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

k

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.

 

friends

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

 

"Enlightenment"

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.

Addenda

 Two updates regarding the subjects of previous threads.

George Galloway is disgruntled and aggrieved about his Q.T. ‘ambush’ (I couldn’t bring myself to read it all) but this caught my eye.

“I know of several pro-Palestinian supporters, Muslims, and Respect members who were turned down in their attempts to join the audience. Fanatic supporters of Israel evidently had no such difficulty.”

which some of us might find kind of ironic.

Look at the comments below the line on Huffpo. Many of them think George is vilified for merely ‘speaking the truth’ about Israel. Oh dear. Many of them are too young and too far removed emotionally from WWll. They aren’t interested  in the Holocaust, they neither know nor care about how it came about, which is something than can only get worse as time goes by. 

*********

The other one, if you haven’t already seen it on Harry’s Place, is the letter to the Bishop of Guildford from The Revd Dr Stephen Sizer. It goes a bit like so:

"Sincerest apologies if I offended anyone and I promise not to do it again for a while although everyone knows what I really (still) think; and I’m still a CofE vicar, and I hope my generous and open recognition that this apology will have to be in the public domain passes for contrition and humility."

Asbos for all

A sticking-plaster remedy may or may not be better than nothing, but banning people from Tweeting and Facebooking antisemitic taunts and jibes is a pretty tokenistic gesture.

 However, as Rabbi Mark Goldsmith says, "People do need that sense that wherever you spread hate, it's not going to be legal". Meaning, I suppose, that such actions will be defined as ‘criminal’ and therefore less likely to be flung about with gay abandon, as it appears they are at the moment.

Stephen Sizer has received a six month ban on using social media, though he hasn’t been defrocked. What message does that send? 

The new Bishop of Guildford, the Right Reverend Andrew Watson just doesn’t seem to get it. He said: Dr Sizer's "strong but increasingly indiscipline (sic) anti-Zionist agenda" had become a "liability". He said that even other Christians who support the Palestinian cause found his strident stance counterproductive.

"Having now met Stephen, in my brand new role as Bishop of Guildford, I do not believe that his motives were antisemitic," he said."But I have concluded that, at the very least, he has demonstrated appalling poor judgment on the material he has chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly antisemitic."

Butter wouldn't melt

See here, an article in the Times (£) and ‘Christian Today’ about Archbishop Welby, who says  Facebook and Twitter must do more to prevent the proliferation of racism and antisemitism on their sites. (Funnily enough there’s another article on Justin Welby, which reveals that his old man was ‘born a Jew’, so Justin is ‘half Jewish’, which almost devalues any positive sentiments towards Israel and nudges him towards the Mandy Rice Davies category. Deduct several brownie points for that please Samantha.)

The BBC’s article doesn’t even mention Archbishop Welby though. The BBC does seem to be ostentatiously sticking to facts in a palpable ‘walking on eggshells. manner.

It includes a brief analysis by Caroline Wyatt. Her analysis is a real curate’s egg. Good in parts. eg: 

“The rise in violent anti-Semitic attacks last year in the UK was clearly linked to the conflict in Gaza, with some using criticism of Israel's actions as a pretext for hate speech.Although the Jewish community is deeply integrated into British society, many British Jews say there has always been a low level of underlying anti-Semitism - such as casual, thoughtless remarks - but the rise of hate speech online is new and risks normalizing such sentiments.  Extremist or hate speech against one minority creates an environment in which such sentiments can easily spread to others.”

Very preceptive. But here comes the rotten bit: 

"So today's call may also be welcomed by Muslim communities, facing what they say is a rise in Islamophobia following the Paris attacks.

No! No, Caroline, no!. Let’s address antisemitism in a fully frontal fashion, and not equate it with Islam. Please. Antisemitism is not the same thing as Islamophobia. While Muslims may welcome some sort of curb on anti-Islam Tweets and Facebook posts, they probably won’t be so delighted with a curb on antisemitic ones, since they are the primary perpetrators. 

In any case, this curb, without a very strict definition and scrupulous enforcement could easily morph into the thin end of a blasphemy law type wedge.

Let’s just go back to basics. 

What is missing from enquiries into antisemitism is a straightforward examination of the media’s reporting of matters concerning the Middle East. 

Also missing, but gradually becoming inescapable, is the antisemitism that emanates from Islam.

Prominent in all debates about antisemitism is the plea that diaspora Jews should not be held responsible for ‘Israel’. This sentiment occurs in discourse coming from anyone and everyone. It is based on the premise that Israel is in the wrong. 

