Skip to content

"Any organisation that has truth, integrity or accuracy in its name is invariably about the very opposite." ~Wiki Editors' notice board.

Jonathan Arkush admits his vendetta against Stephen Sizer

In his quest for the Board of Deputies of British Jews of England and Northern Ireland Presidency, candidate Jonathan Arkush has revealed his 3 year vendetta against Church of England Vicar, Revd. Stephen Sizer.  It can be seen in the first presidential candidates hustings sponsored by the Jewish Chronicle on May 12, 2015, chaired by Stephen Pollard, the JC’s editor.

The text of this admission is thus:

“We went after him, one man walking advertisement for hatred of Israel in a Church of England cassock, and we got him an ASBO from his Bishop. I actually finished off discussions on that as I was sitting shiva for my father 3 years ago because it had to be done and that’s how committed I am.”

We suggest that since his father just died Feb 4, 2015, a Freudian slip was made.  He said 3 years but meant 3 months.  Given that the CDM (Clergy Disciplinary Measure filed against Sizer in 2012), another Arkush driven initiative, was concluded 3 years ago, we can safely assume that’s how long this vendetta has been on his mind.  It also tells us just how unwell that mind is.

While Mr. Arkush was sitting shiva after the death of his father, he says that he “finished off discussions on that”, meaning “getting” Stephen Sizer.  He had entered into a conciliation agreement with Revd. Sizer on Wednesday, October 23, 2013, which it appears, he had no intention of honouring, before the negotiations even began, if our Freudian theory is correct.  The boast he made was to show his tenacity and dedication to his cause, and a 3 year period is much more impressive than a 3 month one.

It’s worthwhile to note that the Jewish representative in those negotiations was an old school mate of his, Sir Gavin Lightman, when it’s our understanding that bias and personal interest of either of the conciliators was to have been taboo.  Neither of them thought to report their previous close association to the presiding Bishop of Guildford, Christopher Hill. The course of that Jew on Christian aggression is carefully chronicled on the pages of this blog.

Sizer had been accused of posting “anti-Semitic” material on his website and/or Facebook page and given the developments of the last 3 years, Israel’s conduct has been consistent with what that material contained. Duplicitous, conspiratorial, murderous and down right dishonest, time has borne out the source websites’ information.  Even the Wikispooks website that he posted in January, was deemed not anti-Semitic, but his Bishop, Andrew Watson, after being promised that constant CDMs were in Sizer’s future, gave in to Jewish aggression, Zionist pressure, and the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby’s misguided and questionable desire to make nice with the Board of Deputies at the expense of their own priest.   So the mealy-mouthed announcement that Revd. Sizer’s activism was no longer compatible with being a Church of England priest was made, and a social media ban was imposed. This is the ASBO Arkush brags about obtaining from Watson against Sizer in his speech as a BoD Presidential candidate.   Notice, he said “we got”.

In an interesting choice of wording, Arkush calls Sizer “a one man advertisement for the hatred of Israel”, not anti-Semitic, since Sizer isn’t anti-Semitic according to his Bishop and a multitude of Jews and Christians alike.

Let’s examine the “hatred of Israel” statement for a minute.  Since the failed CDM some 3 years ago, Israel has built a number of illegal settlements, killed a number of Palestinian children, and leveled a huge proportion of Gaza, as well as committed a multitude of other war crimes that the Hague just might adjudicate yet.  The problem with Arkush’s statement is that from everything we’ve read (before the ban) Sizer doesn’t hate Israel. He wants Israel to change. He wants Israel to end its racism, stop its persecution of Christians and all people in the region, stop the ever continuing theft of Palestinian land, and for Israel to abide by international law.  Where’s the hate in that?  He’s never said he wanted Israel to be destroyed, at least we’ve never seen nor heard it.  We challenge anyone to bring us evidence that Sizer hates Israel and wants it destroyed.  It’s just not out there.  As for the Wikispooks website Sizer posted, he was interested in a discussion about the possibility of Israel’s involvement in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center (we’re all interested), and asked if it was anti-Semitic, but Arkush saw his opportunity and pounced.  The social media ban wasn’t imposed because of the content of the Wikispooks website.  It was imposed because the Jewish Lobby had gotten the best of Sizer’s Christian bosses. It’s that simple.  So, what were they really afraid of?  We suspect the anti-Semitism card was on the table and ready to be flipped over at them for all the world to see.  Wouldn’t that be a mess, to have the Church of England’s Archbishop of Canterbury and his Bishop of Guildford called anti-Semites in an aggressive bullying campaign led by The Board of Deputies of British Jews?

That, folks, is what the stakes were.  And as a consequence of the weak and mealy-mouthed Bishop’s ban, the Board of Deputies has the Christian Church of England by the short hairs.  It’s a sort of blackmail.  “If you don’t silence him, we’ll make a racket you won’t be able to live with”.  So a ban was secured, not based on substance, but rather, based on fear.  Fear of the Jews.  Watson himself, admitted this promised future vendetta was real, in a communiqué to a Sizer faithful.  Fear of the Jews.  I’ll say it again.  Fear of the Jews.  Just sit there and let that resonate in your mind for a minute.

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” – Yoda.

Given that Watson admitted in a tweet to the comical narcissistic social media troll, “Archbishop Cranmer” that he didn’t know a thing about Sizer before coming to Guildford, his haste to silence Sizer had to come directly from above. (What’s a CoE Bishop doing tweeting about someone he has silenced with an internet nut like Cranmer anyway? Don’t bother looking for the tweets….they’ve been disappeared).   If the recent speeches and actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury are any indication of just where he stands, Justin Welby is either a Zionist or a very weak willed man, or both.  The very church he leads is in danger of a schism over several subjects like gay marriage and the ordination of women, but we propose that the outside dark forces such as Jewish aggression are much more dangerous than any of the internal ones.

Every Anglican in the UK should be appalled at where their leadership has taken them, whether they’re Zionists or not.  Allowing Jewish aggression, blackmail, and coercion to dictate Anglican policy is a very dangerous thing and cannot be allowed to stand.  Stephen Sizer’s silence cannot be allowed to stand.  Israel’s conduct cannot be allowed to stand.

We look forward to Jonathan Arkush’s election to the Board of Deputies’ Presidency.

The Board of Deputies

It is clear that for both those that seek a  just accomodation in Israel/Palestine, including justice for Palestinians in their own land, and those that serve  the Israeli government’s policy of no action but plenty of jaw jaw in order to perpetuate the brutal, illegal occupation, the attitude of Christians and the churches is crucial. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, an  extension of the Israeli embassy, regard it as their role to bully and intimidate the churches into a satisfactory position in this respect. The Quakers, the  Methodists and the Church of Scotland get the treatment regularly, and all, to a larger or lesser extent, are buckling under the weight of the assault.

On 4th July, 2013, it was announced that Vivian Wineman, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, had been elected as co-chair of The Inter-Faith Network.  Wineman made the following statement….

“In our present climate the importance of this work, and of inter faith work generally, cannot be overstated.  I am proud that the Jewish community has been at the forefront of developing interfaith relations in society generally, and that the Board of Deputies has led the community consistently in this work… Positive interfaith engagement, apart from being valuable in itself, is vital in creating friends and allies in the general community.”

To the untrained eye, this probably seems like a reasonable enough thing to say.  It is, however, carefully worded to appeal to various constituencies within the Jewish community.  The Board is on an inexorable and accelerating slide into irrelevance.  The question facing it is how substantial will be the crumbs that the Jewish Leadership Council allows the Board to retain, when its takeover is complete.  Much of the statement is a contribution to the ongoing pleading of the Board’s case to the community in the face of the forces that threaten to overwhelm it.  

The reality is that the more realistic Jewish Leadership Council is getting all the invitations that the Board used to get and bending the important ears that the Board used to bend.  Further, there is a jockeying by individuals among the Board illuminati for status and importance in the coming new scheme of things.

More importantly for present purposes, is the tell tale choice of certain words in Wineman’s statement above, that emphasise what we already know about the Board’s current obsession with inter-faith relations.  That is…

“ …..apart from being valuable in itself…”

The reality is that any intrinsic value they see in such things is marginal, to put it at its very best.

“ ……is vital in creating friends and allies….” 

Allies ?

Aren’t allies something you look for when you are going to war?  And when you ally with, is it not axiomatic that you ally AGAINST ?

As we demonstrate over and over again on this site, for the Board, inter-faith relations is not about enriching our lives and the lives of our communities by increasing knowledge, increasing understanding and promoting tolerance among  the faith groups, it is a WEAPON.

Understand that for the Board, inter-faith relations is first, last and ALWAYS about The State of Israel.  Even when they are talking about something else, it is about Israel.  Also understand, that it is a one way street and will always be strictly on their terms.  These terms are, that the other faith groups must come to  a “correct“ attitude towards Israel.

In other words, while the other groups bring their faith to the table, the Board brings a POLITICAL agenda.

Rid yourself of any naive notion that the Board leadership are a bunch of reasonable, cuddly, moderate proponents of two states for two people, though they are very adept at feigning the role.  The Board have specifically rejected the idea of two states. On January 16th 2011 they overwhelmingly rejected a resolution as follows…

” The Board of Deputies of British Jews…supports Israel’s efforts to seek a lasting negotiated peace with the Palestinians based on a two-state solution ensuring Israel’s security and respect for the welfare of all of the people in the region.”

They also reject the idea of one state since it  would bring with it an unacceptable  number of additional  undesirables (Arabs) that the world would require to be accorded civil and political rights.  This they declare, would mean the end of a Jewish state and would therefore be anti-Semitic.  The unavoidable presumption therefore, is, that they are very much onside with the Israeli strategy of delaying political change for as long as possible and in the meantime “as much land as possible and as few Arabs as possible”. 

A strategy of stealing more and more Palestinian land and property “dunam by dunam, tree by tree “, while always, of course, being willing to “talk “.

They love to talk.

Amazingly, the main reasons the above mentioned resolution was rejected was that many deputies declared themselves unable to stomach the idea of ” respect for the well being of all the people of the region”, and that an Israeli government might one day decide that one state would be in the best interests of Israelis and the Board would then be at odds with it !!!!!

If you are ever in the unfortunate position of being invited to enter into “constructive dialogue” with the Board, do remember that the Board EXPRESSLY forbids itself ANY criticism of Israel;  see the page we have entitled OMERTA for a full explanation. There is, of course, the ever watchful presence of the Israeli embassy, making sure they are never tempted;  see the EAPPI page.  An amazing situation.  An organisation of British citizens, being guided and supervised by a foreign embassy.

The  aim of this “constructive dialogue” is to drag you as close as possible to this zero sum position of no criticism. Be prepared for subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, threats and various forms of  blackmail.  You won’t be imagining it.  You are not paranoid.  They really are out to get you.  Be especially vigilant if the so called Council of “Christians” and Jews is lurking around, as it invariably will be.

If you, as an individual or organisation, have already been identified as a serious miscreant, all of this will have been preceded by a well rehearsed softening up process.

Typically there will be a torrent of histrionic abuse.  It comes from lots of directions at once.  Numerous “Jewish Community organisations” (of which there is no shortage)  are harnessed.  The occupied territories are conflated with the Jewish people, who are “hurt and pained and…….lots of other things”.  There is a deluge of self-pity and narcissism, explicit or implicit charges of anti-Semitism, and  threats to sever relations.

When the miscreant is a Church or other Christian organisation, in addition to everything else, there is the inter-faith relations blackmail weapon. “You are damaging inter-faith relations, sticking two fingers up at the Jewish community, riding roughshod over the Jewish people” and so on, and so on.

The starkness of the strategy was neatly illustrated when the Church of England Synod overwhelmingly voted to affiliate with the EAPPI programme.  It was said by Board president Vivian Wineman  to have “CHOSEN  the programme AT THE EXPENSE OF inter- faith relations.”  

It is difficult to believe that a man with such a juvenile perspective is the top man in the oldest and until recently, the most important Jewish communal organisation.  But he is.

It is either it or us, was the position.  See our page “Defend the EAPPI programme.”

Before the summer is out, the Board will be demanding that the churches choose between its “inter-faith relations” with them, and the desperate plight of their fellow Christians in Palestine.  The Council of “Christians” and Jews will be backing them up.  If you are a church or other Christian organisation, be prepared for some extremely bad behavior from the Board when the British response to the Kairos document is launched at the Greenbelt Festival this coming August bank holiday weekend.

Then the abuse is toned down and sidelined, and the next stage of the corrective process commences.  The threats and blackmail remain, but are now more implicit than explicit, and presented as being more in well rehearsed “sorrow” than anger.  Prominant among the organisations mobilised to facilitate the process, is the execrable CCJ.  It is they who apply “Christian“ pressure on other Christians.

The CCJ has a long and creditable history, but in recent years has evolved into nothing more than a branch of the Board of Deputies, habitually employed to do the Board’s dirty work for them.  Its CEO, David Gifford, is effectively seconded to the Board while still being paid by CCJ donors.  For the full picture on just how low this organisation has sunk, at least centrally, see our page “In the beginning, there was the Council of Christians and Jews….. ”

The corrective dialogue begins with the Board explaining the centrality of the land to the Judaic faith, with Zionism at the heart of Jewish communal life.  It continues with allusions to how the Jewish people and the modern state of Israel are one and the same thing.   Allies are gradually identified inside the the organisation in question,  which is gradually edged back to the right side of the lines.  For an absolutely classic example of the process, see our page on how the Methodists were disciplined.

