decision to un-excommunicate Holocaust Denier Bishop Richard Williamson? Good.

Let’s hope his pastoral duties do not take him to Germany or Austria.

I take it then that you have protested to the thus far silent Catholic hierarchy about the Pope’s decision to un-excommunicate Holocaust Denier Bishop Richard Williamson? Good.

Alan. the Pope cannot be expected to behave like a Labour minister.

He obtained an apology, an apology I thought COULD have been stronger, from Williamson before readmitting him.

However, Williamson cannot officiate at anything, and far from being in The Church’s front parlour, is instead confined to the back porch.

Pope Benedict has to act as a Pontiff and put into practice elements of Catholic theology, among them the concept of forgiveness.

Williamson is an foolish old coot who will finish his days in shame. You should remember that he caused a great deal of harm to The Church by establishing a schismatic sect that threatened the reforms of Vatican II, reforms that included a complete about-face with regards to Jews.

It’s a very difficult situation.

And as for your “remember, he’s german” remark, it was quite bigoted.

Norman Finkelstein denies the Holocaust, and thinks it’s all some sort of shakedown scheme

Norman Finkelstein is a Jew.

Should we then conclude that holocaust denial is an intrinsic characteristic of ‘jewishness’?

I’m off to iron my dirndle.

Deborah Lipstadt on Williamson

John P

“The Pope cannot be expected to behave like a Labour minister.”

– Precisely – we both expect better of him than of a Labour Minister.

“He obtained an apology, an apology I thought COULD have been stronger, from Williamson before readmitting him.”

– Come on JP – until he recants his papal bull about the Holocaust, an apology is meaningless.

“Pope Benedict has to act as a Pontiff and put into practice elements of Catholic theology, among them the concept of forgiveness. It’s a very difficult situation.”

– It’s not difficult at all. All Benedict has to say is “Mea culpa I should not have disexcommunicated a Holocaust Denier” and then reexcommunicate him.

“And as for your “remember, he’s german” remark, it was quite bigoted.”

- Not at all. A German Pope needs to be extra-careful.

“Norman Finkelstein denies the Holocaust, and thinks it’s all some sort of shakedown scheme. Norman Finkelstein is a Jew.”

- You’re wrong JP. Finkelstein trivialises the Holocaust by saying that Israel and Joooos use it to get what they want. He hasn’t denied it like Williamson. Did you watch the video at the top of this thread? Citing Leuchter in his support? It stinks, JP.

“Should we then conclude that holocaust denial is an intrinsic characteristic of ‘jewishness’?”

– Your logic is awry, JP. I never said that Germans deny the Holocaust. My comment was clearly intended to say that a German Pope needs to be extra-careful.

A belated reply Moredchai-this post attempts to direct reactions to the views of a holcaust denying professed priest onwards towards that of another apparent sympathiser (evidence provided by piece and website)- Stephen Sizer.The evidence is unsubstantial to that effect and as such it is a smear tactic riding on the back of a priest who denies gas chambers and numbers.Proportionality may be necessary on something of such magnitude of outrage and hatred. Perhaps direct quotes from Stephen on the holocaust denying views,actions he has done and the like.

Cath – perhaps you would kindly answer my question to you ;

Cath. “My name appears on this website under the Engage posting and that I deeply regret because of “the way” it operates and treats people.” Care to back up this ridiculous smear with specific examples Cath

One more thing Cath. – I don’t thinl Sizer is a holocaust denier. However I think it’s worrying when somebody like Sizer quotes from holocaust deniers or anti-smites, uses them in articles , or liases with them. What do feel about this kind of thing. Sizer may not be a holocaust denier but he’s hardly a progressive (putting it midly).BTW – I’ll have to check my emails (somebody sent me an example)but I’m fairly certain he’s corresponded on one of Israel Shamir’s email forums.

http://largebluefootballs.blogspot.com/2008/10/questions-for-stephen-sizer.html

Here is the Sizer/Shamir link

Richard- the way it operates is to target people -in my view (Christians).It seems to treat people as objects for rejectionism.It doesn’t attempt to engage or discuss with them- just target and reject.
I don’t support Stephen’s views at all- but the piece tries to suggest he sympathises with holocaust denial -after this week- that is a highly contentious implication to make.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000765.html

Here’s Melanie on Sizer. Sizer knows that Holocaust Denial will not help his cause so he is careful to criticise it even as he is cosying up to the Deniers.

Complete hypocrisy.

My comment was clearly intended to say that a German Pope needs to be extra-careful.

Mmm….feeling guilty?

No, your comment was meant to imply that The Pope, as a German, was reverting to ‘type’ and that it was natural and normal that all, or at least the majority, of Germans should be nazi sympathisers and fans of holocaust deniers.