While diaspora Jews are not necessarily ‘responsible for’ or indeed necessarily supportive of Israel, and / or the present Israeli government, the vilification of Israel (hence the resulting need to distance oneself from it) is itself antisemitic. 

Through sloppy, ill-informed and one-sided reporting there is confusion and ignorance about the very moral and legal legitimacy of Israel. I mean Israel’s right to exist. A common perception is that Israeli Jews are European interlopers in ‘Muslim lands’. That Israel shouldn’t ‘be there’. All attempts to counter this perception are dismissed as ‘hasbara.’ Anyone with more than an average interest in the topic can find masses of information if they search for it, but apathy prevails.

More confusion surrounds the history of the creation of Israel, Arab rejectionism, the wars, peace agreements and intifadas. The predominating narrative throughout the MSM emanates from Israel’s enemies. The Islam-Hitler collaboration, the mass expulsion of Jewish communities from Arab countries and the religiously based Islamic antisemitism are all but unknown to the average  viewer. 

“In just 50 years, almost a million Jews, whose communities stretch back up to 3,000 years, have been 'ethnically cleansed' from 10 Arab countries. These refugees outnumber the Palestinian refugees two to one, but their narrative has all but been ignored. Unlike Palestinian refugees, they fled not war, but systematic persecution. Seen in this light, Israel, where some 50 percent of the Jewish population descend from these refugees and are now full citizens, is the legitimate expression of the self-determination of an oppressed indigenous, Middle Eastern people”.

Who knew? Arab rejectionism is barely ever mentioned. Instead all we hear is ‘the nakba’. 

The BBC rarely shows its viewers the rabidly antisemitic outbursts from the Arab world. Despite the extremist views delivered with maniacal passion by sheikhs and clerics, which  we can all see if we take the trouble to look at Memri’s archive, there are, amongst the overwhelming dross, some voices of sanity  out there in the Arab world as well. We don’t see them on the MSM either. 

President Al-Sisi at Davos ‘Peace treaty with Israel’ Tunisian MP says ‘Elders of Zion’ wasn’t penned by the Jews.

Yet week in week out BBC viewers get Abdel Bari Atwan - not exactly saying what he says in the Arabic speaking media, but his toned down, between the lines antisemitism, all of which is regarded by the BBC as credible.

Will Abdel Bari Atwan get an asbo? No, he’ll remain Dateline’s most popular guest, as he always was. 

The new Bishop of Guildford doesn’t think Stephen Sizer is antisemitic. That will be because, like George Galloway, Sizer simply says “I’m not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist.” upon which the new Bishop is stalemated.

Even if George Galloway accidentally crosses the line and Tweets something careless, and picks up an asbo, that won’t stop him from disseminating Islam-engendered Jew hate at rallies, in universities, on Press TV. 

The only way to turn the tide is for the BBC to open up and start giving the whole picture. The truth about Israel and Islam. As we can see from the BBC’s (so far) total blackout of the protest that took place outside the PM’s residence yesterday, it isn’t going to happen anytimesoon. (Oh I do hate that expression.)

Asbos all round for the BBC please.

Negative proof

I was struck by the absence of Stephen Sizer on the Sunday programme. 

His 9/11 remark made the mainstream news, after all.

This article, about the church ‘investigating’ Sizer’s link to an article entitled  "9/11 Israel did it", and asking sweetly whether that was antisemitic, and the other article about Sizer’s ‘apology’ and statement:

" I never believed Israel or any other country was complicit in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11" were reported on the BBC website on consecutive days. It was also mentioned in some BBC news bulletins. 

In the spirit of (the difficulties of) trying to prove a negative. “I would welcome articles you can recommend refuting the allegations” (Show me evidence that the Jews didn’t do it”)  I would like to see the evidence that the BBC was justified in omitting topical news (deemed newsworthy even by the BBC) concerning one of the church’s most reprehensible antisemites, from the BBC’s foremost religious radio programme.

 Sizer has been peddling his toxic views for ages, but until recently it was only bloggers like Daphne Anson, Cif Watch and Harry’s Place who found his antisemitic antics of interest. 

It’s pretty amazing that he can wage his war against the Jews so openly, in the name of the church, with impunity.

Now he’s surpassed himself. In the full glare of the current media stormette, he’s jaunted off to Tehran to mingle with the vile and infamous. He has gone, so he says, as an ‘ambassador.’

You’d think the BBC ‘s foremost religious programme might have picked that up, wouldn’t you?