It is not just acquiescense on the immediate issue that the Board seeks, but control.  They seek to get themselves into a position, sometimes formally , where they directly have input on the internal policy making and the theological exploration of the churches, and to control Christian ecumenical programmes they don’t like.

As well as redefining anti-Semitism, they also seek to establish their favoured definitions of Christianity.

The Board shares and actively publicises the view that….

“Christian support for Israel is rooted in biblical sources”

And…

“You cannot be a genuine Christian believer while acting against the Jewish people.”

By acting against the Jewish people, they mean of course, criticising Israel in ways that cross the lines they have drawn.  The Board regard Christian Zionists as their natural allies in the churches, and actively work to increase Christian Zionist influence, therein.  To repeat, the Board would have the churches accept their position that the only true Christians are Christian Zionists.

In reality, there is no need for the churches to fear the “damaging inter-faith relations” card.  The Board of Deputies do not represent a faith, per se.  In so far as they (still) represent anything (debatable), they represent a prevalent political perspective among  an ethnic group in the UK.

You might refer to the Fraser/UCU case, (forever to be affectionately known as the FUCU case), in which the Tribunal held that the worship of the modern State of Israel is not intrinsic to Jewishness.  The Tribunal immediately saw that this action was not about discrimination against Jews within the union, but rather, an attempt by a cabal of hasbarafiosi to establish a legal foothold for their attempt to force its politics upon the union.  This attempt was scathingly dismissed by the Tribunal as being entirely without merit, accepting the “no brainer” that a 65 year old political entity is not intrinsic to a several thousand year old faith. Jonathan Goldberg QC  summed it up neatly: ” You may as well say that supporting Tottenham Hotspur is a protected characteristic because a lot of Jews do so. “
If the Tribunal can quickly “get it”, why can’t the churches?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Tribunal in the FUCU  case said…
We greatly regret that this case was ever brought.  At heart it represents an impermissible  attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.”
.
The churches need to understand that what passes for inter-faith relations so far as the Board is concerned, is, at heart, an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by means of harassment and intimidation.
The tribunal also said that Jeremy Newmark, CEO of The Jewish Leadership Coincil was  ” preposterous ” and an arrogant liar.
He remains in his position.
……………………………………………
See http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/ask-qc/106261/why-ronnie-fraser-case-against-ucu-was-a-legal-and-public-relations-disaster
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Links to other websites

From time to time this website may also include links to other websites. These links are provided for your convenience to provide further information. They do not signify that we endorse the website(s). We have no responsibility for the content of the linked website(s).

If it works for the Board of Deputies, it’ll work for us.  ~Editor

Introduction

Much of the present content of this web site is concerned with the harassment and persecution of one man by an assorted pack of hasbarafiosi rabids, and increasingly by seemingly respectable Jewish and Christian Zionist/Jewish organisations, it seeks to show that this persecution is part of a much wider picture.

The assault on Stephen Sizer is part of an organised and determined campaign to move  the Church of England ever closer to the “correct” attitude towards the State of Israel.  This is, in turn, part of the campaign to intimidate the Christian Churches in the UK, generally.  The Methodists and The Society of Friends (Quakers) get the treatment regularly, and the Church of Scotland has more recently experienced the whole weight of the machine in action.

On 4th July, 2013, it was announced that Vivian Wineman, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, had been elected as co-chair of The Inter-Faith Network.  Wineman made the following statement….

“In our present climate the importance of this work, and of inter faith work generally, cannot be overstated.  I am proud that the Jewish community has been at the forefront of developing interfaith relations in society generally, and that the Board of Deputies has led the community consistently in this work… Positive interfaith engagement, apart from being valuable in itself, is vital in creating friends and allies in the general community.”

To the untrained eye, this probably seems like a reasonable enough thing to say.  It is, however, carefully worded to appeal to various constituencies in the Jewish community.  The Board is on an inexorable and accelerating slide into irrelevance.  The question facing it is how substantial will be  the crumbs  that the Jewish Leadership Council allows the Board to retain when its takeover is complete.  Much of the statement  is a contribution to the ongoing pleading of the Board’s case.  Saying, in effect, “Look at us, look at us.  We are still relevent and getting the job done.”  The reality is that the more realistic Jewish Leadership Council is getting all the invitations that the Board used to get and bending the important ears that the Board used to bend.  Further, there is a jockeying by individuals in the Board illuminati for status and importance in the coming new scheme of things.

More importantly for present purposes, is the tell tale choice of certain words in Wineman’s statement that emphasise what we already know about the Boards current obsession with inter faith relations.  That is…

“ …..apart from being valuable in itself…”

The reality is that any intrinsic value they see in such things is marginal to put it at its very best.

“ ……is vital in creating friends and allies….” 

This is what they are really all about.

What ?

Allies ?

Aren’t allies something you look for when you are going to war?  And when you ally with, is it not axiomatic that you ally AGAINST ?

As we demonstrate over and over again on this site, for the Board, inter-faith relations is not about enriching our lives and the lives of our communities by increasing knowledge, increasing understanding and promoting tolerance among  the faith communities, it is a WEAPON.

Understand that for the Board, inter-faith relations is first, last and ALWAYS about The State of Israel, is a one way street and will always be strictly on their terms.  These terms are, that the other faith groups must come to  a “correct“ attitude towards Israel and, ideally, permit them (the Board) an acceptable degree of supervision of those faith groups’ thoughts, utterances and policies relating to the State of Israel.

In other words, while the other groups bring their faith to the table, the Board brings a POLITICAL agenda.

Understand also, that the Board leadership are not a bunch of reasonable, cuddly, moderate proponents of two states for two people, though they are very adept at playing the role.  The Board have specifically rejected the idea of two states.  They also reject the idea of one state since annexation of the territories in toto, would bring with it a great many undesirables (Arabs) that the world would require to be accorded civil and political rights.  This they declare, would mean the end of a Jewish state and would therefore be anti-Semitic.  The unavoidable presumption therefore, is, that they are very much onside with the Israeli strategy of “as much land as possible and as few Arabs as possible”.   A strategy of stealing more and more Palestinian land, dunam by dunam, while always, of course, being willing to “talk “.

They love to talk.  All the while they are talking, they are building the land grab wall, demolishing Palestinian homes, stealing their land and turning their land into “nature reserves“ and “military zones“ with a view to settling it later.

The option of annexing area C  is retained once it has been satisfactorily cleared of Arabs. This process is well under way, one might say nearing completion.  Area C is 60 % of the land area of the  West Bank , with only 5% of the West Bank Arab population remaining in it.  The Palestinian nightmare is particularly acute in the Jordan Valley, which Netanyahu has declared “Israel will never cede the Jordan Valley”.  The Arab population of the valley has fallen from from over 350,000 in 1967 to around 50,000 today.  They may not annex the area of course, but seek to maintain an endless occupation of  it.

So that is where the Board are at.  Their attitude to the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Holy Land is well illustrated by their rejecting a resolution before them, largely on the grounds that it spoke of

 “the well being of all the people of the region”, words they were unable to stomach.

Further understand, that the Board expressly FORBIDS itself any criticism of Israel.  We explain this fully on the page we have entitled “OMERTA”.

So no criticism is the zero sum position. They would dearly love to project this position onto everyone else.  They can’t of course, so they draw lines for our benefit. They love to draw lines, especially red ones. The objective is to contain criticism of The State of Israel within these lines and, in each particular case, have them drawn as close to the zero sum position as possible.

So how do they go about this?

It is a well rehearsed process.  Whenever someone or some organisation is deemed to need sorting out, there is first a torrent of abuse, verging on the hurling of obscenities.  It comes from lots of directions at once.  Numerous “Jewish Community“ organisations (of which there is no shortage)  are harnessed.  The occupied territories are conflated with the Jewish people, who are “hurt and pained and…….lots of other things”.  There is a deluge of self pity and narcissism, explicit or implicit charges of anti-Semitism, and  threats to sever relations.

When the miscreant is a Church or other Christian organisation, in addition to everything else, there is the inter-faith blackmail weapon. “You are damaging inter-faith relations, sticking two fingers up at the Jewish community,” and so on, and so on.

The starkness of the strategy was neatly illustrated when the Church of England Synod overwhelmingly voted to affiliate with the EAPPI  programme.  It was said to have “CHOSEN  the programme AT THE EXPENSE OF inter faith-relations.”   

It is either it or us, was the position.  See our page “Defend the EAPPI programme.”

Very soon, the Board will be demanding that the churches choose between its inter-faith relations with them, and the desperate plight of their fellow Christians in Palestine.  The Council of “Christians” and Jews will be backing them up.

Then the abuse is toned down and sidelined, and the next stage of the corrective process commences.  The threats and blackmail remain, but are now more implicit than explicit, and presented as being more in well rehearsed “sorrow” than anger.  Prominant among the organisations mobilised to facilitate the process, is the execrable Council for Christians and Jews.  It is they who apply “Christian“ pressure on other Christians.

The CCJ has a long and creditable history, but in recent years has evolved into nothing more than a branch of the Board of Deputies, habitually employed to do the Board’s dirty work for them.  For the full picture on just how low this organisation has sunk, at least centrally, see our page “In the beginning, there was the Council for Christians and Jews.

The corrective dialogue begins with the Board explaining the centrality of the land to the Judaic faith, with Zionism at the heart of Jewish communal life.  Allies are gradualy identified inside the the organisation in question,  which is gradually edged back to the right side of the lines. For an absolutely classic example of the process see our page on how the Methodists were disciplined.

It is not just acquienscense on the immediate issue that the Board  seeks,  but control.  They seek to get themselves in a position, sometimes formally , where they directly have input on the internal policy making and the theological exploration of the churches.  As well as redefining anti-Semitism they also seek to establish their favoured definitions of Christianity.

The Board shares and actively publicises the view that….

“ Christian support for Israel is rooted in biblical sources”

And…

“ You cannot be a genuine Christian believer while acting against the Jewish people.”

By acting against the Jewish people, they mean of course, criticising Israel in ways that cross the lines they have drawn.  The Board regard Christian Zionists as their natural allies in the churches, and actively work to increase Christian Zionist influence, therein.  To repeat, the Board would have the churches accept their position that the only true Christians are Christian Zionists.

One of the Christians we interviewed expressed herself as being horrified by the seeming Board assumption that ecumenical discussions should include them.  She went on to say….

“Inter-faith relations in the sense of dialogue, increased understanding and mutual acceptance is not only desirable but is essential in a civilised society.  However, they (the Board) may not sit at the table when our Lord’s business is being discussed, unless they follow the same Lord, which they do not”. 

In reality, there is no need for the churches to fear the “damaging inter-faith relations” card.  The Board of Deputies do not represent a faith, per se.  In so far as they (still) represent anything (debatable), they represent an ethnic group in the UK.

You might refer to the Fraser/UCU case, (forever to be affectionately known as the FUCU case), where the Tribunal held that the worship of the State of Israel is not intrinsic to Jewishness.  The Tribunal immediately saw that this action was not about discrimination against Jews within the union, but rather, an attempt by a cabal of hasbarafiosi to establish a legal foothold for their attempt to force its politics upon the union.  This attempt was scathingly dismissed by the Tribunal as being entirely without merit, accepting the “no brainer” that a 65 year old political entity is not intrinsic to a several thousand year old faith.  If the Tribunal can quickly “get it”, why can’t the churches?
The Tribunal in the FUCU  case said…
We greatly regret that this case was ever brought.  At heart it represents an impermissible  attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.”
It also said that among other complainant witnesses, Jeremy Newark the CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council, the most effective of all the Jewish community organisations, was an arrogant liar.  He remains in his position.
The churches need to understand that what passes for inter-faith relations so far as the Board is concerned, is, at heart, an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by means of harassment and intimidation.
See “Goldberg Gets It Right”.
Links to other websites

From time to time this website may also include links to other websites. These links are provided for your convenience to provide further information. They do not signify that we endorse the website(s). We have no responsibility for the content of the linked website(s).

If it works for the Board of Deputies, it’ll work for us.  ~Editor

Never again….

JoeyNickyJimmy

………………………………………………….downward arrow

……………………….……….michael-howard-cartoon
downward arrow

BoD LogoCCJ LogoJC Logo

.

 

Now that the dust has settled on the Board of Deputies/Stephen Sizer business, it is a good time to reflect on what lessons can be learned.  The internet rabids are sulking and the Board, after a brief and frantic flurry of spin, are wanting to move on, lick their wounds in private, and ponder on what can be done about Jonathan Arkush.  Though there is of course, the next plenary to negotiate.

The lesson for the rest of us is a simple one.  Never again.

In the first instance, the vendetta was a frolic of a handful of snotty nosed, hysterical Jews for Jesus, conducted mainly on the blogosphere, notably Joey Weissman, Jimmy Mendelsohn and Nicky Howard.

It developed further when a number of equally disordered Zionist zealots, David Jonathan Hoffman prominent among them, joined in.

What is remarkable is how the virus found its way from these crazies to seemingly respectable organisations like the Board and its extension, The Council of “Christians” and Jews.

The route was from Nick Howard through his daddy, Michael “something of the night” Howard, a trustee of the CCJ.  After the great disaster of March/April 2012, the idea of the CDM complaint was conceived with the Board relying on information supplied to them by Nick Howard, and with Nick writing their scripts for them.