At least that’s how I took it, but then I could be wrong.

You’re wrong JP. Finkelstein trivialises the Holocaust by saying that Israel and Joooos use it to get what they want. He hasn’t denied it like Williamson.

I made it half-ways through ‘The Holocaust Industry’ ( I had to put it down when Finkelstein began singing the praises of David Irving)and in that first half he does indeed take issue with the figure of 6 million in the same way all other holocaust deniers do. He even quotes his own mother to that end.

It’s no longer about whether or not it happened, but about whether or not 6 million is a ‘reliable’ figure. The old “did-six-million-really-die” canard is but an entry point that inevitably leads to the complete trivialisation ( a form of denial) of a very horrific event.

And it is a tactic that Finkelstein, Williamson AND David Irving have all employed to varying degrees.

Williamson has apologised and recanted (though, as I said it COULD have been stronger), and if he has a sincere desire to rejoin The Church, embrace Vatican II and all that that implies for Jewish Catholic relations, then the Pope is pretty much duty-bound to readmit him.

And he has, but only in the most ‘minimalist’ way possible.

And instead of remembering that Benedict is German, we could perhaps remember that Benedict ( as head of The Doctrine of the Faith) and Williamson ( as a mouthy heretic) spent decades as mortal enemies.

This is one de-excommunication where the Pope truly held his nose.

Benjamin, you are highly naive if you think that those charities are even-handed or have a balanced view of Israel. I suggest you spend a few days speaking with them on the ground (as I have). You may be surprised at the vehemence of their opinions. Indeed, in talking to various Oxfam people in particular, a snarled “the Jews” is the way they refer to the Israelis when the cameras aren’t in focus.

These charities represent British curtain-twitching at its worst: the infantalising of the noble savage, and the demonising of the perfidious Jew.

Bishop Williamson’s apology to the pope meticulously avoided any denial of his ideological crackpot theories. He apologised only for having caused distress. The pope , to his merit, did declare that there was no place in his church for holocaust deniers, but then should have insisted on a more explicit apology from Williamson or thrown him out.

I am simply unable to write ‘pope’ with a capital letter, but, for JohnP’ s comfort, there have been better Popes in the past and may be in the future. When I first came to Italy years ago the church was moving in the direction of an acceptance of full homosexual relationships.

I was told this by a monk at a lovely 15th century monastery outside Padua, with a view on the Eugenean Hills, Shelley’s landscape. I had only read about nightingales in poetry, but there I heard them singing in their full glory for the first time. He later became the the abbot (?? top gun) The monks produced their own bread and wine and other products . They liked eating well.

I’m doing some story telling on purpose to bring in a touch of light relief. The monk’s favourite guest was my friend Giorgio, who preached atheism vociferously to them. Everyone thought Giogio and I were lovers, which we weren’t and he was the only one who remained ignorant of all the insinuations, as when Don Ireneo told us the church was becoming more tolerant to gays. Other guests called us Rimbaud and Verlaine. One monk was completely besotted with Giorgio and, devoured by jealousy, hated me.

It would have been nice if Don Ireneo had become Pope. Bishop Williamson would not have sought any kind of reconciliation with him.
I think it is indicative that the present pope with a small p is seeking out these lunatics, as supporters, maybe, of his fundamentalism.

But as JohnP says, “It’s a complicated situation.”

Cath.You say :

“Richard- the way it operates is to target people -in my view (Christians).It seems to treat people as objects for rejectionism.It doesn’t attempt to engage or discuss with them- just target and reject.”

Well I’ve heard several critisms about Engage but I’ve never heard it being accused of targetting Christians. Can you point to any articles which target Christians on Engage. I think that’s a very bizarre comment that you’ve made.People sometimes come to comment Engage and when people dare to challenge them with facts and arguments then they claim they are being unfairly attacked. It often comes from extremists who prefer to complain about being attacked in the comments boxes on Engage when they find themselves unable to construct a proper argument.
As I say , you claim Engage targets Christians so plse can you link to specific articles on Engage.

I think your being defensive Cath. I hope you take anti-semitism seriously even when it is dressed in the language of Christianity. I’m not an expert on Christian anti-semitism but I am aware of it’s appearance in society and also it’s appearance under the guise of antisemitism.
It’s strange that this is the first time I’ve heard of Engage targetting Christians so I would appreciate you backing this up.

Here are examples of the bias of the charities — which was a major factor in the BBC refusing to show the DEC Appeal:

Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International: “It has been a form of collective punishment illegal under international humanitarian law yet tolerated by the international community.”

