White Coat Underground

After learning of the British vicar who sent the cops after a blogger, I decided to read up a bit more about this guy.

Sizer is a Mideast activist. By “activist”, I mean that he sees the State of Israel as an abomination. He has revisionist ideas about Middle East history which he feels was influenced by “the Zionist lobby”. What’s interesting is his condemnation of the insane rantings of the Evangelicals who want to see the Temple rebuilt in order to bring about the End Times. In fact, he seems to believe that it was misguided Christians who were responsible for the founding of the State of Israel:

In the Middle East, this is largely due to the influence of European Christians who, nearly 200 years ago, believed it was their destiny to assist the Jewish people in colonising Palestine. This movement which became known as Christian Zionism, gave rise not only to Zionism and the founding of the State of Israel, but also to the Palestinian Nakba and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This is a horrid misreading of history. While there were certainly Christian and secular supporters for the founding of Israel, there was also religious and non-religious opposition. There are parts of the modern Evangelical movement that are strong supporters of Israel, but this support is predicated on the idea that when The End comes, the Jews are fucked.

Sizer emphasizes the human rights tragedy of the occupied territories, which is a good thing, but he does so in the context of his critique of “Christian Zionism” which he condescendingly reminds us is “bad for the Jews.”

Religious arguments regarding Mideast Politics are fruitless and idiotic. There is real, secular human suffering on the ground. Tossing an additional religious match into the tinderbox is cruel. If you care about peace in the Middle East, fight for it politically, condemn the violence of the occupation and the terrorist tactics supported by hypocritical, self-serving Mideast dictatorships. Sizer’s “anti-Zionist” rhetoric flirts closely with outright anti-semitism and ignores the fact that millions of Jewish Israelis are there already.

But the guy’s a hypocrite anyway. He’s a proud member of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans who profess belief in:

the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family.

So the dude is all for equal rights when it suits his purposes. Nice.

I still don’t have a good read on this Sizer guy. Is he a critic of Israel who has been vilified by extremists? Is he a critic of Israel who has strayed into frank anti-semitism? Is he just another religious wacko using superstition to justify his own hypocritical beliefs? Either way, anyone who calls the cops on a blogger for criticizing him is a no-goodnik in my book.

Comments

#1 History Buff
January 25, 2010

“he seems to believe that it was misguided Christians who were responsible for the founding of the State of Israel”

————

Of course this is impossible since the nation of Israel was founded 3000 years before Christ. Abraham started the foundation of Israel. I think he should read up on history before speaking. It might help matters.

Of course the Temple will be rebuilt and is in the process as we speak. The orthodox Jews are returning to the Old Testament law, animal sacrifice, and temple servcies (eventually). Of course this will be the temple from which the antichrist rules from. The end is so near, yet so many people cannot see it and yet Biblical prophecy has been and continues to be fulfilled before our very eyes. The Roman Empire is back (European Union) just as the Bible predicted for the end times. If you ever get a chance check out Grant R. Jeffrey and his work. You won’t be an unbeliver when you finish reading his work.
#2 DrugMonkey
January 25, 2010

It seems to me (*personal opinion here*) that many intelligent people who otherwise care very much about social justice do NOT take antisemitism the least bit seriously.

Could you please elaborate on which “intelligent people” you are referring to and what your frame of reference is for this belief? The type of pro-Palestinian anti-Israel-verging-on-antiJewish sentiment that the UK seems to be experiencing based on the recent Geegasm is not common in the US. IME, of course (IANAJ).
#3 History Punk
January 25, 2010

“Of course this is impossible since the nation of Israel was founded 3000 years before Christ. Abraham started the foundation of Israel. I think he should read up on history before speaking. It might help matters. ”

You do realize that the modern state of Israel and the biblical state of Israel have little in common besides some shared space, a shared name, and that the primary residents are Jews, right?
#4 PalMD
January 25, 2010

The wacko fundigelicals realize no such distinction
#5 History buff
January 25, 2010

No. The state of Israel is the same today as it was when God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. God gave Abraham and his people that land and it will remain the land of God’s chosen people forever. Read the Old Testament. Time and time again God’s people would leave Him for pagan idols and He would punish them by enslaving them to another land. The same was true in WWII. God allowed His people to return to their land and become a nation once again. We had a hand in freeing them although 6 million died at the hands of the old buzzard Hitler. You have to know Biblical historu before you know Biblical present and future. The land of Israel coming together again was part of prophecy and the great war to come is yet to be fulfilled. The Biblical state of Israel and the Modern state of Israel have much in common – the same God, the same land, the same people (12 tribes), and the same enemies. Not much has changed in 3000 years.