It is a perfectly amazing situation, that self proclaimed pillars of the Jewish and inter-faith establishments jumped into bed with a handful of internet crazies, adopted their agenda, and worked closely with one of them in particular (Nick), to the extent of relying on him as their prime source of information, and cheerfully appointing him as their scriptwriter in chief.

This has been a story of the most outrageous abuse.  One man has been put through close to two years of what must have been incredible stress. Constant fear of loss of reputation, loss of job and loss of home.  All for the sake of a need to indulge their retarded emotions and their addiction to politically motivated vendettas.  All of it , it turns out, for absolutely nothing. All of it to end up exactly where they started.  See here.

The very undertaking was an abuse of the CDM regulations which were never intended to deal with political differences and some peoples’ hyper-sensitivities

Arkush’s conduct throughout the process has been abusive.

He abused the concept of conciliation, never entering into the spirit of the process, but endeavoured to represent it as a quasi trial.

He abused the outcome by trying to represent it as a conviction, rather than an agreement primarily concerned with the resolution of future disagreements.   See here.

He abused his access to the press by submitting the above mentioned misrepresentation to the JC, who then saw fit to lend their already tainted venue to publicise Arkush’s folly.  

Worst of all, Arkush abused the goodwill of the Bishop of Guildford by deliberately deceiving him.  Arkush requested that one of the conciliators be Gavin Lightman.  Lightman ,it turns out, was Arkush’s mentor and tutor during his University days and they remain friends.  Further, Arkush and Lightman were spotted socialising during the conciliation process.

The Bishop acceded to the request.

It is a pretty safe assumption that Arkush didn’t declare the relationship at the time of the request, otherwise the Bishop couldn’t possibly have agreed to it.

ARKUSH: “Can my old mate Gav be one of the conciliators?”

Bishop: “Sure”

is an unlikely scenario.

To put it bluntly, Arkush is as bent as a £9 note.

If this man is as representative of the UK Jewish community as he claims, then that community is in grievous ethical and spiritual trouble.

This must never happen again.  Never again must the likes of Arkush, Hoffman, Wineman, Borowski and Levy be allowed access to the disciplinary structures of a UK church.

NEVER AGAIN

An amusing tale of blah blah and substance…FUCU deja vu: #hasbarafiafail

Jonathan Arkush

Jonathan Arkush is sent by the Board of Deputies to a pet shop to buy them a parrot.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
They don’t have any parrots but they do have a canary.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Rather than go back empty handed he takes the canary and just calls it a parrot. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
He proudly presents the canary at the next plenary and tells them it’s a parrot. Many deputies are doubtful but don’t say anything.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Formal and informal statements following the kind of conciliation process that the Board and Stephen Sizer have engaged in invariably consists of a small amount of substance and a great deal of blah blah.  In this case, the agreement consisted almost entirely of blah blah.  If it were a food label it would read…substance: trace.

What it boils down to is this.  It is pretty much “as you were”.  The Board formally accused Revd. Sizer of “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to a clerk in Holy Orders.”  This is sacking talk, the end of ministry and total destruction of reputation talk.  This is the substance of the entire business.  The formal action taken was mendacious, wholly out of proportion, narcissistic and reckless. However, in the case of someone that was less secure in his faith and his calling than Revd. Sizer, and who was not afforded the same support that the Diocese gave him, it could have been very dangerous indeed.  The whole thing is indicative of the insecurity currently felt by the Board illuminati, each fretting about what their place will be, when the JLC completes its takeover, if any.  Arkush’s future in “community politics” looks especially bleak, after incredibly and stupidly making an enemy of Mick Davis.  It’s almost impossible to believe that someone like Mick Davis would want to work with someone like Jonathan Arkush. This insecurity makes them prone to catastrophic misjudgements.  This tendency was most recently demonstrated by them recklessly setting up an inter-party parliamentary group without consulting the JLC and other organisations, on whose toes they were stepping.  Needless to say, the JLC grandees, on whose largesse the BoD’s financial future (if any) depends, are furious.

As the process developed, Arkush’s confidence gradually ebbed away.  He desperately needed a confession that admitted “unbecoming“, “inappropriate“ or both.  He was never going to get it and in that event, he didn’t have the balls to go for a conviction at trial, revealing himself to everyone as the toothless tiger we have always known him to be.

So after all the time, trouble and money, Jonathan “it has nothing to do with Israel“ Arkush is left with Revd. Sizer acknowledging a measure of human frailty to take back to the crazies at the next Board plenary (plus a canary).  So far as we are aware, the Church of England does not require its priests to be wholly without such.

Of course, if the substance is so bad, you need to distract attention from it at all costs, and you frantically spin the blah blah.  We knew and predicted that the dissembling spin was coming.  What we didn’t anticipate was that the spin would be so blatantly transparent and sprinkled with obvious, transparent and deliberate “factual inaccuracies.”

The Bishop of Guildford issued a press statement on the outcome, complete with full text of the agreement, and placed an embargo on publishing until 6.00 a.m. Wednesday, 23rd October.  By 6.10 a.m., a report appeared on the JC website with a startling headline and wildly inaccurate content.  The web site “neglected” to publish the full text of the agreement.  The following day the hard copy paper with an even more misleading and erroneous account was distributed again with no publication of the text of the agreement .

Here is the response of an eminent lawyer that was approached for an opinion:

“You are quite right that the title (JC hard copy headline) is factually inaccurate.  In fact, it is grossly misleading and worse even than the headline on the digital version which was bad enough. It is the kind of thing that the JC often engages in but I don’t think that it is actionable. It is very difficult to sue for libel where one is accusing a newspaper of grossly distorting the meaning of a text (as opposed to making a factual allegation which is untrue). It was always the case that the JC would print something like this, but there is much less coverage of the case than I would have expected. I think this is because the BoD have got relatively little out of the complaint, certainly compared to what they were expecting. The conciliation agreement looks like a climbdown on their part, particularly when one reads the whole document and considers the implications of what they have agreed to – so they are trying to make the most out of what they’ve got and hoping that everyone moves on. That’s one of the reasons that they haven’t printed the text of the agreement itself in the paper – the other of course is that it would show that their report is a misrepresentation of what happened.”

While the lawyer is of the opinion that the JC distortions are not at this time actionable, Pollard is not the kind of man to leave well enough alone and can be expected to push the boat out too far.  It won’t be the first time under his “leadership” that the paper has had to issue a grovelling apology and pay substantial damages.

The pieces were written by Marcus “got it wrong again“ Dysch who is both wholly without scruples and hopelessly incompetent.  It has been said the first priority of the new JC board should be to give Dysch one more month to get something right.

This kind of gutter press behaviour is typical of what the JC has become under Pollard’s editorship.  Pollard is smart but wholly unable to control his bovver boy, far right wing, street yob instincts.  He will be forever famous for declaring Jonathan Hoffman to be a “tireless worker for Middle East peace.”   This is the same Hoffman that cohorts with the EDL and who was prominent in helping remove from a Board resolution, the words “……the well being of all the people of the region” (the ME).  The paper has become a kind of sheltered work place for a bunch of neocons of the Euston Manifesto variety.  This goes a long way to explaining the paper’s circulation going into a nose dive and the consequent drastic cost cutting, including the vacating of its historic home in Furnival Street.

Doing all the briefing, of course, was……Jonathan Arkush.

Jonathan Arkush is a case and threequarters, a one man walking disaster and increasingly an embarrassment to the Board which desperately needs to keep on the right side of Mick Davis and the other JLC grandees.  Curiously it turns out, that one of the conciliators in the Board/Sizer conciliation process was Sir Gavin Lightman.  Lightman was a tutor and mentor to Arkush during Arkush’s university days and they remain friends.  Further, he was spotted socialising with Arkush while the conciliation process was taking place.   How did that happen?  Keep reading.

Very soon after the embargo was lifted, Arkush published a statement on the Board web site, together with the text of a press statement. He begins by telling us that that it was he who decided that “something had to be done about Sizer“ and that he came to this conclusion “a year ago“.  The first part of this assertion is misleading and the second part is false. In fact the decision was taken at least eighteen months ago.

Now you might think a year ago, eighteen months ago, so what?  However, the difference is significant.  A year ago puts plenty of clear blue water between the complaints conception in the immediate aftermath of the disaster of March/April 2012, and its connection with that fiasco.  See here.  Further, it obfuscates the involvement of the ex (mercifully) Bishop of Manchester, Nigel McCulloch.  There is no doubt that the execrable McCulloch fed Arkush the idea of a conduct unbecoming charge.  We have no doubt the idea occurred to him in consequence of a CDM charge on conduct unbecoming grounds being laid against HIM.  This related to his spinning of the police response to his charging Revd. Sizer with stirring up racial hatred.  In essence, the police told McCulloch to quit playing silly buggers.  The CDM charge against McCulloch was eventually dismissed, not because it lacked merit, but on the grounds that the complainant had insufficient personal interest.

In any event, David Gifford, the CEO of The Council of “Christians” and Jews, was emailing Arkush in August 2012, expressing his trustees’ frustration at the slow progress being made in compiling the CDM complaint against Revd. Sizer, Obviously, Natan Levy and Marcelle “screen shot” Palmer, who, between them “authored“ the complaint in the sense of bringing together and organising the “material“, were falling down on the job.

Arkush goes on to tell us that the Bishop of Guildford “held that there was a case to answer.”  He did?  When?  Where?  Does the Bishop know about this?  We have to call this one for what it is.  A lie.

He repeats it later. “……ruled that there was a case to answer”.

The Bishop, of course, did no such thing, or made any kind of ruling whatsoever.

We won’t try to emulate slippery Arkush and attempt to tell you what is in the Bishop’s mind or put words into his mouth he didn’t say.  We will say this……

The inviting of the parties to attempt conciliation is a pretty good pointer to what he felt about the matter.  The CDM regulations specifically state that conciliation is not appropriate and should not be used where the Bishop feels that the case is such that there is any possibility of suspension or ending of ministry.  As we have pointed out elsewhere, the charge “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to a clerk in Holy Orders“ is as bad as it gets.  In the case of a conviction on such a charge, suspension or ending of ministry is very much a possibility, if not highly likely.  While we can’t see into the Bishop’s mind, his behaviour strongly indicates that he saw no merit in the charge, and an allegation of “conduct unbecoming“ didn’t fly, but that it might be helpful if the parties got together, found some common ground, and in particular, worked out a more satisfactory way of dealing with any issues that might arise between them in the future.

It took the Church of England Bishop, Christopher Hill to show the rabid Jonathan Arkush how to deal with having a problem with an Anglican priest.

The problem is, and always has been, that Arkush is so consumed by self promotion and Zionist zealotry, he can’t make good decisions.

This was “conciliation”, not a trial, as Arkush would have people regard it.  In other words, a CDM complaint was not an appropriate course of action.  What was appropriate, was the parties getting together and thrashing it out. This is, of course, what Revd. Sizer has always been willing to do and what Arkush wasn’t.

This, as again we have pointed out elsewhere, is backed up by the publicly stated view of the Diocese, that the vendetta against Revd. Sizer is part of “a political movement against him“, the Bishop’s statement that the expression of political views is definitely exempted by the CDM provisions, his statement that Revd. Sizer “repudiates anti- semitism” and by Toby Howarth, the Achbishop’a inter – faith adviser, stating that Revd. Sizer  was not anti- semitic.
(more…)

The Board bottles out: A vendetta too far

If things were as they should be, the courage of Stephen Sizer in facing down the Board of Deputies would be a wake up call to the Churches and other Christian organisations in the UK, and inspire them to find some back bone vis-a-vis the bullying and blackmail they face from the Board in its attempt to harass them into getting into line with the “correct“ attitude to The State of Israel.

Our advice is not to hold your breath.

Stephen Sizer is vicar of Christ Church, Virginia Water in the Diocese of Guildford. He has been the subject of a whole series of overlapping vendettas over a period of years, almost unimaginable in their width, length, depth and intensity.  Willing participants have included Zionist lunatic fringers, Christian Zionist crazies, Messianic Jews and latterly, some mainstream Jewish and “Christian” organisations that you might have hoped would be above such nonsense. These vendettas culminated in October last, with a formal complaint by the Board of Deputies to the Bishop of Guildford, Christopher Hill. This was not a mere whinge and whine, but a formal charge under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, established by Act of Parliament and enshrined as part of Church Law. Failing all else, the issue could ultimately have been decided at an Ecclesiastical Tribunal hearing where the range of penalties is wide, including loss of ministry, job and home.

This course of action was undertaken by the Board in the aftermath of their disastrous attempt, in tandem with the execrable Council of “Christians” and Jews, and guided by Nick Howard (the off the wall son of the ex-Home Secretary Michael Howard), to have the police prosecute Revd. Sizer for stirring up racial hatred. See here.

It almost beggars belief how much time and energy the Board have invested in the persecution of one Anglican priest. It can only be understood in the context of the Board’s overall strategy in respect of the Christian churches.

Many Christians are becoming increasingly uneasy about the brutality and inhumanity of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the accelerating expropriation and colonisation of Palestinian land. This behaviour is being ever more widely recognised as the cynical larceny that it is, and the threat to stability and peace in the region, and ultimately in the world, that it represents..

The Board, despite facing an uncertain future as the junior partner when the JLC takeover is complete, regards it as its job to counteract these changing perceptions. The problem, as they see it, is that these winds of change have begun to impact on the churches’ policies towards Israel.