In an Oxfam Press Release (29 December) John Prideaux-Brune, Oxfam’s country programme manager in Jerusalem, said “The international community must not stand aside and allow Israeli leaders to commit massive and disproportionate violence against Gazan civilians in violation of international law.”

“Save The Children” had a Gaza campaign called “Enough is Enough”. The Press statement said – wrongly – that “the British public is calling for an end to bombing in Gaza”.

Christian Aid has called for suspension of EU/Israel talks and says Israel is in breach of international law.

‘War On Want’ – a press release failed to mention that the separation fence has dramatically reduced the numbers of Israeli civilians killed by suicide bombers; describes it incorrectly as ‘illegal’; fails to mention that Israel pulled out of Gaza five years ago; fails to mention that the West Bank would never have been controlled by Israel had it not been for its successful defence from attack by its neighbours in 1967; and gives an inaccurate impression of UN Resolutions.

“War on Want” sells a £4 Christmas card depicting Joseph and a pregnant Mary being accosted by two IDF soldiers by the wall, with a checkpoint in the background decked with an Israeli flag and with a rifle pointing out of it.

“War on Want” and many other charities sponsored the viciously anti-Israel ‘Enough!” march in London in May 2007.

As Andrew Roberts wrote in The Times (26 January), on 6 March 2008, CARE International, Cafod, Amnesty, Christian Aid and Oxfam (among others) published a report “The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion”. The authors did not bother to hide their political bias against Israel, repeating standard Palestinian political rhetoric and including claims that Israeli policy “constitutes a collective punishment against ordinary men, women and children” and is “illegal under international humanitarian law”. The report was wrong on many counts, including allegations over the availability of food and basic necessities, which were later contradicted by both the World Bank and World Health Organisation. The fact that Hamas chose to pursue war with Israel rather than the welfare of its people was omitted. There was no reference to the fact that any of these claims might be disputed by the other side or by genuinely neutral observers.

JohnP: “At least that’s how I took it, but then I could be wrong”

You are wrong.

Some of my best friends are German.

I found a copy of Williamson’s ‘apology’

Your Eminence

Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.

The rest of it amounts to groveling before Church authorities.

It’s a crappy non-apology ( ‘imprudent’?!) that doesn’t even address the sentiments of Jews.

I’ve changed my mind, the Pope has made a mistake.

I am simply unable to write ‘pope’ with a capital letter, but, for JohnP’ s comfort, there have been better Popes in the past and may be in the future. When I first came to Italy years ago the church was moving in the direction of an acceptance of full homosexual relationships.

Felix, I doubt that’ll ever happen. The Church has to abide by its own theology and even some of that of the Old Testament as well. On the upside, and this may become VERY important in comming years, The Church has a theological duty to protect homosexuals from the worst abuses and discrimination and to denounce both when they happen. Also The Church still ordains openly declared homosexuals on condition – and this applies to heteros as well – that they remain celibate.

One more thing, the Church is either described as hommophobic or hypocritical depending on its actions.

In Austria a few years back, a priest was running an on-line dating club for homosexuals and using Church resources to do so. He was disciplined and gay rights groups the world over cried ‘homophobia’.

Yet had The Church not put a stop to this, she’d then have been accused of being two-faced and hypocritical by those same gay rights groups.

Sometimes ya can’t win.

I heard Ruth Tanner of ‘War On Want’ speak about Gaza on 19 January. It was George Galloway in a skirt.

“I’ve changed my mind, the Pope has made a mistake”.

You are a ‘mensch’ John P (=Yiddish for honourable man)

You are a ‘mensch’ John P (=Yiddish for honourable man)

Even when in a dirndle?

Cath – for evidence of Sizer’s more odious views, why not check out this collection of nasty emails sent on by Sizer?

http://seismicshock.blogspot.com/2008/09/stephen-sizer-unintentional-anti-semite.html

Sorry to intrude on a discussion [...]

No apologies required. On Internet threads, myriad discussions may go on so all that is required is acknowledgement of which is being addressed.

before such attempts to link reactions to Stephen Sizer with Richard Williamson

They’re being linked only in the sense that they are ordained and relatively influential (Catholic) churchmen who also hold pretty disreputable views on Jews and/or Judaism, and this is being discussed at the moment. There are no individual quanta of such sympathies, for instance at least the desire to re-establish the Roman ghetto (as, I wouldn’t be surprised, Williamson wishes).

To minimize Sizer’s wretched theological based anti-Judaism remarks on account of his not having denied that six millions died in the gas chambers (of course they didn’t, and saying so tends to be a give-away) is a clear-cut case of faint praise.

I would want substantiated evidence of such symapthises in his personal writings,doings and actions. Quotes, evidence he devalues the holocaust and values the friendship of holocaust deniers and the like.