Technically The Jews and the palestinians are half brothers – read about Abraham. His son by his handmaiden began the generation that would later give birth to Muhammed.

His other son gave birth to the moher who would father Jesus – the son of God. It was said that these two brothers (Israel/Palestine) would be at war until the last day. No force on earth can make friends out of people who have been bitter enemies for 3000 years.
#6 MonkeyPox
January 25, 2010

Well, at least you admit that you are an irrational hate filled asswipe.
#7 Mu
January 26, 2010

You do realize that the modern state of Israel and the biblical state of Israel have little in common besides some shared space, a shared name, and that the primary residents are Jews, right?

Seems like a pretty solid definition of a state to me. If the discontinuity becomes an issue, a lot of states that were conquered and reestablished later would become illegitimate. The Baltic states, Poland, Bulgaria, Georgia, Korea to name a few; and the best example in this case, neighboring Egypt. Overrun by the Romans at the same time as Israel, and didn’t become truly independent again for 2000 years either.
#8 Vicki
January 26, 2010

Mu–

That only works if a state has to have existed for at least N years to be legitimate. Pick your N carefully, if you’re an American, Canadian, or Australian. (Three easy ones off the top of my head.) Is the United Kingdom a legitimate state, or does the legitimacy belong instead to Cymru and Wessex? Do you have a position on Iraqi or Afghan statehood, and if so, does that position depend on how long those countries have been defined with their present borders? How about Italy? Is that nation-state successional to the Roman Empire (competing with San Marino, France, Tunisia, etc.) or to something like the Republic of Venice or the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies?

Whatever your opinion of nationalism as a philosophy, “nation” and “state” are different concepts.
#9 DrugMonkey
January 26, 2010

I am merely curious about why you think antisemitism is not taken seriously and by comparison to what standard. It was informative to many to understand the UK situation that led to Gee’s outburst a little better. I Am Not A Jew (IANAJ) is a riff on the infamous IANALawyer disclaimer. It is meant to indicate that I appreciate that people who are Jewish may have a perspective that is no immediately accessible to those who are not such as myself.

Given that my discussions on -isms focus very much on representation within science, and from my experiences people who are Jewish are in fact overrepresented relative to population rate, it is no immediately obvious to me what your basis for the statement is.

Why is Sara Cohen the atheist still “Jewish”? I’m sure it is related to why Barack Obama and Tiger Woods are considered “black” or “mixed” but never, ever “white”.
#10 Bexley
January 26, 2010

It was informative to many to understand the UK situation that led to Gee’s outburst a little better.

Ok im confused – what was Gee’s outburst and what i the “situation” in the UK?
#11 PalMD
January 26, 2010

Deep background…at a session on internet civility there was some conflict involving the audience/participants. One of them, who is both English and Jewish, expressed offense at some of the premises discussed and expressed his disgust rather forcefully. It came out that his experiences with English academia and antisemitism influenced his feelings about the topic.
#12 Bexley
January 26, 2010

Thanks Pal. Googling Gee and internet civility got me to some posts explaining it.

I found a blog comment from Gee saying

I thought Jew-hatred was a pathology of the militant left in UK academia but it turns out its rife in the US and A [sic]. After the session I was accosted by a Jewish scientist who applauded me for raising the issue …

Based on that comment it appears Gee thinks the situation is the same in the US and UK DM.
#13 Nomen Nescio
January 26, 2010

quoth an ahistorical buffoon:

The Roman Empire is back (European Union)

if you seriously think the Roman Empire had anything at all in common with the modern EU, then you must be utterly clueless about both.
#14 Mu
January 26, 2010