The strategy is to bully and blackmail the Churches into adopting the “correct“ attitude to the State of Israel. Essentially, they weep and wail and threaten whenever a Christian organisation crosses their line in criticism of Israel, implicitly or explicitly accusing the church of anti-Semitism. The “hurt, pain and grief” of the “Jewish community” is emphasised and the “interfaith relations“ blackmail card is played for all it is worth.

The Church leaders, after being softened up by a stream of intemperate abuse in the press and blogosphere are then seduced by oily, sanctimonious, and insincere talk of dialogue, joint peace promoting initiatives, and a search for “understanding”.  By and large, they fall for it. Ideally the Board would like to change the past. Failing that ,they seek to mould the present. Failing that, they seek to shape the future. All the sorrow, seeking of dialogue and understanding and in particular, joint enterprises, are designed to put the churches into a straight-jacket, and to make it as emotionally difficult as possible for the churches to do anything in the future that might cause the Board of Deputies “ pain “. In this way, for example, the Methodists, not so long ago the most unconscionable scum bags, are now “colleagues”.

For the Board, it is not about interfaith relations for its own sake, but an exercise in imposing a political agenda on the churches.The Board of Deputies are not the leaders of a faith group but are, as the Board treasurer Laurence Brass (a rare sane voice in the organisation) ruefully acknowledges, “an extension of the Israeli embassy”.

Central to the Board strategy, is the recruiting of Christian Zionist allies and the bolstering and promoting of Christian Zionist forces in the churches. The Board is of the view (or purports to be) that only Christian Zionists are true Christians. It advertises the perspective that….

Christian support for Israel is rooted in biblical sources”

And……..

You cannot be a genuine Christian believer while acting against the Jewish people.” (ie: if you are a critic of the State of Israel).

“Israel” and “the Jewish people” are one and the same thing when it suits, and equating Israel with the Jewish people is anti-Semitic when it does not suit.

These efforts have met with considerable success, but there is still much to play for.  In this context, one Revd. Stephen Robert Sizer, represents a formidable counter-force. Revd. Sizer is a consistent, persistent and compelling critic of the policies of The State of Israel.  His perspective is grounded in his theology and the simple humanity of a man that works tirelessly for the good of ALL the people of the region.  It is worth reminding ourselves that the idea of “ the well being of all the people of the region“ is unacceptabl to the Board, and that this idea has been specifically rejected by them…Board plenary January 19th, 2011.

Revd. Sizer is the most eloquent, and persuasive critic of the highly dangerous basket of dogma we know as Christian Zionism, certainly in the UK, and is of global importance in this respect.

Someone, somewhere decided that Sizer must be silenced.

In addition, a secondary objective was to intimidate the Church of England. The Church is accused of harbouring and failing to act against racists in its midst, and is told it “must do something about Sizer“.  The charge of anti-Semitism is, of course, ludicrous in the extreme, as attested to by the numerous declarations of support he has received from prominent Christians and Jews world wide.  Most sickeningly in making such a charge, the Board hypocritically and cheerfully ignores the planks in its own eye.  See here.

The Board set out on this course brim-full of confidence.  It is impossible to over-emphasise the narcissism prevalent among them.  This was, of course, prior to the FUCU disaster that they are still reeling from, and before serious light had been thrown on their activities and modus operandi.  They also failed to factor in the resolve and steadfastness of Stephen Sizer and, to some extent, that of the Diocese of Guildford.  This was something new to them and in marked contrast to the timid acquiescence of certain other Christian “leaders“ they have gotten used to pushing around.

They felt sure that a fearful Diocese would settle for peace and quiet, and “discipline” him.  Failing that, they felt sure that a mixture of fear and stress, would cause him to quickly fold. Failing that, they felt sure that financial pressure would be crucial.  This has gone on for an entire year and the legal costs that a parish vicar has been forced to incur must have run into a good few thousands. This, to be funded from a famously unextravagant Church of England stipend. The Board, of course, are smugly carefree in this respect, backed as they are by the Jewish Leadership Council’s multi-millions.

In the event, the Diocese sent the complaint to a conciliation process, in accordance with options laid out by the regulations governing C of E clergy discipline. This is a clear indication that the Diocese regarded the complaint as having little or no merit.  See para 127 of the Clergy Discipline Measure.

This process went on for five months until the Board finally folded.  They seem to have realised that they had much more to fear from the failure of conciliation than Revd. Sizer.  By this time, after a long period of denial, they seem to have accepted the weakness of their case, and that if it went to tribunal, their own behaviour, that of the CCJ , and that of the JLC (headed as it was, by the notorious perjurer, Jeremy Newmark) would be front line issues. In other words, it was not unlikely that it would be they and not Revd. Sizer, who would find themselves on trial.

The charge was “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to a clerk in Holy Orders”.

Now, this is as bad as it gets. No priest could survive such a conviction or admission. It would be the end of his/her ministry and so devastating that he/she would never be taken seriously again, by anyone, anywhere. Obviously, an agreement that included such an admission was necessary for the Board in order to justify all the time, money and effort. It has been clear from outset that it was essential to the Board that any agreement included either the word “ unbecoming “ or the word “inappropriate” in respect of Revd, Sizer’s conduct, and that he was in some way disciplined by the Church.

Well, the Diocese obviously has always been of the view that the charge was without merit and was mendacious and political.  As the Bishop of Guildford has pointed out to them, political views are definitely exempted from the clergy discipline provisions, adding that Revd Sizer repudiates anti-Semitism.  The Diocese has expressed the view that it regards  the criticism of  Revd Sizer as “a form of political campaign against him”.  The Lambeth Palace inter-faith adviser, Toby Howarth, is on record as stating that Revd Sizer is not anti-semitic.

So the idea that the Church would discipline Revd. Sizer makes sense only in their muddled narcissistic minds.

As for the conciliation agreement wording, what they got was not “unbecoming“ or “inappropriate“ but a mere acknowledgment by Revd. Sizer, that in the midst of a lifetime of work, research, writing and ministry, on a number of occasions (countable on one hand) he should have been more reflective.

Hello?

It is hard to judge how much reflection it would have taken to foresee the wholly intemperate, over the top, disproportionately hysterical reaction of The Board,  complete with manufactured hurt, feigned indignation and a detachment from reality as experienced by regular people.

The absurdity of the entire business is difficult to grasp. The absurdity is so absurd, that regular people, unable to find a place for it in their mental framework, find it elusive. One occasion when Revd. Sizer should have been more reflective, pertains to his linking to an unobjectionable article on one particular site.  This article discussed the available window for an Israeli attack on Iran.  He might have linked to an article by Uri Avnery, written for and published by the self same site.  Many people did so, including many of those critical of Revd. Sizer.  In the muddled minds of the Board, all of these people, and Avnery himself are anti–Semitic !!!!!

So, at the end of the melodrama, we have a mega climb-down by the Board, and another U- turn.  Every U-turn by the Board is, to quote The Jewish News, the U-turn to end all U-turns.  If only it were so, and they would learn something from it.  This seems unlikely, while they allow Jonathan Arkush to run around unsupervised, and lead them into one Stalingrad after another.  Arkush has turned blundering from disaster to disaster and grovelling apologies into a lifestyle.  On such occasions, he is apt to explain that he had been “unwell“.  See here.

At the Board plenary on Sunday, 20th October, the Sizer issue was mentioned. Arkush, looking decidedly unwell again, assured deputies that he was sure they would see the outcome as “positive and good“ for the Board.  The desperation was written all over his face.

For the rest of us and particularly for the churches, the lesson is that there is no need to fear the big bad Board.  If one man, vulnerable except for his faith, courage and commitment to his calling, can face them down, why can’t we and YOU?

It merely needs to be recognised that among the Board illuminati, being bullies is the active ingredient in their characters. Bullies are bluffers, it merely is a case of calling the bluff.

For the true nature and characters of those leading the vendetta against Stephen Sizer, see here.

On how the Methodist Church allowed themselves to be emasculated, see here,   here,  and here.

On how the Quakers are being harassed and intimidated over EAPPI, see here.

The assault on the Church of Scotland is a work in progress.

Meet the team/Bring on the clowns

Introduction

“Consider the source“.

The campaign to silence Revd. Sizer is essentially co-ordinated by the execrable CCJ  “leadership“, and the individuals that dominate the Board of Deputies Defence Division.  It is backed by the Board as a whole, and by The Jewish Leadership Council.  Just what  this “backing” means in the case of the JLC,  is not made clear, but it usually means they are throwing money at it. Doubtless this is being handled by the JLC CEO, the notorious perjurer Jeremy Newmark.

In order to make clear the true the nature of this silencing campaign, and the sheer scale of the  hypocracy and hubris that underpins it, we briefly profile the main players, highlighting the parlous state of their characters.

This is not going to stop at Revd. Sizer.  Were they to obtain this “scalp”, every churchman that doesn’t toe their line, will think more than twice before speaking out.

It should also be born in mind that this not a case that stands in isolation.  It is a component in a consciously put together lawfare campaign, conceived in late 2011, using JLC  money and to quote Newmark, “working closely with the Israeli Foreign Ministry”.  Other components include the FUCU disaster and the current ludicrous Moty Crystal business.

Amazing.  British citizens colluding with a foreign government to curtail the civil liberties, particularly the  freedom of expression and association, of other British citizens, British church people and British institutions.

Jeremy Newmark

David Jonathan Hoffman

Ronnie Fraser

Jerry Lewis

Jonathan Arkush

Ephraim Borowski.

The main players on the CCJ side of things are fully covered here.

JEREMY NEWMARK

Jeremy Newmark

The Jewish Leadership Council proudly trumpets that it is  backing the campaign to silence Revd. Sizer.  As we have explained, “backing“ in a JLC  context, invariably means providing the wherewithal.  If the CDM goes to a tribunal, it is going to prove very expensive indeed, and the Board have no money.

While the Board probably started out smugly assuming that any hearing would be short, sweet and successful,  they will by now, have realised that that will not be the case. The hearing is likely to be long and uncomfortable and the chances of success are small and diminishing by the day.

Two things have changed everything.  Firstly, the FUCU disaster, which demonstrated clearly that the Hasborafia’s private language game plays very badly with regular people in the real world.  Secondly, they will have come to realise that their own behaviour, that of the JLC, the BoD, and that of the lamentable CCJ, will be very much front line issues.

This backing is being coordinated by the JLC CEO, Jeremy Newmark.  Newmark is now, and forever will be, famous for being branded a perjurer by the tribunal in the FUCU case.

Newmark (appointed by the Israeli government  to the steering committee of the Global Coalition for Israel) was a witness for the claimant in the FUCU case, a case that Jeremy Goldberg QC described as an epic folly.

For the incognescenti, the case  was about a legal claim brought by a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser, against his teaching union.  He claimed that the Union had harassed him in breach of equality laws, due to its handling of the Israel-Palestine debate.

The judgment, when it came, was a total disaster for the Hasbarafia.  It was brilliantly summed up by the Jewish civil rights barrister Adam Wagner….

This was a total, unqualified demolition job. As an outcome, it really was ten plagues bad.The language of the judgment is harsh and at times sarcastic. As a lawyer, you can take it from me that it doesn’t get much worse than this. This was a “sorry saga”, the Tribunal “greatly regret that the case was ever brought”, at its heart the case was “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”. Perhaps worst of all, the claim showed a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”

But the most scathing comments were in respect of the evidence given by Jeremy Newmark, ie that it was untrue, false, preposterous, extraordinarily arrogant and disturbing…

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress… Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross- examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him. The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

This is the man responsible for organising the decidedly iffy, shady and unacknowledged funding by Fair Play Group (a joint Board/JLC  enterprise) of Engage Campaign, unacknowledged, despite Ronnie Fraser spilling the beans while giving evidence in his case against UCU.

This is also the man that will be coordinating the JLC’s “backing” of the action against Revd. Sizer…a man without principle and devoid of any sense of honour.  Since FUCU, there has been no disciplinary action taken by the JLC,  and no hint of any kind of condemnation.  Nor has there been any kind of apology or expression of regret from either the JLC or Newmark.  Newmark remains firmly in his position.

And this organisation has the nerve to back a campaign to have Revd. Sizer convicted of “conduct unbecoming “.

DAVID JONATHAN HOFFMAN

David Jonathan Hoffman

Where to start with Jonathan Hoffman?

Firstly, Hoffman is a liar.  Not just a casual liar but a consistent, persistent, systematic liar.  A liar on an absolutely epic scale.  He once got so flustered when confronted with this fact he blurted..

“When I lie I apologise”.

Hoffman is a vendetta addict beyond the imaginings of ordinary regular people.  Vendettas are the air that he breathes.  He has been taking part in the vendetta(s) against Revd. Sizer from the very beginning, ever since Joey Weismann set the ball rolling.  He famously declared “We are all Joseph Weismann now” when Weissman’s harassment of Sizer led Sizer to call the police.

Hoffman is an habitual writer of hate mail including to Revd. Sizer. (Courtesy of Nick Howard)

Hoffman is a homophobic ranter.

Hoffman is a sympathiser with, and cohort of the far right. That is, the Muslim baiting English Defence League.  Seemingly,  the Board see no incongruity between these propensities and his holding official positions in community organisations.  The Board have never issued a single, solitary public word of condemnation of him. Nor have they in any way  dissociated themselves from him.

Hoffman is a hooligan.  He is a seasoned disrupter of meetings and is given to advising Jewish Students on how they might emulate him in this respect. He is particularly proud of getting thrown out of the Royal Albert Hall.