As others have stated, this *has* been provided in abundance (although the principle charge is that he is a Christian antisemite; it’s Williamson who’s denied the Holocaust). I cannot tell, Cath, if you’re personally acquainted with Sizer. If you are – even if you’re acting only as a concerned reader – the best way to demonstrate your friendship is to advise him *not* to cite approvingly the works of white supremacists and to lay-off the whole supersessionism stuff.

Following previous suggestions that he would be a dishonest Christian if he claimed the moral highground for being so, but was reluctant not to attempt to evangelize Jews; I can see the argument in that. However, his claims that he was not seeking to similarly convert Iranian Muslims when caught with Bibles strikes as either moral cowardice or, if his reason that he was merely highlighting Christian Zionism, slack morality in the presence of non-Judaeo-Christian reactionaries and, most of all, a certain preoccupation with Jews and Judaism.

My name appears on this website under the Engage posting and that I deeply regret

I am genuinely confused here. That was a letter from yourself and which you responded to as part of a mea culpa. Are you repudiating the sentiments you expressed therein?

because of “the way” it operates and treats people

Engage and, in particular, David Hirsh treat people with much more respect than they are in return. Furthermore, is ‘outing’ Christian Zionists, as Sizer does, acceptable but ‘outing’ Christian antisemites not?

Richard & Alec the website I’m talking about is not Engage unless you know something different about who runs it?

Then, which website are you talking about, Cath?

If you’re referring to Seismic Shock, Cath, then please read the ‘about’ section:

http://seismicshock.wordpress.com/about/

Welcome to Seismic Shock, the website dedicated to exposing and opposing modern anti-Jewish religious attitudes.

With the rise of anti-Zionism in the Western world, some Christians have merged theological antisemitism and the new antisemitism, forming a new theological antisemitism.

Seismic Shock encourages good Christians to take a stand against antisemitic attitudes within Christian communities.

Cath. Sorry , seems to be some cofusion. I thought you were criticising Engage. The Engage website editor is David Hirsh and the other main contributor is Mira. Myself and Jon pike post occasional articles.

“They’re being linked only in the sense that they are ordained and relatively influential (Catholic) churchmen who also hold pretty disreputable views on Jews and/or Judaism, and this is being discussed at the moment.”

No- the linkage is much more acute and contained within the title – holocaust denial (leaning).Plus of course Christian clergy (not both Catholic).Right wingers.

“To minimize Sizer’s wretched theological based anti-Judaism remarks on account of his not having denied that six millions died in the gas chambers (of course they didn’t, and saying so tends to be a give-away) is a clear-cut case of faint praise.”

I’ve minimised nothing he has said anti-Judaism.But think the holocaust denial implications a very serious implication especially this week and in my view it’s presented here as a tool to smear.Of course one may justify that because of his other contentiously held views -as listed- but that would be objectionable.

“Are you repudiating the sentiments you expressed therein?”
No not…nothing I’ve said suggests that.

Cath

So which website are you talking about. I’m confused.

Alan,
Yes.
Oxfam is supposed to be a charity. It has no remit whatsoever to make pronouncements on ‘international law’ (and as an aside, highly ignorant ones). In doing so, never mind its Jew hatred, it has become a political pressure group and in breach of its charitable status, of which it should be stripped.
It has become a really despicable organisation. I have stopped setting foot in any of its shops.

Cath – why does Sizer cite Holocaust deniers?

Fran-Seismic Shock -I’m talking about.
But-I think it is all of a muchness though Engage fully supports this posting ( and possibly is involved).
Nevertheless -I stand by my view that the implication in this posting is that Stephen is a closet holocaust denying wannabe- soon to be exposed.I see no evidence of that and see it as a smear tactic- conveniently being wheeled out this week after the outrage of Bishop Williamson.

Mordechai
Give me any quote in the prolific writings, speeches, sermons, articles of Stephen Sizer that gives direct evidence from him to the view he is a holocaust denying sympathiser -other than references to someone else who maybe -like the President of Iran quote.If you can’t, why can’t you?
You have clearly tooth combed his every word.

Tooth combed?
Oh, dear …

Is that the best you can do? Other than call Oxfam Jew Haters?

Why does he cite holocaust deniers? Answer the question.

Cath.You criticise people on this thread for taking what Sizer says and leaping to the conclusion that he’s a holocuast denier.
I’ve already said that I don’t think Sizer is a holocaust denier – but that it’s worrying to see who he quotes. Yet you then make the tenuous leap to saying that Engage supports this posting and is possibly involved in it. So what you’re doing is the same as what you’re accusing other people of doing – taking tenuous links and spinning it into an accusation for which you have no proof at all. I guess you could argue (if you were really desperate) that Engage have linked to the piece (along with several others). Yet you claim that Engage is possibly involved in the posting of the article on HP. You need to make your judegement based on facts and not just some wild accusation. There’s no rational to what you say.

