Monday 10 August 2015

Actions speak louder than words

Ever since Plebgate, Golliwog-gate and Swarm-gate I’ve been ambivalent over exaggerated frenzies about the intent behind the meaning of a particular word. 

Even Jeremy Corbyn’s infamous use of the term ‘friends‘ for Hamas and Hezbollah seems far less important than his actions, namely befriending terrorist organisations with the explanation that you need to talk to the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah in order to secure ‘peace.‘ 

Stephen Sizer meets Nabil Kaouk, a top Hezbollah official and militant commander, in Lebanon

I wonder if this principle also applies to ISIS?  

Corbyn’s inability to acknowledge that as far as Islamic fundamentalism is concerned you can talk till you’re blue in the face, but the outcome is never going to be ‘peace’, at least not in the accepted definition of the term. 
I suppose we ought also to clarify what Corbyn actually means when he uses the term ‘peace’.  Submission, perhaps?

Talking of Jeremy Corbyn and  his friends, Stephen Sizer’s ban must be up by now. I wonder if he’ll make use of his newfound freedom to resume his anti-Israel campaigning, and if so, whether his friendship will help or hinder Corbyn’s leadership prospects. 

The BBC’s lack of interest in Corbyn’s habit of cosying up to undesirables is conspicuous by its absence. The nearest thing I’ve seen is Krishnan Gur-Murthy’s unsatisfactory ‘Friends’ themed Paxo-attack, and that wasn’t even on the BBC.

The Daily Mail might be a bit too hyperbolic for most of us, but you have to admit that Stephen Sizer’s interview with Dr. Duncan McPherson, author and theologian, or as I like to think of him, ‘hissing Sid’, (viz: "SSimon of Cyrene carrying the cross of Jesusss") whose tremendous feat of turning-reality-on-its-head must be seen to be believed, is deeply creepy.  

The video was uploaded to YouTube in Jan 2015, just before Bishop Andrew Watson imposed his six-month banning order on Sizer’s anti-Zionist activities. Why it is entitled “Enlightenment - Escaping Auschwitz”  escapes me. 

Stephen Sizer’s gentle manner is like a really evil dentist - 'it won’t hurt'. But it bloody does.
 “Did you know that the Zionists are seeking to claim these historic sites - using the Arabic term “Haram al-Sharif” -  for themselves?” 
Stephen Sizer asks Duncan, smiling sweetly.
 “One of the reasons for having Yad Vashem on stolen Palestinian land rather than having it in Germany where it ought to be, or in Poland, is to bring before people’s minds a foundational myth for the State of Israel.” 
hisses Duncan unctuously as he delegitimises Israel with one fell swoop.

Oh you naughty Christians! Did you not know that Christians aren’t supposed to lie?   
The Anglican church should be ashamed of itself for allowing Sizer to represent them

Talking of semantics, the BBC’s policy of translating ‘Yahud‘ into ‘Israeli’ reveals a kind of editorial meddling that we could do without. Their earnest explanation is that “When they say ‘Yahud’ they really mean ‘Israeli’ “. 

Actually, the BBC would like that to be the case, but of course it’s not strictly true. If they left it alone and translated it truthfully as ‘Jew’, which any fule kno is correct, people might think the Palestinians were racists, which, sadly they’re brought up to be, but that wouldn’t suit the BBC’s Bambification of the Palestinians.

Jeremy Corbyn might like to try talking the Palestinians out of their hatred of “Israelis”. That might work. Then he could go to Syria and have a go with the warring factions there, then, who knows, Iran and the Ayatollahs might be open to persuasion. Worth a try. He could go under the auspices of one of Sizer’s pilgrimages.


  1. When Corbyn said, "our friends" in Hamas, etc. at that forum, he was obviously saying it in a collegiate sense, trying to be inclusive. He did not mean actual friends. Of course, he's too arrogant and stubborn to explain it clearly when challenged, so everyone is still left to think that's what he meant. Like most on the Left, he does prefer Hamas and Hezbollah's perspective over Israel, there's no mistaking that. Claiming they are legitimate partners in peace is a sign of either delusion or a desire to end the State of Israel, come what may to the Jews who live there.

    As for the BBC's deliberate mistranslation, next time anyone claims the BBC is a Zionist shill or pro-Israel or whatever, this admission that they did what their Hamas handlers approved neatly destroys that argument.

  2. Sizer is really that most odious of co-called Christians...a replacement theologian.
    Basically. they say that Gods promise for the Jews was supplanted by their refusal to accept Jesus as being the "final solution".
    That Jesus was a Jew?...Paul says salvation will come from the Jews?...well, mere trifles that are not to be taken too literally.
    These Christians deny the Old Testaments part in creating Jesus-they think that He himself would deny the same, and back the broke-backed parody of Christianity as exhibited by Sizer, Fraser etc.
    The white flabby decadent Church that pays them well.
    To try and reason the Jewish people out of their pedigree, their heritage, their reasoned faith and their land, just to try and suck up to their mortal enemies in Islam is a disgrace.
    I`m a Christian-and I despise the likes of Sizer.
    Jesus was Jewish-and I`d have no faith, no reason and no purpose were it not for the Jews historical role in creating my Bible...and Jesus and God will go no faster that their Jewish Chosen People.

  3. MacPherson's comment about which jews were or weren't locked up in concentration camps shows a shocking ignorance about the Holocaust.
    His comments about the location of Yad Vashem and the "foundational myth" of the State of Israel reek of anti-semitism at its worst, this time dressed up as christian ecumenism. The catholic hierarchy ought to take a much closer look at MacPherson.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.