Hoffman is a yob.  He was suspended from the International Division (that he was then a member of) for threatening the Division chair, Paul Edlin.

Anyone wanting to see the full truth about David Jonathan Hoffman can do so here.

That the accusations against Revd. Sizer can be taken seriously by the Church, when they are being driven by such a man is………words fail us.

RONNIE FRASER

Ronnie Fraser

Ronnie Fraser is the hapless fall guy in the disastrous attempt by the moneyed wing of the Hasbarafia establishment to force its will on the University and College Union in the FUCU case.  Despite his unbridled enthusiasm for the cause, Ronnie was a very poor choice for the role of front man.  He is emotionally fragile in the extreme and the whole business must have had a far reaching negative impact on his health (not that the Hasbarafia establishment care about that).

Ronnie embarked on a second career several years ago and is now a maths teacher at Barnet College.  He is described by Marcus “got it wrong again” Dysch, of the Jewish Chronicle as “a leading academic”.  Ronnie is also the founder and director of the dead  in the water “Academic Friends of Israel” which consists of himself, his wife, and probably a few grandchildren.  See here.

Despite the trauma of the FUCU experience, the lead up to it and the aftermath, Ronnie is by no means lying down and is enthusiastic about playing his part on the Defence Division in hounding Revd. Sizer.

It has to be said, Ronnie has certain attitudes that can only be described as fascist.  His response to the abject failure of his attempts to damage his own union and in so doing displaying “a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression“ was not calm self reflection.  Rather, he announced that he was going to get the Board to come up with its own definition of anti-Semitism that would, in effect, ,make worship of The State of Israel a protected characteristic.  There would then be a concerted campaign to get it enshrined in legislation.

In other words, he proposes to disenfranchise the countless speakers of the English language, and stipulate to them what the expression “anti-Semitism” means.

So if Ronnie calls you anti-Semitic please don’t take it too badly.  It is just Ronnie’s linguistic fascism.

This is a man that expects to be taken seriously when he charges Revd. Sizer with anti-Semitism.

JERRY LEWIS

Jerry Lewis

There’s not too much to say about Jerry.

He is a fairly straightforward, uncomplicated yob.

It was largely on account of Jerry and Hoffman disrupting Board plenaries, that the Board were forced to acknowledge that there were those among them that needed a formal code of conduct that reads like the school rules of your local primary.

At one point, Jerry’s behaviour got so bad that he was barred from Board premises, in that he had to seek permission to enter on each and every occasion he wished to do so. This, when he was a vice-president. That is, one of the four most senior officials of the Board.  The tipping point was his swearing at and abusing the reception staff.

Jerry is without scruples or honour.

The core of the Board executive is a president and three vice presidents.  Jerry has long held an ambition to be president, but now has taken on board the fact that this is not going to happen.  However, he has been a vice president for a considerable time and regards one of the three positions as his private property.

Then in January 2012, Laura Marks, head of a commission on women and leadership set up by the JLC, was elected Deputy for the Movement For Reform Judaism.  The vice president elections were scheduled for May and in February, precocious Laura announced that she intended to stand, and began campaigning.

Jerry was shaken to his ample foundations.  Women and leadership was a flavour of the month issue and it soon became clear that Marks was going to get elected.  It soon became equally clear to Jerry that it was going to be at HIS expense.

Needless to say, he was apoplectic with rage.  This Jenny-come-lately with barely a month’s service under her belt, was going to take his vice president position, a position long essential to his sense of identity and worth.  His mood can’t have been helped by the fact, illustrated by his abuse of the female reception staff, that he wasn’t a big fan of women anyway.

There wasn’t, for Jerry, a gracious acceptance of the shifting sands of democracy.  He desperately tried to salvage the situation by the most scurrilous of moves.  He tried to move an amendment to the constitution that would require a deputy to have served a minimum of two years before they could stand in vice presidential elections.

This is a man that fronts a campaign to have Revd. Sizer  convicted of  “conduct unbecoming”.

JONATHAN ARKUSH

Jonathan Arkush

The Stephen Sizer CDM affair is close to being  a year old and, at least from the outside, there appears to be no sign of a resolution.  Given the cold shower of the FUCU disaster and the fact that the Board must realise that it is not Revd. Sizers behaviour that will be the central issue at any  tribunal hearing, but that of the Board, the JLC and the CCJ, one would have thought the Board would have beat a hasty retreat months ago. This is what any rational organisation would have done. Why haven’t they ?

The answer is ……

Jonathan Arkush

Jonathan is in his 4th year as chair of the Board Defence division.  Being “somebody”  in  “ community politics” is central to his existence.  It is everything to him.

He had his “community politics“ career all mapped out.  He would one day, be President of the Board of Deputies. In the meantime, he would play a waiting game, content to be a vice president.

In the 2012 Presidential election, Vivian Wineman was clearly unassailable and nobody, not even Jonathan, was stupid enough to challenge him.  But in 2015, Wineman will be unable to stand again, and the conventional wisdom is that it will be a face off between Jonathan and Lawrence Brass.  This will be a no brainer.  Brass is more or less a regular person and has some strange  opinions, like the Board’s credibility would be enhanced if it  permitted itself constructive criticism of Israel.  He is unelectable.

So fair stood the wind for France.  Or did it ?

Unfortunately, there were forces gathering that threatened the seemingly dang dunk dream.

The financial dependence of the Board on JLC grandees meant there might not even be a Board in 2015, and if there were, it probably wouldn’t be something worth being President of.  This fear, added to Jonathan’s emotionally erratic personality, added up to a perfect storm of disaster.  Jonathan had a break down of epic proportions that destroyed the dream for ever.  Read all about it here.

Only a grovelling apology and retraction, and the plea that he had been “unwell“ saved his VP position.  In fact, he is very fortunate indeed that he is still allowed to make the tea.

Jonathan is never going to be president of the Board of Deputies (unless by default), but can’t accept it.  He is in complete denial.  In his fevered imagination, he sees the prospect of securing a notable scalp on behalf of “the community” as representing the possibility of a revival of his presidential ambitions or at least the possibility of a position of some status in the new order after the JLC  completes its takeover.  The only scalp of significant importance on the horizon is that of Revd. Sizer.

It was, with considerable amusement, when trawling the dark and extreme corners of the internet, we found ourselves on the BoD web site, and were treated to an announcement by Arkush that they (the Board) were going to give conciliation a whirl.  Since there have been no further announcements, we assume this is still going on.  Arkush is between a rock and a very hard place. Going back to the nutters of the Defence Division and the lunatic fringe of the Board with anything less than a full confession  is unthinkable.  He may as well drink the hemlock and be done. He is not going to get such a confession and the alternative is to risk the matter going to a tribunal hearing, and inevitable disaster. Our best guess is that he will deem risking a Tribunal too scary and opt for for the wrath of the mob. Doubtless he will try to spin his climb down as best he can but his future looks very bleak. Being ” unwell ” is not likely to work again.

EPHRAIM BOROWSKI

Ephraim Borowski

Ephraim Borowski is director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (ScoJec).  For all practical purposes Borowski IS Scojec.  He is a member of the Board Defence Division, and one of the division’s more enthusiastic pursuers of Revd. Sizer.  For him, it seems to be personal, in the extreme.

Borowski has an air about him that exudes the impression that one is dealing with a patient, thoughtful academic. In reality he is a highly skilled dissembler and habitually……lets keep it polite and just say is “economical with the actuality”.

At the 2013 Church of Scotland General Assembly, there was to be an internal report presented called  “The Inheritance of Abraham”.  This is not the time or place to discuss the merits and demerits of the report.  Suffice it to say, it was very much not to the Hasbarafia’s liking.  A coordinated assault on  the Church was led by ScoJec (Barowski) and the CCJ (inevitably) organised a meeting between Church officials and a whole battery of Jewish organisation in line with the Hasbarafia motto of “don’t confront miscreants with one Jewish organisation when you can confront them with a dozen”.

In consequence, the report was modified, but obviously not to the satisfaction of Borowski et al.

During the course of the debate on the resolution to accept the report, a certain David Randall proposed an amendment as follows….

“Instruct Council to engage in further dialogue with ScoJec with a view to bringing a new report to the General Assembly in 2014“.

As Borowski later lamented, Randall couldn’t even get a seconder.

In other words, The Assembly took the eminently reasonable view that the report had been discussed with ScoJec et al, amendments had been made as a result, and they were not willing to put their legitimate business on hold for a year in order that THEIR business could be further negotiated with ScoJec or to schedule, in effect, a replacement report for 2014.

However, Borowski, backed by the Hasbarafia in general, dissembled this as the Church having “overwhelmingly rejected a call for continuing dialogue with the Jewish community“ and having “slammed the door on dialogue.“

In other words, the Church had resolved that it wouldn’t talk to Joos.

See it on film here.  

This is typical of Borowski’s dissembling.  Another example is  a rambling contribution to the BBC’s Thought For The Day programme in April.  He describes how the Tribunal in the FUCU case found that …

ZIONISM is not integral to Judaism when it has been part of our prayers for thousands of years.

Except that it didn’t.  It found that worship of the modern State of Israel is not an integral part of Jewishness  and not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.  “You may as well say that supporting Tottenham Hotspur is a protected characteristic because lots of Jews do.” (Jeffrey Goldberg QC)

Seeing the problem, the dissembling Borowski replaces “Israel“ with “Zionism“,  hoping nobody will notice, and no doubt hoping most people won’t realise this is worse, from his point of view.  Zionism is scarcely older than The State of Israel in the historical scheme of things, and for much of its history, most Jews were emphatically anti-Zionist and much of the rest were ambivalent.

We hope that Borowski was more intellectually honest when he taught philosophy.  We suspect not.

Borowski is very much at home on the Defence Division, whose role seems to have morphed into projecting its own hypersensitivity onto the community as a whole, and then protecting these raised sensitivities from criticism of Israel.

He has made a career out of painting  the very low levels of anti–Semitism in Scotland as an all consuming monster, insisting that most Scottish Jews feel  “uncomfortable, threatened and unsafe.”  He worked this out from the results of a survey, the respondents being a sample from ScoJec’s mailing list !!!!

Many of the more emotionally healthy Scottish Jews are not impressed by Borowski’s activities, not recognising themselves in the picture he paints.  Some of them are positively alarmed.

In May/June 2010, three members of GJEC Michael Samuel,  Jeremy Stain and Tony Tankel,  wrote a letter to the Jewish Chronicle expressing this alarm.  It ended…

“ Finally the Glasgow Jewish Educational Council are concerned at the repeated attempts of ScoJec (ie Borowski) to exaggerate the threat of anti-Semitism which will only cause harm to the interests of Jews living in Scotland. “

Unsurprisingly, this letter was not published.

Clearly, when Borowski calls Stephen Sizer or anyone else anti-Semitic, you need to have a very large pinch of salt handy.

Borowski has a thing about Revd. Sizer.  He keeps a dossier on him that he calls “Dossier of background information about Revd. Sizer.“  The most frequent citations are to Joey Weismann’s juvenile scribblings on the racist cess-pit blog site, Harry’s Place (recommended by the EDL and Ephraim Borowski).

Further, Borowski is not in any way concerned to disguise that the purpose of the CDM complaint against Revd. Sizer is to gag him.

Borowski was obviously closely involved in the bringing of the CDM complaint and decided to back it up with a frolic of his own.  We had had the March blitz Krieg earlier in the year (2012), now there was to be an October blitz Krieg.

As luck would have it, Revd. Sizer was scheduled to speak at a conference in Edinburgh on Nov 2nd, organised jointly by The Balfour Project and The Church of Scotland.  Borowski decided he was going to put a stop to all that nonsense.

The CDM complaint was to be issued on 26th October.  Some time earlier, Borowski had written to the Church and Society Council demanding that Revd. Sizer not be afforded the facility to speak, attaching his “dossier“.  He had gotten nowhere but clearly felt that the issue of  the CDM was an opportune moment to try again.  After all, the venerable cuddlies at the Board would not have made such a move if Revd. Sizer was not everything that he (Borowski) said he was, would they?

So the day before the issue of the CDM, Borowski wrote the most astonishing vitriolic letter to Revd.  John Chalmers, the Church’s principle clerk (naturally, with dossier once again attached).  As well as smearing Revd.  Sizer uphill and down dale, it is full of hints that he regards the Church officials as stupid because they didn’t “get it“.

The coordination with the CDM is obvious and Borowski clearly thinks the CDM makes all the difference, especially if he were to insert an implied threat along the way, which he has no difficulty in doing…

I should also alert you  to the fact that the Board of Deputies is preparing a formal

disciplinary complaint about him to the Church of England. Their dossier is likely to be

submitted next week, and it will be made public. It would be very surprising indeed if

the media were not to make the connection with Sizer’s event in Scotland the very same

week.

The letter is long and rambling and to be candid, not unfairly described as demented.

Perhaps the most amazing passage is……its “project” is in fact, for the UK to”apologise” for Balfour’s facilitating the autonomy of the people of the Bible in the land of the Bible – in effect, a denial of the historical narrative of the New Testament.

It finally mercifully ends…

We would therefore urge you as a matter of urgency to reconsider the Church’s support

for his organisation and to dissociate yourselves unambiguously from the activities of  

this serial second-hand peddler of hatred.  I cannot overstate the seriousness of this

matter, and I am therefore copying this letter both to the Moderator and , David Gifford

at the CCJ. (the Board’s subjugate)

Borowski got a pretty long letter back which was entirely dismissive of his rabid whining, essentially saying that Borowski’s complaints were a Church of England matter and for the time being the Church (of Scotland) would accept  the judgments of Revd. Sizers superiors and his own declared positions.