Is that the best you can do? Other than call Oxfam Jew Haters?

I can do much better, especially regarding your ignorance and illiteracy, but no, I can’t improve on the factual statement that Oxfam are spit-flecked ignorant Jew haters and in breach of their charitable status.

Ceth is hopelessly confused – like debating with a jelly

Richard what the f**ck are you on about?
Let’s clear this- I think the article tries to make this linkage and I have an issue with the article and site (Seismic Shock).
Richard -confusion about who posts on Seismic Shock came from you and your references to Engage.I think that was you jumping to conclusions and leaping around.Engage posted it (this piece) under David’s editing on Engage site.Knowing the solidarity community -here I guessed that shows support for it and Seismic Shock.Why did I think maybe Engage was involved in Seismic in the first place- cause of the jumping around you did earlier.There is rational in what I say and the attempt to make me look irrational and paranoid is tiresome- plus it doesn’t really argue the point.

Nearly Oxfordonian
“Oxfam are spit-flecked ignorant Jew haters and in breach of their charitable status.”
Slander.
Oxfam are a humanitarian organisation committed to alleviating poverty and human basic needs- whereever that may be -including Gaza when it has been blockaded, bombed to smitherins and reduced to depency on aid completely.

Cath – Engage had nothing to do with the Seismic Shock posting. Your being so irrational. I have no idea what “jumping around” I did earlier. Leave the conspiracy theories to others Cath.you’re.

“Why does he cite holocaust deniers? ”

You know the answer you want me to give and it is the one the article is suggesting too.

Cath you say

“Richard -confusion about who posts on Seismic Shock came from you and your references to Engage.”

Ok Cath – I see the confusion. It was when you said “My name appears on this website under the Engage posting and that I deeply regret because of “the way” it operates and treats people.”
I took this to be a reference to Engage and not Seismic Shock. So I apologise for getting confused but I think you can see where my confusion came from.
I can however tell you that Engage had nothing to do with it.

HI Cath,

Unless I’ve missed something, Mordechai nowhere suggests Sizer himself is a Holocaust denier. He isn’t. But: Sizer DOES cite deniers/ trivialists/ revisionists/ antisemites in his writings (Norman Finkelstein, Uri Davis, Lenni Brenner in Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon; Davis again, also Mearsheimer & Walt, in Zion’s Christian Soldiers; Chomsky, Davis & Shahak [”leading Jewish academics” in his response to Melanie Phillips at http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/spectator.htm); he has used the label ‘Arbeit macht frei’ for a picture of Israel’s security fence; he has corresponded with the neo-Nazi Israel Shamir; he has granted an interview to the American anti-Semite Mark Dankof; he has sent out emails with anti-Semitic content (see Mordechai’s comment above).

Why is Sizer, someone who takes pains in his writings to emphasize he is not an anti-Semite, citing these sources? Doesn’t it concern you that these sources are being used in a Christian milieu?

I see, well at least some of you chaps have been honest enough to outline your view that these charities – War on Want, Oxfam, Christian Aid etc, are “anti-Israel” and even “Jew-hating”. I suppose a lot can be said about this mindset, but essentially they denote the different between a particular nationalist mindset and one, like mine, that rejects nationalism. Yes, these charities do have criticisms of some of Israel’s policies. I do not regard that as “anti-Israel”, anymore than I regard criticism of British govt policies as being “anti-British”. They have outlined their reasons for those criticisms. I guess you folk don’t give to charity very much – its a pretty paranoid worldview when an appeal is launched regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and you regard this as anti-Israel or even antisemitic. Its a fascinating, if disturbing, position.

More specifically, Alan criticises Oxfam’s press release for stating Israel uses “disproportionate” force. Is this on the basis that this supposed to be factually incorrect? Yesterday Olmert himself mentioned “disproportionate” force, his word – its an openly acknowledged policy. Not only that but its been openly discussed by the army previously. There is no mystery about it at all.

Cath, do yourself a favour and check what charitable status under UK law entails. You will find that Oxfam has breached the terms of its charitable status.
And in general, checking your facts before making a fool of yourself might be a good policy.

Yes, these charities do have criticisms of some of Israel’s policies. I do not regard that as “anti-Israel”, anymore than I regard criticism of British govt policies as being “anti-British”. They have outlined their reasons for those criticisms

Under UK charity law, they are prohibited from making such political statements as they have made against Israel. I use ‘against’ rather than ‘about’, because the consistent bias against Israel on the part of Oxfam, for example, is very clear.
The fact that a lot of their ‘criticisms’ of Israel are demented lies is just the icing on the cake.