Vicki, having grown up as a Central European, I’m very much familiar with the issue of drastic national border shifts. But in regards to Israel you have ZERO independent states/nations for 2000 years (unless you count the crusader states, take that for a national heritage).
What it boils down to, at what point in history does ethnic cleansing become illegitimate. Why is the Israeli ethnic cleansing in Palestine of 1948 bad when at the same time the expulsions of the Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia 2 years earlier is consider legitimate? The concept of “moving people as a result of war is bad” is a late 20th century development, not something anyone (outside those moved of course) gave a damn about before.
The Palestinians were unfortunate that the political leaders of the surrounding countries thought it convenient to force them into refugee camps as a constant “causus belli” against Israel instead of integrating them.
#15 Omri
January 26, 2010

As a blogger, the main thing to note about Sizer is that he is a thug who tries to intimidate his critics into silence, while hiding behind his minister’s collar, which is a disgusting form of passive aggressiveness.

If you want to dig deeper, Seismic Shock has plenty of information,
The short form is this: he has tried to reintroduce Replacement Theology into mainline Anglican thought[0]. He has shared platforms with raving antisemites and has tried to relegitimize that kind of conduct.

[0] The whole “rejecting Christ turned Jews from the chosen people to the accursed people whose degraded state is divinely ordained” meme.
#16 Hel
January 27, 2010

There is a lot of antisemitism in Spain, because a lot of people thinks that Jews and israelist are the same, and there is a strong opposition against how Israel is treating palestines. And I think the same feeling is shared all over Europe, more in the left-wing than in the right. But I think that is more a case of opposition against Israel and his policy with palestines, than a case of truly hate for the jews.
On the other hand the extreme right-wing is racist, antisemist y pro-nazi, and they hate the jews, the gays, the black people, and the feminist, but they are a minority.
#17 Katharine
January 27, 2010

After all I’ve read about the Israel-Palestine conflict, it continues to make no sense.

From the Wikipedia article, at least, because that’s the best summary of the information I can find, it looks as if this giant shit fit would be best solved by getting a bunch of kindergartners to step up in their faces, say “You’re being a bunch of big boo-boo heads” and say “Share Israel with each other!”

No, really, I find this crap pretty stupid, and frankly, neither Israel nor Palestine gets my respect. I’m not anti-Semitic; I’m not anti-Palestinian; I’m anti-stupid.

Maybe, if they can’t play nice with it, we’ll just have to take it from them, like a small animal getting ripped to shreds by a child.

Fucking tribalists.
#18 MonkeyPox
January 27, 2010

Katharine, I would say your analysis is as complex and cogent as one would expect from someone who gets all their info from wp.
#19 History Buff
January 27, 2010

Monkeypod,

I think you missed the toilet. Better go clean your face now. Thanks for the generous comment. It’s not everyday that such a nice person makes such a nice comment about to me. I am truly humbled. Don’t forget to wipe your face.

————-

Everyone else:

The Jews are a part of Israel. They are the tribe of Judah. It is said that the anti-Christ will come from the tribe of Dan, therefore the notion that the anti-Christ will be “Jewish” is not true.
#20 MonkeyPox
January 27, 2010

Dude, making shit up from your reading of a bunch of poorly translated cryptic texts with no applicability to the modern world is really fucking funny. Keep it up. I need the laughs.
#21 El Picador
January 27, 2010

Hai Katharine, why not just let the Palestinians open casinos! yeah, you know. Just like…. oh, nevermind.
#22 Katharine
January 29, 2010

MonkeyPox, El Picador,

I haven’t seen much evidence that it doesn’t really boil down to an unnecessarily bloody turf war by two groups of people who want everything and won’t share anything.
#23 Katharine
January 29, 2010

Er, it doesn’t boil down to anything OTHER THAN an unnecessarily bloody turf war by two groups of people who want everything and won’t share anything.
#24 Vicki
January 29, 2010

Katharine–How is this different from any other current or recent war? For example, how do the deaths in the civilian population compare to those in Iraq from 2002-2009, or Afghanistan or Sudan in the same period?

It’s very easy, from outside, to describe a war as unnecessarily bloody. That doesn’t actually help anything.
#25 zed
February 2, 2010

Velma, What exactly is a “Google Article”? Do you understand what Google is?