Unfazed, Borowski wrote another long bullying, hectoring letter on 31st October, playing the inter-faith relations card for all it was worth.

I cannot stress too much the seriousness with which the Jewish community will view your public association with Sizer

Please be in no doubt about the harm your willing association with this man and his activities will do.

David Chalmers, no doubt fearing for his sanity, did not respond.

So Borowski spills the beans. The real reason for the Boards actions against Recd Sizer is to gag him and to bully people into not associating with him.

Links to other websites

From time to time this website may also include links to other websites. These links are provided for your convenience to provide further information. They do not signify that we endorse the website(s). We have no responsibility for the content of the linked website(s).

If it works for the Board of Deputies, it’ll work for us.  ~Editor

Hasbara Primary Skool….Are YOU a “persuadable”?

Stephen Hoffman

Stephen Hoffman

 

What Messages Work

  1. ‘Persuadables’ need to see empathy for both sides
  2. Explain principles – raise kids w/o hate; children should not be taught to be suicide bombers
  3. Never justification for deliberate slaughter of women and kids
  4. Does Israel make mistakes – yes but we want a better future and are working towards it
  5. Do not be patronizing/paternal. Israel cannot “allow” Palestinians to do things
  6. Always be positive apart from terror.
  7. Israel wants peace – most pro-peace speaker will win debate
  8. Israel long-term commitment to peace. Camp David 1, Jordan, Camp David 2
  9. Let people know about good that Israel does – alt. energy, high tech, equality (women homosexuals, Muslims) Israel only country in region with women judges in supreme court etc.
  10. Draw parallels between N. American and Israeli freedoms – democracy, freedom, security
  11. Don’t talk about religion
  12. Talk about the future
  13. How can it be a cycle of violence? If Israel stopped fighting terror would it stop?
  14. KISS – keep it simple stupid
  15. Blaming media is not as effective as pushing peace agenda
  16. Start comment with best, positive message.
  17. Concede a point. “You make a good point”
  18. Never be declarative – “Always” “Totally” “Promise”
  19. Mutuality is a key concept – cooperation, “both have a right to…” mutual respect, side by side
  20. Iran-backed Hamas; Iran-backed Hezbollah
  21. “What is happening in Gaza isn’t pleasant but…”
  22. Don’t blame Palestinians but HAMAS. 52% in Gaza blame Hamas for ills
  23. There is suffering in Gaza. It is Hamas’ fault
  24. Israel has a responsibility to its own citizens
  25. FACTS – how many missiles? What range?
  26. Use Hamas charter – read it out loudly
  27. Israel has right to defensible borders
  28. Don’t talk in terms of 1967 borders – it turns audiences off in best case
  29. PEACE IS THE CENTRAL MESSAGE

FUCU Déjà vu

Learning nothing from the FUCU disaster, is the Board of Deputies hell bent on topping it?  While Jonathan Arkush would love to cut his losses and quit his pursuance of Stephen Sizer, he’s unable to do so because of the nut job Deputies he would have to answer to. As Chair of the Defense Division, he’s had to witness the creation and implementation of a code of conduct designed specifically for most of the other Deputies he chairs. We sincerely hope that this will go all the way to a tribunal hearing and that the hearing is public.  What fun it will be watching and hearing them being cross examined on:

The BoD’s track record on harassing Sizer
The track record of certain individual members of the Defense Division
The BoD/ CCJ conspiracy
The BoD’s “special” relationship with Rev Nick Howard
The BoD’s secret document…..erm….nevermind
The BoD’s history of harassing other Christian organisations
The Christian Zionist connection $$$$$$
The evidence of half of the Academic Friends of Israel, or the whole of it, if Mrs. Fraser can make it.

Hopefully Arkush will be represented pro bono by Anthony Julius, who presumably will have learned from the FUCU case that if 34  histionic witnesses didn’t do the trick, maybe 1034 will.  We strongly recomment that Mr. Arkush have his personal doctor nearby during the proceedings, given the high probability he will “feel ill” again.

Potential highlights: Seeing Jonathan Hoffman taking the oath “I swear by almighty God, that if I lie, I will apologise.” Watching Jeremy Newmark shrug his shoulders and saying “When you’ve purjured yourself once, the next time is easy”. Jerry Lewis demanding that the President of the tribunal “resign now!!!!”, and Vivian Wineman leaping to his feet demanding “Order!, Order!” Mick Davis tweeting from the public gallery:  “When we complete our takeover of the BoD, we will put an end to all of this nonesense.  (Newmark is a bit of a problem, though.  It will cost us a bundle to do a “Jon Benjamin” on him.  It probably will be cheaper to pay him a bit more on the understanding that he shuts the fuck up.)  I know that ordinarily mere mortals are only allowed 149 characters, but I AM MICK DAVIS” David Hirsh turning what might have been a half hour hearing into a 3 month job. Sadly, it is unlikely that the Board of Deputies’ new code of conduct installed for the sole benefit of Hoffman and Jerry Lewis, will apply in an ecclesiastic tribunal.  Worryingly, all this fun might be nipped in the bud if one of them can find the brains to seek the advice in advance of Jonathan Goldberg, because undoubtedly, Goldberg will get it right again. Goldberg Gets It Right

Rebuttal

14th March 2010

 

Rev Sizer’s photographs on flickr.com – Jews as Christ killers
Rev Sizer has posted photographs of Israeli Defence Force soldiers on his public pages under the title “Herod’s Soldiers Operating in Bethlehem Today”1. Herod’s family converted to Judaism and he was the king of Judaea under the Romans. In the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 2.16, in the episode known as the Massacre of the Innocents, Herod ordered all baby boys in Bethlehem to be killed, in an effort to kill Jesus who he saw as a threat to his status as ‘King of the Jews’, the title given to him by the Romans.
Rev Sizer is therefore insinuating that Israeli soldiers are therefore both child killers and potential killers of Christ, or that any Jew in uniform becomes these two things. Any reader with a knowledge of the Gospel according to Matthew is being led by Rev Sizer to perceive members of the Israel Defence Force as Jewish soldiers who share and perpetuate Herod’s murderous aims. This venomous accusation is reinforced by the sub-heading of the photographs ‘Christ at the Checkpoint’.
For Jews in particular, this awakens deep-seated historical memories of Jews being attacked as ‘Christ-killers’, and the resulting pogroms and genocide across Europe from the Middle Ages to the Second World War. Indeed the UK’s Jewish community is largely comprised of the descendants of Jews seeking safety in this country from Eastern Europe at the end of the 19th and the start of the 20th century where antisemitism resulting in progroms was rife and many may be conscious of the family’s experiences in previous generations. For today’s Jews to hear the same poisonous (and absurd) accusation that they are guilty of the death of Christ 2,000 years ago in the country where their grandparents found shelter and rebuilt their lives is deeply shocking.

The accusation:  Any reader with a knowledge of the Gospel according to Matthew is being led by Rev Sizer to perceive members of the Israel Defence Force as Jewish soldiers who share and perpetuate Herod’s murderous aims.

The response:

Fact:  Israel Defence Forces are Israeli with most being Jewish either by race, religion, nationality or any combination, thereof. 

Fact:  Israel Defence Forces commit murder:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/idf-doesn-t-tell-when-it-boots-soldiers-for-aggressive-behavior.premium-1.525743

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/BTselem-IDF-kill-two-Palestinian-teens-in-West-Bank-riots-308621

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-real-rules-of-engagement-in-the-west-bank.premium-1.496092

http://www.sott.net/article/253791-Deadly-mistake-IDF-wipes-out-Palestinian-family-due-to-technical-error

http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2012-12-19/lia-tarachansky-israeli-army-killing-palestinian-protestors-with-impunity-say-activists/

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/the-israeli-palestinian-balance-of-brutality.premium-1.526092

If Revd. Sizer’s “objectionable” links constitute ‘venomous accusations’, the above links to articles citing  the IDF murders of children and unarmed people, go way beyond the magnitude of any grievance Sizer may have committed.  Ergo, I conclude the IDF’s propensity for murder of unarmed people, specifically children, as cited in the complaint, to be well documented.  I conclude that unarmed people in the region have every reason to believe the IDF represents danger, and possibly death when sighted, given this documented history.

The citation of the IDF being accused of being potential killers of Christ is speculative at best and not rational.  No one can be convicted of a crime they haven’t yet committed unless a conspiracy can be proven.  To the best of my knowledge, Sizer has made no allegation that the IDF will kill Christ.  In that vein, the Christian faith precludes any future killing of Christ; see Revelation, and as a Vicar of a Christian church, the argument that he implies they will kill Christ is irrational.  Any insinuation that the IDF will murder Christ, is in the mind and perception of the complainant as it has no measurable rational value in this argument.  Christians know that Christ will return to Earth, triumphant, so any killing of Him by the IDF or anyone else, is not even a consideration.  A better understanding of the Christian faith and the Book of Revelation in particular, would go far to end this kind of irrational hysteria.  The Christians on the Council of Christians and Jews would do well to educate their Jewish brethren on this very fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, since they’re in the business of promoting Christian/Jewish understanding.  Understanding goes both ways and in this case, a Christian Vicar is being persecuted by Jonathan Arkush, who has demonstrated very little understanding of the Christian faith in this grave absence of knowledge. 

Just as Jews don’t want to be lumped into the “Christ killer” category, neither should Sizer be lumped into the anti-Semitic category because of the deeds of the perpetrators of the Holocaust.  Stephen Sizer is not responsible for the sins of the Third Reich and cannot be judged as so.  Sizer has repeatedly repudiated anti-Semitism publicly.  He does, however, condemn murder and mistreatment of all peoples of the world.  If the IDF is guilty of this, as we have documented in the links above, then any condemnation of it is justified.  Sizer is joined by billions of Christians in the condemnation of the crime of murder.

Just as the memories of the Holocaust evokes terror and fear in the minds of Jews, so does the Murder of the Innocents and ultimately the murder of Jesus Christ, evoke pain, anguish, and terror in the minds of Christians.  It was the Sanhedrin (under King Herod) who had Jesus arrested and brought to a Jewish court to answer allegations of heresy levied by the Sanhedrin, and ultimately included the charge of treason resulting in a trial by Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of occupied Jerusalem.  The Sanhedrin was acting under Jewish law, proscribed by King Herod’s court.  The murder of Jesus was carried out by the Romans after the Roman Govenor, Pontius Pilot gave the Sanhedrin and Jewish people a gift of the choice between Barabbas or Jesus to be killed.  They selected Jesus.  Christian faithful commemorate this monumental injustice and tragedy annually, in the form of the Good Friday observance, whereby the torture and murder of Jesus is recalled and mourned in anguished solemnity and often, ceremonial re-enactment.  The Christian faith is based on the deity of Jesus and His resurrection 3 days later as proof.  There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians in the world who suffer anguish and pain in the commemoration of this horrific event every year.  The ruling entities during the times of Jesus, were King Herod, the Sanhedrin, his agent, and the occupational government of Rome.  Today, Jerusalem is ruled by the Israeli government, with the IDF as its military agency.  Seeing the IDF commit atrocities against unarmed people is deeply shocking and traumatizing as we remember and are defined by (as Christians) the horrific torture and crucifixion of Christ by the Roman occupational force at the request of the Sanhedrin.

The Flicker photographs subheading: “Herod’s Soldiers Operating in Bethlehem today” is reflective of that historical heritage the IDF represents as the military arm of the Israeli government of the region.  Just as Herod presided over Jesus’ murder 2000 years ago, the Israeli government presides over the murder of innocents today. 

The charge that Stephen Sizer is leading people to believe the IDF is a potential Christ killer is disproved, and the charge that the IDF is portrayed by Sizer as murderous should be stipulated to as it has been proven to be true as evidenced in the above links. 

 

9th March 2011
Rev Sizer posted a comment to his blog2 under the title The Ties that Bind : Israel to Libya which read:

“It should come as no surprise that “Saif al-Islam, son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi” made a surprise visit to Israel last week to buy more weapons for his dad.

He goes to Israel regularly because, according to a senior Middle East Ecclesiastical source, both his mother and aunt are Jewish and live in Israel.

1 http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephensizer/sets/72157623675922174/
2 http://stephensizer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/saif-gadhafi-visits-israel-and-asks-for.html

Blood is indeed thicker than water. Perhaps this is why the US is reluctant to impose a ‘no-fly’ zone over Libya.” (emphasis supplied)
It was in fact Muammar Gaddafi’s mother and aunt who were allegedly Jewish according to an internet rumour, not the mother and aunt of Saif Gaddafi. An article in the Harry’s Place3 website charts how Rev Sizer subsequently modified his original post to remove the words emphasised above.
Rev Sizer’s comments were racist and antisemitic. Their meaning and effect were rightly characterised by the article on the Harry’s Place website as:
“The Gaddafis are Jews, Israel is full of Jews, and the USA is run by Jews. They all murder innocent civilians. They are all linked by Jewish blood and evil motives.”

The above accusation is questionable in that it cites a Zionist extremist blog site as an interpreted “characterization” of Sizer’s blog article.