I guess you folk don’t give to charity very much

Pretty revealing about your own mindset and bias. You have no idea how much any of us give to charity, but that doesn’t stop you from making this nonsensical and abusive statement.

Nearly Oxfordian

In fact under the 2006 Charity Law charities CAN be as political as they want, provided the politics is related to the aim, which must remain charitable. If Oxfam wants to be anti-Israel, it can be. What it must NOT do though is to LIE. The Charity Commission publishes guidance on political campaigning in guidance note CC9. Material must be “factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base”.

All the Charities I cite above have lied.

‘Ah, it had to come, the nasty dig from SR at those who point out the sick pathology of communism. According to SR, they do it out of schadenfreude’

My point is that I find placing some fictional monopoly on violence on one end of the political spectrum both fallacious and disgusting. I also consider pulling numbers of dead, that is dead people, torn from life by a totalising creed, out of your arse, sick.

I did do a long post for Gordon’s benefit but given it included a series of homophobic commentaries for the ‘reliable’ source he provided, I guess it was rejected as too OT. My apologies.

Of course, NO, I realise the Didcot power station is famed for producing warped minds and bodies. May I suggest you surrender yourself for testing as this is a fascinating topic.

Consider the symptoms, egotisitcal self regard when speaking from perfect ignorance, hysterical reaction when challenged, amoral use of loaded terms to describe those who disagree. An interesting case study methinks

I’ve never suggested Sizer is a Holocaust denier, however you do have to wonder why he quotes Holocaust deniers.

Alan

But again you define being “anti-Israel” as making specific criticism of Israeli govt policies. That’s simply a particular nationalist mindset. I am British, but there would be no way I would define specific criticisms British govt policies as being “anti-British” per se – but then I’m not a nationalist or a patriot.

You acknowledge that charities can criticise government policies (well done!), but then say they are still in breach because they have “lied”. As you know, a lie is deliberately telling an untruth whilst knowing it to be untrue, and virtually impossible to prove in this case. Let’s leave such silliness aside. What you are talking about is factual accuracy. However, I am sure you or anybody else could take these charities to court if you think they breach the law in that respect. Curiously, no one has. If it’s so clear cut, why has no one done this?

Alan

You acknowledge that charities can criticise government policies (well done!), but then say they are still in breach of the law because they have “lied”. As you know, lying is deliberately telling untruths, and virtually impossible to prove in this case. Let’s leave such silliness aside. What you are talking about is factual accuracy. However, I am sure you or anybody else could take these charities to court if you think they breach the law in that respect. Curiously, no one has. If it’s so clear cut, why has no one done this?

no comment

Alan Hart

Here is the speech Hart is currently touting around:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v9I2RkZdE20&eurl=http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=7fdb4371bd656722a3d90f0a56852fd7&topic=4256.0

A written version is here:

http://sites.google.com/a/sihrg.org/solicitors-international-human-rights-group/Home/alan-hart/hart-speech

Excerpts:

“Israel’s assertion that it acted in self-defence to stop the rockets was just another of Zionism’s propaganda lies.

Nasty bit is at 13:20 and on, not in the transcript

15:46 “Editors fear that if they offended Zionism too much, they would be punished by the withdrawal of advertising ……….” … “if the truth about the nature and behaviour of the Z State of Israel was known, it could provoke Holocaust 2 “

30:33 “Blair and Lord Levy have effectively Zionised British Foreign Policy” .. “You can give Zionism an inverted V-sign by buying my book”

Wiki: “Alan Hart is an author, former Middle East Chief Correspondent for Independent Television News, and former BBC Panorama presenter specialising in the Middle East”.

– So much for “Zionists controlling the media”

Here is his addendum to a recent speech: “That was to have been the end of my talk but I can’t shut up without a comment
on the BBC’s refusal to give air-time to the Disaster and Emergency Committee’s Gaza appeal. I think the explanation given by Director General Mark Thompson is proof, repeat proof, that he and some if not all of his senior management colleagues are frightened, no terrified, of offending the Zionist lobby. The DG
actually said in his interview with John Humphrys that he was concerned that the corporation would be accused of taking sides – i.e. with Hamas and the Palestinians – if it transmitted the Gaza appeal. Question: WHO would have accused the BBC of taking sides? There is only one answer. Give or take a very
few others, only supporters of Israel right or wrong as organised and directed by the Zionist lobby here in the UK and no doubt America, too… I think the BBC of Mark Thompson¢s leadership should be renamed – ZBC and I don’t have to tell you what Z stands
for. There are some fine reporters and other BBC production people who are as disgusted as I am, but they can¢t speak out because they have mortgages to pay and children to educate.”

Of course, NO, I realise the Didcot power station is famed for producing warped minds and bodies. May I suggest you surrender yourself for testing as this is a fascinating topic.

I expected nothing less from you: a screeching, spit-flecked ad hominem rant the moment I disagreed with you. You make my point for me.

JohnP wrote:

“Felix, I doubt that’ll ever happen. The Church has to abide by its own theology and even some of that of the Old Testament as well.”
I was writing about a change in Vatican policy in a more liberal direction.

JP, aren’t you being a bit fatalistic and veering in a theocratic direction? I think the doctrine of the Church can change. After all it was Jesus himself who said that old casks should be filled with new wine. He refuted and softened the bigotry which prevailed during his life. If I remember rightly, during the election of the last Pope, there was tension between liberal and conservative factions, and the conservatives won.

For the most part theocratic religions, Islam excepted, have come to terms with secularised societies, and this has already had a softening effect on barbaric theocratic rulings.

Alan,
You are quite correct. I simply skipped one logical stage. Since Oxfam’s declared aim is XYZ and their lies and propaganda about Israel go outside that aim, they have breached their terms of reference for their charitable status.

Benjamin,
Don’t be silly. When Oxfam screech that such and such Israeli policy is ‘illegal’ when they have no solid evidential and legal basis for saying so, they are lying.
As to the courts: as you may have heard, taking on a large, wealthy and powerful British organisation with friends in high places is a very expensive and time-consuming process. It requires a thorough cost-benefit analysis before embarking on it. Who will do this?

“You can give Zionism an inverted V-sign by buying my book”

So his antisemitism is based on personal greed?
What a fine human being.

http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2008/09/alan-hart-israel-kidnapped-alan.html

Adam Holland exposes Alan Hart: “The Face of Genteel British Antisemitism”

Benjamin – the point is that it is not the business of the IAEA to approve or disapprove of BBC policy. Their job description is quite specific and it doesn’t include jumping on political bandwaggons.
As for your so-called ‘respected charities’ – I think Alan said it all.
The DEC appeal has been totally one-sided and has completely ignored the suffering of Israeli citizens. Had the appeal aimed to raise money to also help rebuild the damaged houses, schools and kindergatens in Israel, to treat the citizens of Sderot in need of psychological care, to help the many Israeli small businesses which have gone under as a result of not being able to trade, then I would have more sympathy for it.
Some of these charities ran full-page colour adverts in British newspapers which were totally one-sided and mentioned nothing of the suffering on the Israeli side. As far as I know they all remained totally silent whilst the children of Sderot and the surrounding areas endured missile fire for 8 years.
Posters put up in my town in the name of the DEC appeal were downright libellous and anti-Semitic.
This campaign has been political from its beginning and it is very disturbing that charities should use their power to further political ends.
There are many jobs and positions in this world in which one cannot morally allow one’s political viewpoints to be on show. For example, I might have a deep-seated loathing of vegans (I don’t!), but I am not permitted to refuse treatment to vegans, criticize their lifestyle choices or use my professional clout to further campaigns against them.
It is precisely this proffessional impartiality which seems to have been abandoned by so many public figures all over the world and particularly in the UK of late. This should worry everyone because today it’s Israel, but tomorrow it could be anyone.

Moredechai -please can you do me a favour and remove my Engage thingy from your site if in any way possible.The thing is it’s under my real name -annoyingly.We all do things differently- fine, it’s just not my way for the reasons listed above.
If you can’t- don’t worry,that’s that.

and here a Scientologist in Germany denying the Holocaust: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tx_yq4FaDY (German with English subtitles)

Cath, I’ve removed it.

Re BBC DEC decision: people might be interested in this talk on Israel/Gaza in a church yesterday

http://www.brockenhurstchurch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=40&Itemid=73

In particular at the end of the clip (abt 57 minutes) the Vicar asks
people to vote on a show of hands whether the BBC decision was correct.

A majority thought it *WAS* correct.

Thanks

’spit-flecked’ – Salvia is very important to you, is it not. On your mind all the time, one might say, on the tip of your tongue (hohohoho). Is it a fetish?

Felix-JP, aren’t you being a bit fatalistic and veering in a theocratic direction? I think the doctrine of the Church can change. After all it was Jesus himself who said that old casks should be filled with new wine.

You may have a point, Felix. However, change will take a long, long time, but Christianity is always a work in progress. Theologians are very conservative and therefore generally reluctant to engage in any fast paced changes.

The probleme with homosexuality and marriage is that homosexuals and lesbians can’t naturally produce offspring, and The Church views reproduction as an integral part of marriage, its central purpose, in fact.