The Gaddafi family ties to Israel are well documented as it the US’ loyalty to Israel. The Harry’s Place characterization ‘“The Gaddafis are Jews, Israel is full of Jews, and the USA is run by Jews. They all murder innocent civilians. They are all linked by Jewish blood and evil motives.” ‘was written for the sole purpose of demonising Sizer and Arkush’s claim that Sizer’s comments were “rightly characterized” by the authors of Harry’s Place is a testament to his bad judgment and emotional instability in accepting such characterizations from questionable sources such as the Zionist Extremist blog  Harry’s Place.  It should be pointed out that blogs are opinion forums, not credible news sources.  Sizer’s comment that “it should come to no surprise” merely reflects that given the Jewish heritage in the Gaddafi family and their desperate situation in Libya during the uprising against the Libyan dictator, Col. Gaddafi, the son of Col. Gaddafi turned to whatever connections he had or thought he had to seek help.

In conclusion, again, the characterization of Sizer’s intent and commentary was written by the skewed pen of Zionist extremist blog authors in a known Zionist extremist blog, Harry’s Place.

13th June 2011
Rev Sizer gave a television interview in which he claimed that the British far right and Zionists were forming an alliance because their common enemy were Muslims. He said:

“The irony is that the far right in Britain is forming an alliance with Zionists because their common enemy are the Muslims, and it’s ironic that the very people who favoured the work of Hitler are now working with the Zionists, the English Defence League for example, against the Muslims because they view them as a threat.”

Zionism is the belief in Jewish national self-determination. The majority of Jewish people share that belief and therefore characterise themselves as Zionists. The same is true of the mainsteam Jewish community and communal organisations. When Rev Sizer refers to Zionists, he does so disparagingly and in the knowledge that most of his readers will readily understand the term as a paraphrase for Jews. The claim quoted above would suggest to most of Rev Sizer’s listeners that the Jewish community (“the Zionists”) have formed an alliance with neo-Nazis (“the very people who favoured the work of Hitler”). Since this is the natural and obvious meaning of Rev Sizer’s claim, he must therefore be taken to have intended it to be so understood. To say of the Jewish community that it is in league with neo-Nazis is as antisemitic as it is untrue. Rev Sizer’s claim is unambiguous and poisonous and he must have meant it as such.

The interview can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPW1s5cNRpg
3 http://hurryupharry.

Response:  http://hoffmanchronicled.wordpress.com/the-zionist-federationedl-alliance/

Roberta Moore with Jonathan Hoffman

Roberta Moore of the EDL/Jewish Division with Jonathan Hoffman Co-Vice Chair of the Zionist Federation at an Ahava demonstration.

‘NUFF SAID

5th July 2011
Rev Sizer linked to an article in the Palestine Telegraph4 which accused Israel of killing scientists all over the world, including by causing plane crashes. The author of the article was Wayne Madsen who has accused Israel, Saudi intelligence and the CIA of being behind the attacks on 9/11. Madsen is an antisemitic conspiracy theorist who alleges that “the Israeli Lobby owns the Congress, media, Hollywood, Wall Street, both political parties, and the White House”5 The Palestine Telegraph is characterised by openly displayed hatred for Jews and Israel. Its articles include:
§ A piece accusing Jews of plotting the First and Second World Wars
§ Holocaust denial and trivialisation
§ Allegations of a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world
§ The accusation that the 9/11 terrorist attack was a Jewish plot to dominate Muslims
§ Allegations of Israelis stealing organs in Haiti and Ukraine
§ An antisemitic video by Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke (which was too much even for Baroness Tonge who is known for her strong anti-Israel views, and she resigned as its Patron)
Fuller descriptions of these articles and links can be found in articles on the Harry’s Place website6.
4th October 2011
Rev Sizer posted a link on his Facebook page to an openly antisemitic
website The Ugly Truth7, whose Home Page masthead clearly and
unambiguously proclaims its message to be:
Zionism, Jewish extremism and a few other nasty items making our world
uninhabitable today
Here is an example of the typical content for this site: 

“As with all mixed blessings, we, the jackasses of humanity, can take solace in
the fact that the continued belching of such foul, sulphuric comments from
more and more Jewish leaders worldwide will inevitably result in a muchneeded clearing of the air, and hopefully–not just an enduring, but indeed–a
permanent one.”8
4
http://www.paltelegraph.com/world/middle-east/77-middle-east/9538-israels-mossad-bomb-russianplane-to-kill-scientists.html
5
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/12/wayne-madsen-the-israeli-lobby-owns-the-congress-hollywoodand-the-whitehouse/
6
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/07/05/stephen-sizer-and-the-palestine-telegraph/
7
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/
8
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/jewish-supremacism-the-deadliest-of-nasty-odorsstinking-up-our-world-today

Rev Sizer’s link to The Ugly Truth website was on his Facebook page for three
months, from 4th October 2011 to 4th January 2012, as referred to in the
Complaint Form 1a. The link and the delay in removing it were condemned by
the Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch as “disgraceful and
unbecoming for a clergyman of the Church of England to promote”.

14th October 2011
Rev Sizer posted comments on his blog from Helen Thomas, the former White
House correspondent forced to retire after telling Jews in Israel to go ‘home’ to
Poland, Germany or America9. He prefaced the comments with:
“Helen Thomas is one gutsy 90 year old lady to take on the Israel Lobby.”
And ended them with “Bring it on.”
24th December 2011

Rev Sizer gave an interview to Qods News Agency in which he attacked Israel10. Qods
News Agency is a Holocaust denying website whose reported statements include the
following:
“The Hamas government of Gaza is among the entities denying the controversial
Holocaust issue and likens Holocaust education to a war crime”11
“Gaza government officials on Tuesday urged school children to leave classrooms if
textbooks provided by the UNRWA included content about the myth of the
Holocaust”12
“According to the Zionists, some six million Jews were murdered by the
German Nazis during the World War II, which they refer to as holocaust. This is
while, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that the actual holocaust is the
crimes committed everyday in occupied territories of Palestine”13

9http://stephensizer.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/helen-thomas-you-cannot-criticize.html
10 http://www.qodsna.com/NewsContent-id_44308.aspx
11 http://www.qodsna.com/NewsContent-id_42024.aspx
12 http://www.qodsna.com/NewsContent-id_34738.aspx
13 http://www.qodsna.com/NewsContent.aspx?action=print&id=13089

 

The plank in the Board’s own eye

As in all such situations, charges similar to those leveled at Revd. Sizer, reek of hypocrisy.  In this case the stench is over-powering.

Revd. Sizer is said to have included on his web site, on five or six occasions, links to articles on web sites that were deemed to also contain anti–Semitic material.

The occasion that they put the most store in, was the linking to an unobjectionable article on the available window for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In the charge sheet Arkush tells us that it should be noted that on another occasion when he linked to an unobjectionable article that was on a website also containing objectionable material and this was pointed out, he took down the link and linked to the same article on a web site without difficult material.  It should be noted?  Indeed it should.  It is hard to know how Arkush thinks this sequence of events helps his case.  It would seem to us to be irrefutable evidence that Revd. Sizer’s interest was in the articles linked to, and not the web sites as a whole.

But all of this is tedious and ridiculous, in fact way, way beyond ridiculous, but, entirely consistent with the temperaments and attitudes of Arkush and certain others involved.

Stephen Sizer is a voracious researcher.  After decades of work, visits to thousands of of web sites, links to a great many of them these instances, Arkush tells us, add up to a life “trawling the darkest recesses of the internet”!!!  Do these people really have no conception of how wacko they come across?  Certainly, his accusers could not stand up to the merest fraction of the scrutiny he has been subjected to.  Herein is the hypocrisy.  Among the Defence Division deputies that are conducting this vendetta, are some that regularly link to racist cess-pits such as Harry’s Place, CifWatch and Millett’s blog that are little more than 24/7 Muslim hate fests.  For example Millett’s blog is infested with EDL eulogisers such as Harvey Garfield and Sharon Klaff.  Typical sentiments include “American fundamentalist Christians and the European far right are Israel’s natural allies“, and “Whenever I meet a decent Goy I am shocked and surprised“ .

They link to these sites on A DAILY BASIS.

And then, the Board shoot themselves right in the foot and hole their case below the water line.

Fair Play Campaign Group were established by the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council as a joint enterprise.  On their web site there occurs the following (read this very carefully).

“From time to time this web site may also contain links to other web sites. These links are provided for your convenience and information. They do not signify that we endorse these web sites. We have no responsibility for the content of these web sites”. (our emphasis)

NUFF SAID ?

Moving from the sublime to the even more ridiculous at break neck speed, the Board goes on to complain that Revd. Sizer said in a TV interview that “the British far right and Zionists had formed an alliance”.  He provides a link to a short video clip of him saying just that.

Then, with a deft sleight of hand, they substitute “the Jewish community“ for  “Zionists”  hoping no one will notice.  This prepares the way for a launch into the typical histrionic melodrama.

To say of the Jewish community, that it is in league with neo-Nazis is as anti-Semitic as it is untrue.

In saying that Zionists had linked up with the far right, Revd. Sizer states a simple and indisputable fact.

Jonathan Hoffman and Roberta Moore of the EDLEDL

For some considerable time, Jewish organisations have been getting increasingly worried about just this, and issuing warnings about it.

Jon Benjamin was moved to say…”The EDL’s support for Israel is empty and duplicitous. It is built on a foundation of Islamophobia, which we reject entirely.”

The CST felt it necessary to advise, referring to the EDL…”Any Jews that think they can  shape such dangerous forces are utterly deluded.”  They obviously felt that there were such Jews.

In November, there was sufficient concern, probably stimulated by Jonathan Hoffman consorting with the EDL, that the Union of Jewish Students launched an initiative……”Not in Our Name Jews Against The EDL.”  It was supported by over a dozen Jewish organisations including The Board, The Israeli Embassy and the CST.

Then there is Roberta.  Roberta Moore is an off the scale crazy Kahanist and a close associate of the convicted terrorist Victor Vancier and the Jewish Task Force.  One day she will be associated with a bomb.  She created the EDL Jewish division.  The loose membership never became large, but the Jews that were attracted to it were, obviously as Zionist as Zionist gets.

And the Board hope to persuade the Church that ” to say that Zionists have linked up with the far right  is as anti-Semitic as it is untrue.”

Good Luck with that one.

Essentially the Board is charging the Church with harbouring racists in its midst and taking no action against them.  The Church would be perfectly entitled to tell them to come back when they have done something about the plank in their own eye.

On the Defence Division, the committee driving the complaint against Stephen Sizer, sits the Zio-facist, homophobic ranter and vendetta addict, Jonathan Hoffman.  Since he has the loudest mouth on that committee, he is likely to have a big influence on the emotionally fragile Jonathan Arkush and the business of the committee as a whole.

Jonathan Hoffman

Here is Deputy and Defence Division member Hoffman shoulder to shoulder, and on a joint frolic with Kevin Carroll, EDL  second in command and the cousin of “Tommy Robinson“, the EDL main front man.

Jonathan Hoffman and Kevin Carroll of the EDL

Here is Deputy and Defence Division member Hoffman and his Siamese twin Harvey Garfield shoulder to shoulder and skipping down the street with the same Roberta Moore, of EDL/Jewish Division/JTF infamy, referred to above.

Harvey Garfield, Jonathan Hoffman, Roberta Moore of the EDL

Hoffman initially declared that this picture had been photoshopped, and then when threatened with legal action by the photo journalist David Hoffman, who had taken the picture, issued a grovelling apology.  It is in this context that he made his famous declaration…

“When I lie I apologise.“

The vendetta is a Hoffman obsession.  His vendettas are not confined to those he perceives to be anti–Semites (that could include YOU).  His fellow Zionists are always liable to find themselves in the crosshairs of his sights, usually on the grounds of not being sufficiently rabidly Zionist enough for his taste.

He also loves, with his other main sidekick Richard Millett, to disrupt peoples’ meetings and has been thrown out of more than several.  Most famously, this wannabe pillar of the Jewish establishment, was ejected from the Royal Albert Hall for hooliganism. Round about the same time as he was conducting his vendetta against Mick Davis, Hoffman was suspended from the Board of Deputies International Division for issuing threats against the Chairman, Paul Edlin.

Another propensity is the writing of hate mail.  Revd. Sizer has been  a recipient  including…

“You are totally disgusting, how you remain vicar of a church is a disgrace, a complete mystery and a stain on the Anglican ministry. Many people will be delighted to see the back of you.

Sincerely

Jonathan Hoffman”

The above example was kindly supplied to us by “Rev” Nick Howard on 27/12/2011.  So Hoffman is sharing his hate emails with Nick Howard, a clear indication that Hoffman was involved in the plotting against Revd. Sizer from an early stage, probably from the very beginning.

Hoffman, Garfield and Millett are affectionately referred to as “The Three Muppeteers“.

Below is a link to the full story of Hoffman’s ties with the racist far right. It is, unfortunately, a very long read but we gathered a massive volume of evidence, and we couldn’t bear to leave anything out.  You do have the option of merely looking at the photographic evidence above or enjoying the full belly laugh.

The Board are fully aware of Hoffman’s links with the EDL, his racism, his homophobia, his penchant for writing abusive and intimidating hate mail and his  propensity to embark on a tortuous vendetta at the slightest change in the weather.  Even the increasingly extremist Zionist Federation felt it prudent to, on these grounds, arrange for him not to get re-elected as co vice chair.  Yet the Board  have never uttered a single word of condemnation of, or dissociation from, him. They hound Revd. Sizer on the basis of a few pieces of piffle, and are happy for Hoffman to be in the forefront of this hounding.  This is hypocrisy on such a grand scale (which the BoD is increasingly prone to) that only those who think that denial is a river in Egypt, could avoid acknowledging it. 