One could counter that new reproductive technologies now make it possible for same-sex couples to have children, but many of these new techniques are condemned by The church, so it just brings it all back to square one.

There is, however, the longterm possibility that some sort of religious ceremony approaching that of marriage could be established to ’sanctify’ gay unions. If society changes enough, and as mores and ethics evolve more pressure will come to bear on religious institutions for a more accommodating approach to same-sex unions.

It’s not an issue that is going to go away any time soon.

Salvia is sage. Learn to do basic research.
Next!

David T or whoever- thanks for the additional profiling under my name- linking to this article on Stephen.This piece is effectively a smear in my view, I’m not saying the rest of his pieces are.
Reasons- timing after the outrage of last week,framing,heading by picture, mentioning of Bishop Williamson etc..,the fact they are both clergy.Public take on it – rent-a-mob.I get that everyone thinks this is an awful suggestion.
And for what it is worth -I share concerns around Stephen’s theology and how it relates to Jews and what it is saying about Judaism & Israel and the Christian antisemitism present in it.But that’s not the issue here.
Would you like to add that to my google profile- thanks.

I really don’t think it is called for to attach this to my name.If the site was that irritated by what was said they could have stopped me posting.It will be permanently attached to my name and as is clear there is an issue with that.
As for the site objected to in thread- it primarily posts on Stephen and all posts are negative.There is no engagement- just negative representation of a person- no chance for change/healing .Plus there is the fact of Christian against Jew and vice versa. A site that has no value for religion isn’t going to care less about this, I do.It’s my last posting and rest assured I won’t return again.

What do you mean there’s no engagement? Comments are totally open on Seismic Shock, unlike Stephen Sizer’s blog which doesn’t allow comments.

Also, Cath, I fail to see the problem – I’ve deleted the post like you’ve requested. Harry’s Place linking to Seismic Shock shouldn’t affect you then. If your name is still coming up in google searches then talk to Google. I also reject the accusation that I’m somehow anti-Christian – especially considering the number of positive comments I’ve received from Jews and Christians alike about Seismic Shock.

Also, Cath, Stephen Sizer’s book is extremely negative about Christians – in his book he attacks all Christian Zionists, mainstream American Christianity, many significant figures of English Protestantism, a sovereign state, Messianic Jews, and the Scofield Bible. Based on your logic, Sizer is also guilty of negative representation of many people.

Cath. I’m still a bit confused. So not sure if it will help but would it help if I deleted your last name from ur Engage piece. As I say I’m not quite sure but if it will help then I’ll search for your piece and try and edit it (we’ve moved to wordpress but I preume it can still be edited). If you want then u can contact me thru the contact facility on Engage.

Cath

Sizer is an antisemite (“Zionism is a form of racism”) who cloaks his prejudice in Biblical references. Mordechai is doing a public service by exposing him.

You say “all posts are negative”. No doubt Sizer is loved by his Mum but what else is there positive to say about him?

Sizer never responds to any criticism either. In fact he apparently would like to be be able to use the law to shut critics up. Of course he can’t since the law is on the side of his critics.

@socialrepublican

Your post divides into 3 parts. Each part is rubbish and reeks of de haut en bas.

1. It may well be that all the entities you cited were/are against the present Capitalist economic system. However, my point about the nazis own declaration also included that they said they are socialists. To say we ARE this and we AREN’T that is more than you have attempted to answer about.

2. The fact that the rest of the TFP site had many other views doesn’t of itself invalidate the facts quoted and sourced in the page I referenced. This would be like me saying that you are a lefty sympathiser and therefore everything you say is BS (NB I am not saying that everything you say is NOT BS). However, I didn’t read the rest of that site and so I will extract the relevant page and update it. Thank you for that.

3. ‘I still dont understand why lefties are indulgent towards communist history but so earnest about showing their need to disassociate from their nazi fellow travellers’ is not about historical accuracy. What I am saying is that socialists are dead keen to shout “Nazi!” at anyone who disagrees with them while apparently unaware of the mote in their own eye – their fellow-travellers’ record on murder. In one word, hypocrisy.

One extra point: you add that “Murderous ideology is not the monopoly of any political stripe”. However, it very nearly almost is when you consider the multi-millions on the socialist side and a few thousand on the capitalist side.

I’m asking “Harry’s” to please try to get this link removed or less prominent from my goggle name. There is no reason why you should but I’m requesting it anyway in the hope someone may feel it has pissed me off for long enough attached to the top of my goggle profile as anticipated and the point has been made.
It seems trivial and it is in the wider picture of world problems and concerns- but it really isn’t representing the best (I accept that’s my fault for hasty/reactive blogging in an open forum.)
Doing this won’t warrant a return or the dive-bombing in on threads here or elsewhere.