For more on this hypocrisy, see our Zionist Federation and the EDL story.

Links to other websites

From time to time this website may also include links to other websites. These links are provided for your convenience to provide further information. They do not signify that we endorse the website(s). We have no responsibility for the content of the linked website(s).

If it works for the Board of Deputies, it’ll work for us.  ~Editor

OMERTA

Jonathan Arkush

    Busted!

The disgraceful vendetta against Stephen Sizer and its culmination in the Board of Deputies instigating a complaint against him under the CDM provisions, is a logical and understandable consequence of the prevalent culture of the Board, that is, a culture of silence and silencing.

Included in the Board’s constitution is the objective to advance Israel’s “security, welfare and standing”.  Fair enough.  Except that this, in interpretation and application, is taken to mean that there is to be no criticism of The State of Israel or any current or past government of this State. Several years ago Laurence Brass became Board treasurer and upon taking office said..

Many are concerned that for some time the Board has been perceived as merely an extension of the Israeli embassy…..I beleive that the Board enhances its credibility if it acknowledges that constructive criticism of Israeli policy is a legitimate part of the democratic process “.

He then went on to try to get a resolution passed whereby  the Board would permit itself such criticism where appropriate. It had a snow ball in hell’s chance . Even when there was almost universal discomfort at the Israeli announcement of an intention to build in the area known as E1 the integrity of the code of silence was maintained. Laurence Brass made no effort to disguise his frustration. Even the Jewish Chronicle had felt able to describe the move as “petulance not statesmanship “.

From the Board, nothing. The silence on the matter wasn’t coincidental. There was an explicit reaffirmation of the code.

This is all the root cause of the perceived problem with the Jewish Leadership Council.  The JLC, they whine, is unelected, unaccountable and is chipping away at the traditional position of the Board.  The problem is that the backbone of the JLC is a number of men that are very wealthy indeed and the Board is strapped for cash.  But this seeming creeping of the JLC onto traditional Board territory is problematic in another, more important sense. The JLC men are outside the club, and therefore not bound by the code.  Further, they tend to be realists.  The JLC Chairman, Mick Davis, is a particular figure of hate.  In November 2011, he said some things that drove the Deputies into apoplexy.  That Netanyahu lacked the courage to make peace, that if there wasn’t a two state solution soon, Israel would drift into a de facto apartheid state.  No brainer stuff.  All hell broke loose.  Davis cheerfully agreed to go along to a Board plenary to be interrogated.  It is said that Deputies queued for an hour for their turn to duff him over.

ARKUSH

Jonathan Arkush is a Board Vice President and in his fourth year as chair of the Defence Division.  It is not called the Defence Division for nothing. Its role is, in partnership with the Community Security Trust, to defend “the Jewish Community“ from criticism of Israel, or has been, under Arkush’s stewardship.

Arkush is the code of silence personified.  He goes further than most and declares that no Jew should ever publicly criticise Israel.  The others think it, but Arkush has no qualms about saying it.  He is also disastrously over emotional.  These emotions are sincere unlike the faux emotions of say, Hoffman, in whose case they are merely attention seeking tantrums. Faux emotions do not adversely affect judgment, sincere ones can and do.  That Hoffman has zilch judgment is entirely coincidental.

At a Board plenary in February 2012, Arkush had a wobbler right off the Richter scale.  In the most amazing failure of judgment, he launched into a vitriolic tirade against the JLC.  Not the least of it,  “The JLC is unelected, unaccountable and it is unacceptable to the community for it to assume a leadership role.”

Then there were dark hints of financial impropriety concerning the funding of the Leeds and Manchester Representative Councils.

There was a considerable level of support on the floor,  but the minds of the powers that be were wonderfully concentrated when, after declaring Arkush’s position “untenable”, Mick Davis went on to muse ominously that JLC members “…may feel they can no longer provide ongoing financial support for the Board while being subjected to this kind of attack by the institution”.

The floodgates opened.

Board President Vivian Wineman said that “It is unhelpful and incorrect to say that the JLC  was unaccountable”.

Treasurer Laurence Brass suggested that Arkush “…should consider whether he wants to seek re-election as Vice President”.

Deputy Sheldon advised that Arkush “…might wish to consider taking a break from community politics.”

And of course everyone’s favourite cuddly fruit cake, Jerry Lewis, weighed in with the less nuanced “RESIGN  NOW !!!!”

Within a week, Arbush did what the Jewish News described as the ”…u turn to end all u turns”.  He issued a grovelling apology which he circulated to every deputy.  This wasn’t a clarification, it was a complete retraction of just about everything he had said.  While a week ago the JLC had been the devil incarnate, they now were playing ….

“…a vital role in the infrastructure of our community

and providing

“…a much needed vehicle for strategic action and planning“

and has done

“…a huge amount to enhance advocacy work for the community.”

The apology placed particular emphasis on the retraction of the inference of financial impropriety.

Arkush explained that he had been “unwell“.

How far from reality Arkush had drifted, is starkly illustrated by the fact that at the time, he was sitting on a liaison committee set up to improve relations between the Board and the JLC !!!!!!

The JLC is no friend of the Palestinian people and has many flaws.  Most notably, it retains as CEO, Jeremy Newmark, the notorious perjurer and instigator of the hapless covert funding of Engage Campaign.  But, unlike the Board, it at least has one foot in the world inhabited by regular people.

In what was clearly a rhetorical question, the Jewish News asked whether Arkush had any remaining semblance of credibility.

Why did Arkush do this?

His emotional fragility is part of the explanation, but not the whole of it.  Many on the Board, including some among the powers that be, are resentful of what they see as a JLC takeover.  But it was Arkush who had the wobbler.  The explanation is that Arkush had a grievance rubbing on top of a grievance.  The ostensible tipping point had been that a deputation of Jewish leaders had had a meeting with David Cameron.  It had been led by the Board President but the rest had been mostly JLC people.  While this was the tipping point, it was not the underlying sore.

For that, we have to go back to Mick Davis and his temerity in criticising the State of Israel.  For Arkush, it was all about Mick Davis.  While the encroachment on Board territory was one thing, in speaking his mind, Davis had stepped on Arkush’s own patch.   He was the man that dealt with such matters.  He was the man that defended the community against the de-legitimisers.  Yet Davis, although assuming leadership credentials, wasn’t signed up to the code.   He spoke with authority, but was way beyond being bullied, blackmailed or otherwise sanctioned.  This was the pent up frustration that led to the melt down.

This man/child, with wildly unpredictable emotions, devoid of judgment but rich in hubris, is driving and fronting the ludicrous vendetta against Revd. Sizer.   We have a sneaking suspicion that he’s soon to be “unwell” again.

Links to other websites

From time to time this website may also include links to other websites. These links are provided for your convenience to provide further information. They do not signify that we endorse the website(s). We have no responsibility for the content of the linked website(s).

If it works for the Board of Deputies, it’ll work for us.  ~Editor

What they want…and why they want it

Michael Howard

David Gifford

Nick Howard

So, what do the Board hope to get out of their pursuance of Rev. Sizer?  The answer is clear from even the most peremptory reading of The Complaint.  They hope to silence him .  To, in effect, “take out of the game”  one of the most energetic and thoughtful advocates of justice for ALL the people of the Holy Land, an idea the Board have explicitly rejected. (Board Plenary January 19th 2011).  It goes even beyond this, as we shall see.

On November 1st 2012, Jonathan Arkush made a dramatic announcement on the BoD and Jewish Chronicle web sites informing readers that the complaint had been made.  It included the following two statements.

“WE draw the line at making statements that WE regard as anti-Semitic “. 

“The Jewish community should not have to stomach material that WE regard as crossing the line into anti-Semitism”.

The “WEs” here are very important.  It is all about what THEY, speaking their privatised hasbarafiosi language, regard as anti-Semitism.  Not what the ordinary reasonable speakers of the natural language would regard as such. Not what would fall within the definition put forward by the dictionary compilers, arrived at by observation of the aggregate force of the uses of the expression.  There is now no need for any antipathy toward Jews.  No longer any need for any inclination to persecute or discriminate against Jews.

Between this private conception and THE concept, there is a vast gulf.

What is required of the Church with respect to Revd. Sizer goes beyond silencing him and amounts to a demand for control.  They spell it out at the end of the complaint.

“We ask only one thing which is that effective measures are taken to prevent him from publishing or republishing material that WE find to be not merely offensive but anti-Semitic“

They go on to say

“We don’t think that is too much to ask“ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The tragedy is that they really don’t think it is too much to ask. 

How would this work?  Effective measures?  What measures would be effective?  The requirement is made of the Bishop of Guildford.  Do they mean the Bishop should closely supervise Revd. Sizer’s words and writings?  Does he have the time?   But wait a moment.   The requirement is not that effective measures are taken to prevent the publishing of material that HE (the Bishop) finds anti-Semitic, but material THEY find anti- Semitic.  The Bishop  will be able to judge this how?  Does the Bishop know, for example, that using the expression “American Jewish Lobby“, even to deny its existence, is indicative of the “New anti-Semitism”?  Does the Bishop know that ant-Zionism IS anti-Semitism?  Does he know that criticism of a political entity is antipathy to a whole ethnic/religious group ? Does he know that those that were anti the Soviet Union  were rabid racist anti Slavs?  Does he even know about this “new anti-Semitism” thing that the great mass of humanity have  never heard of and would laugh out of court if it had?  It is no longer just anti-Semitism, or even anti-Semitism and new anti-Semitism, that the Bishop is going to have to look out for.  We also now have anti-Semitic tropes, alibi anti- Semitism, theological anti-Semitism, borderline anti-Semitism and causal anti- Semitism (the latest arrival but watch this space).

UPDATE  October 2013 courtesy of Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle.  We now have “wiffs of anti-Semitism”.

It’s quite a minefield the Bishop would have to negotiate.  Maybe they have plans to imprison him in the tower and subject him to an intensive residential training course.  Of course, they would have to do it all over again when Bishop Hill leaves office and a new Bishop takes over.

The reality is that any energetic criticism of Israel will be regarded as “something the Jewish community shouldn’t have to stomach” and as “crossing the line into anti-Semitism”.

Put to them like this, they would deny it of course.  But the fact that they FORBID themselves any criticism of Israel (see the page we have entitle OMERTA) and observation of the way they react when others do, is a clear indication that had they the power they would forbid the rest of us as well.  They don’t have this power but they do have highly developed strategies of explicit and implied threats, intimidation, blackmail and vendetta.

Rather than burden the Bishop with the task of supervising Revd. Sizer, it is more like that they intend that he will, effectively, come under THEIR supervision, thereby ensuring that the job gets done properly.  They would have themselves appointed as advisers directly to Revd. Sizer.  They also would have him seek their advice before he publishes anything he has reason to suspect they may not like, particularly if it relates to Israel.  In effect, for Rev. Sizer to be placed on probation and they appointed his probation officers.

Now you may think this is fanciful, that it is too far fetched and they couldn’t possibly imagine that the Church of England would ever put one of its priests in such a situation.  That would be to gravely underestimate their arrogance and hubris.  See here the jaw dropping  letter before action sent to the University and College Union, which starkly illustrates where their muddled heads are capable of taking them.

Prior to legal action, Anthony Julius wrote a letter to the UCU demanding ‘the abrogation of Motion 70 of 2011 [which rejected the EUMC Working Definition of antisemitism – cf. p. 22], an open an[d] unqualified acknowledgement that the union had been guilty of institutional anti-Semitism coupled with a public apology, a commitment to abide by a code of conduct in respect of its Jewish members to be drawn up by a body comprising individuals approved by the claimant and a further commitment to sponsor a programme (for a minimum of 10 years and conducted by that same body) educating academics about the dangers of anti-Semitism, “with special reference to the relationship between anti-Semitism and what now passes for ‘anti-Zionism’”.

So, those “advising” Ronnie  Fraser thought the union would be so afraid of a trial they would appoint  Julius et al to supervise them, and this supervision would be exercised through their proxy,  the emotionally erratic claimant himself.

For what actually happened, see  Jeremy Golberg, QC, here..

http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/ask-qc/106261/why-ronnie-fraser-case-against-ucu-was-a-legal-and-public-relations-disaster

Links to other websites

From time to time this website may also include links to other websites. These links are provided for your convenience to provide further information. They do not signify that we endorse the website(s). We have no responsibility for the content of the linked website(s).

If it works for the Board of Deputies, it’ll work for us.  ~Editor

 

6 Comments
  1. Jewish American Princess permalink

    What is this American pro-Israel lobby crap? It’s as American as mom’s apple pie. We talk about the Jewish lobby at dinner parties, around the water cooler, bar mitzvahs, weddings, funerals, and in our homes as often as we talk about the lastest movie or fashion trend, with pride. If anyone told us we were thereby anti-Semitic, they would be on the way to Bellevue, before you could say lickety split. Goldberg definately does get it. By any chance does he spend any time in America and is he single?

  2. Watchful Iris permalink

    …is he single?

    Probably not, but after he gets “Goldstoned” he might be.

  3. realzionist permalink

    Iris….

  4. Watchful Iris permalink

    Yes?

  5. realzionist permalink

    behave

  6. Watchful Iris permalink

    Shan’t. :)

Leave a reply and play nice.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: