Irate Over Iran

Foreign Office Arabist Sir Richard Dalton ( a former British ambassador to Libya and to Iran), seen in the above footage telling the BBC's Jane Hill that "Israel exaggerates the threat of Iran" and that last year's nuclear "deal" will be honoured"conscientiously" by Iran not merely for 15 years but indefinitely, is set to chair an event at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) addressed by the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr Mohammed Javar Zarif.

Protests Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews:

“To give Zarif a platform to speak at a prestigious London venue like Chatham House is nothing less than an insult to British values. This is a man who has publicly supported Hezbollah, an Iranian-funded organisation which is widely believed to have perpetrated acts of terror around the world including the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural centre in Argentina which killed 85 people and the bombing of a tourist bus in Bulgaria in 2012 which killed six.

 Hezbollah has also been found to have used funds from drug trafficking operations to buy arms.

Zarif represents a regime which has been complicit in massive violations of human rights beyond its borders, including in Yemen, where it supports the Houthis, whose flag proclaims ‘Death to the Jews’.

 His is a government which sponsored a Holocaust cartoon competition, condemned around the world and notably by UNESCO. Zarif is the representative of a vile regime and a pariah terrorist state. His presence at Chatham House is an affront to anyone with a belief in peace and justice.”

Meanwhile, here in Australia, prominent pro-Israel federal Labor MP Michael Danby has denounced Aussie  foreign minister Julie Bishop’s decision to lift sanctions against Iran:

“Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, a source of instability in the Middle East and violates UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 1929, which prohibits Iran from testing nuclear warhead-capable ballistic missiles. Dropping sanctions against Iran will serve to increase instability in the Middle East.

While the US Congress has debated the Iran deal and sanctions, Julie Bishop arrogantly refuses to allow a parliamentary debate as Australian Labor continues to ask for one on this major shift in Australian foreign policy. It’s extraordinary that under the Turnbull-Bishop government, Australia learns of major policy shifts by press release. The opposition has been continuing to call for a Parliamentary debate on this deal with Iran and the lifting of sanctions.

I have asked Ms Bishop to explain to Parliament what benefits to Australia there will be in providing intelligence to Iranian-sponsored militias in Iraq, which are now increasingly fighting in Syria.

 I have asked Ms Bishop to explain why she is in favour of allowing Iranian consulates in Melbourne and Sydney, when Iran has repeatedly used the diplomatic cover provided by consulates and embassies to enable Hezbollah terrorist activity in South America, Europe, Asia and Africa.

 I have also asked whether Ms Bishop has already decided to remove Australia’s autonomous sanctions against Iran, since she has been narrowcasting on ABC Rural radio the benefits of trade with Iran. She has not bothered to reassure Australians that she has a peaceful Middle East or Australia’s best interests at heart. Since the Vienna nuclear deal was concluded in July, Iran has fired ballistic missile tests in September and November. Unlike the United States, Australia has failed to even protest these violations of United Nations resolutions.

Iran has a history of aggressively breaking the rules or pushing the envelope. Whatever slim hope there is that the nuclear deals working will work is dependent on us ensuring Iran does not get away with breaking the rules. We are failing miserably, and so will the nuclear deal. The ramifications of that is a nuclear Iran and more nuclear proliferation across the Middle East.”

See more regarding Danby's concerns here

Stephen Sizer: “Encouraging research and debate on all aspects of [9/11] is not anti-Semitic"

Reverend Sizer (he's the clean-shaven one)

The London Jewish News is a popular and deserving competitor to Anglo-Jewry's supposed newspaper of record, the Jewish Chronicle.

It carries a report regarding Stephen Sizer's despicable action in linking to a grossly antisemitic article that laid the blame for 9/11 on Israel and a number of named Jews (I posted about this here).

The report, out today, tells that, following overtures from Mr Jonathan Arkush, vice-president of the British Board of Deputies, Sizer has removed that link.

Posted on 20 January (as shown at right) the link to the article (see my above-mentioned post for that) remained on Facebook for over a week, attracting a total of 60 comments, many of them antisemitic, and at least two "shares".  Disturbingly, not one of Sizer's followers suggested to him in those comments that the post should be taken down. 

The London Jewish News quotes Mr Arkush, a London barrister, thus:

“Posting, and giving approval to, an article which in effect accuses Jews of responsibility for the 9/11 atrocity is unquestionably anti-Semitic, just as it is beyond absurd...."

It reports that while Mr Arkush has "welcomed" Sizer's removal of the link, Mr Arkush also notes that he is

“extremely concerned that a Church of England minister could possibly have considered it appropriate or becoming to his position to advertise such racist nonsense”

and that Mr Arkush observes

“The church should be taking action. He is one of their ministers. It should not be left to the Jewish community to have to protest and be forced to take action from outside.”

Sizer reportedly told the paper via email when contacted by them:

“I would welcome articles you can recommend refuting the allegations.” 

The paper goes on:

'Noting that many Americans feel 9/11 was “an inside job,” Sizer added: “It is essential the public become convinced of what happened before and after 9/11. Inevitably the truth will upset many people if it is shown by further investigation that the official explanations are shown to be deficient.” He added: “Encouraging research and debate on all aspects of [9/11] is not anti- Semitic… Suppressing discussion on such grounds will fuel suspicion, not remove it.”...' [My emphasis]

Read more here

 And there's a big article about this unsavoury post of Sizer's in the London Evening Standard that shows the diocese of Guildford is finally on the case!

Another big article in the UK Daily Telegraph

More fame (or infamy) 

Al Beeb carries the story

Cof E statement here  (it misdates the date Sizer posted the link as 29, rather than 20, January)

The Times of London, most of it behind a paywall, and similarly misdating the link:

From the Daily Telegraph inter alia:

 'The Bishop of Dorking, the Right Revd Ian Brackley, said the Diocese of Guildford, which includes Dr Sizer’s Virginia Water parish, is urgently investigating. 

“I want to reassure everyone that we are taking this complaint extremely seriously,” he said. 

“Immediate steps are being taken to investigate and we are in contact with Dr Sizer as well as the Board of Deputies.” 

A spokesman for the Church of England added: “These comments would rightly be seen as unacceptable whenever they were posted. 

“It is a matter of deep sorrow and shame that they have been posted in this week of all weeks. 

“The Diocese of Gui[d]lford, where the Rev Sizer is licensed, is taking immediate steps to investigate .... 

But Dr Sizer was unrepentant. He told The Telegraph: “I was encouraging debate, I was neither saying Israel did it or that they didn’t.”

He added: “I think they are trying to discredit me – they have tried several times to do that and they have seized on one little link to an article.

“With hindsight I wouldn’t have put it on [Facebook] if I had known it was going to happen.”...' [My emphasis]

 (Incidentally, I contacted the Jewish Chronicle not long after I first saw Sizer's post of 20 January and blogged about it.  They could have had a scoop. However, "the organ of Anglo-Jewry" was not interested in reporting about it, nor did their reporter ever, as far as I can tell, tweet it, as he told me he might.  Poor show, JC.  Very poor show.)

British Zionist Stalwart Hoffman: "The Last Thing Israel Needs Is The Vilification, Denigration & Falsehoods Routinely Seen From Yachad"

To admit or not to admit to the community's representative umbrella organisation a bona fide Jewish organisation which happens to profess opinions that militate against the broadly accepted Jewish communal ethos?

That is the thorny question that's bedevilled more than one Western Jewish community in recent years.

Take, for example, the case of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS). which successfully applied for membership of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) – formerly known as the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies(VJBD) – despite a radical leftist agenda unrepresentative of that of the Victorian Jewish community (and for that matter the Australian Jewish community) as a whole.  Thus the AJDS is an affiliate of the JCCV, which is in its turn a constituent of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).

The admission of the AJDS (slogan: "A progressive voice among Jews and a Jewish voice among progressives") was doubtless not without much soul searching and many  misgivings on the part of JCCV delegates, but, so (as I understand the matter) the persuasive argument went, in a democratic, pluralistic community the AJDS could not be refused membership on any acceptable grounds.

The AJDS still remains an affiliate, despite ( to the ire and dismay of many in what remains a deeply Zionist community) its avowed support since August 2010 of a "selected BDS actions, a position taken subsequent to its initial admission to the JCCV:

'The resolution ... rejected the Palestinian civil society version of Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS): 

“The AJDS is opposed to any Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign aimed at the breadth of Israeli economic, cultural or intellectual activity”. The AJDS only supports “selected BDS actions designed to bring about an end to the Israeli occupation, blockade and settlement on Palestinian lands lying outside of the June 1967 Israeli borders.”

Unlike the rejected Palestinian full BDS, the AJDS wants to concentrate on those who profit from this very occupation. An example given in the resolution is of boycotting “settlement products”. In this way the AJDS’s stance is similar to that taken recently by the National Council of Churches in Australia. Like the churches, the AJDS has not endorsed some of the other aims of the Palestinian BDS such as the Palestinian Right of Return.

While not reversing the AJDS’s long-term opposition to blanket academic boycotts, the AJDS envisages boycotting “specific Israeli academics openly supportive of the Occupation.” The organisation made it plain that nevertheless decision on any action would still need to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

The AJDS is opposed to any Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign aimed at the breadth of Israeli economic, cultural or intellectual activity. However, the AJDS does support selected BDS actions designed to bring about an end to the Israeli occupation, blockade and settlement on Palestinian lands lying outside of the June 1967 Israeli borders. Such limited and focused BDS support might include boycotts of settlement products and divestment from military Research and Development (R&D) and boycott of industrial/military activities unrelated to Israel’s defence and security. It might also include selected sanctions or boycotts against specific Israeli academics openly supportive of the Occupation.

The AJDS will make any decisions on these matters on a case-by-case basis, and exercise its judgement as to the political/social cost-benefits of any such actions before granting specific endorsement or approval....'

See the ADJS's latest mischief-making here

The question "to admit or not to admit" was faced by the  Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations earlier this year, when the controversial, professedly Zionist, J Street', founded by Peter Beinart, was rejected for admission to that body,  J Street being widely seen as having an agenda that seriously undermines Israel.

Last Sunday (16 November) Britain's version of J Street, Yachad, founded by Hannah Weisfeld, was admitted to membership of the British Board of Deputies by 135:61 votes, achieving the required two-thirds majority by the narrow margin of five votes.  Apparently, of the five members of the Board execitive, only Board vice-president Jonathan Arkush, voted against admission.

Now, since the Board is officially described as “the voice of British Jewry: a cross-communal, democratic, grassroots organization, and thus the authoritative first port of call for Government, media and others seeking to understand Jewish community  interests and concerns”  this result, like that admitting the AJDS to the JCCV,  was a victory for communal pluralism.

But is it a wise and worthy decision? 

Stalwart pro-Israel activist Jonathan Hoffman (pictured), who's both a member of the Board and of the Zionist Federation, has no doubt about the answer to that question.

I reproduce his speech to the Deputies in full:

'So the Constitution Committee thinks that Yachad is “beneficial to the interests of the community”. Nonsense. The welfare of Israel is at the heart of our interests. Indeed our Constitution requires us to "advance Israel's security, welfare and standing." Yachad is the very antithesis of this. Far from advancing Israel’s security, welfare and standing, it undermines it at every opportunity. Let me give you just four examples:

Example One: Yachad’s main activity in Israel is arranging trips into Judea and Samaria with a group called ‘Breaking the Silence’, which does nothing but denigrate and badmouth the IDF, without ever mentioning the terrorists that threaten Israel every day. Here is an account of one person who went on the trip:

"Our leader subjected us to a litany of accusations against Israel. I have studied the conflict and most of his accusations were new to me and did not ring true. Some of his statements I knew to be false. For example he said that the most aggressive act of the PA was in a speech at the UN – But I knew that Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade – under the direct authority of the PA - had carried out acts of terrorism and that the PA has incited terrorism ever since it was created. Hannah Weisfeld mentioned further talks that Yachad is doing on "the legality of the occupation". Of course Israel’s presence on the West Bank is not illegal – but Weisfeld just wanted to put into our minds the thought that it is. She calls Yachad "pro-Israel pro-Peace" but her intention is to reduce the support of British Jews for Israel, and to get Israel out of the West Bank, even as the PA and all Palestinian movements call for Israel's destruction. If Israel withdrew, the level of violence would increase dramatically. It would also kill any chance of a two state solution. In my opinion she is committed to undermining support for Israel and her commitment to a two state solution is a sham. Her slogan "Pro Israel Pro Peace" is pure propaganda, as seen in George Orwell's 1984."

Not my words – The words of someone who went on a Yachad trip.

Example Two: Yachad supported the UN upgrade to Palestinian status – which was opposed by Israel and every other western country. Every truly pro-Israel organisation believes that negotiations are the only way forward. By wanting to give the Palestinians access to the International Court and to the UN with its inbuilt majority against Israel, Yachad’s action posed a threat to Israel’s security. So does Yachad’s support for the immediate creation of a Palestinian State. Can you imagine how much worse the summer bombardment of Israel would have been, if Yachad had its way, and Palestine was a country, no doubt governed by Hamas, with weapons still more threatening than the missiles which even now can reach Haifa? A month ago we were lobbying MPs to vote against a Palestinian State. To now admit an organisation wanting an immediate Palestinian State would be a complete nonsense.

Example Three: Yachad has never condemned a boycott of Israeli goods.

Example Four: Yachad makes no effort to explain how Hamas targets Israeli civilians. Yachad portrays the Security Fence only as something which harms the Palestinians. Yachad is silent when it comes to the number of Israeli lives the Fence has saved.

To those of you who say that “we need to embrace Jewish organisations with whom we might disagree”, I ask where are your red lines? Would you support membership for Jews for Justice for Palestinans? Or Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods? Surely those organisations are beyond the pale? Well so is Yachad.

No – it is not simply that we ‘might disagree’ with Yachad. It is much worse than that. Yachad blatantly violates our Constitutional obligation to support Israel.

To those who say that rejecting Yachad will damage the standing of the Board, I respond with the example of J-Street in the US. J-Street was rejected for membership of the US Conference of Presidents. Far from damaging the standing of the Conference, it enhanced it in the eyes of many. Here the ZF rejected Yachad’s membership. Has it damaged the ZF’s standing? Of course not. The ZF’s standing has never been higher. The ZF’s rally during the Gaza operation to support Israel attracted thousands.

 I urge you to vote ‘no’ to Yachad membership of the Board. At this time – above all times – Israel needs support from the Diaspora. The last thing Israel needs is the vilification, denigration and falsehoods routinely seen from Yachad."

A powerful speech indeed! 

But sadly not persuasive.

Perhaps Mr Hoffman should have reminded his listeners of the ancient proverb widely, though apparently erroneously, attributed to Euripides:

"Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad."

Meanwhile, against the backdrop of the evil attack on a synagogue in Jerusalem, involving an axe among other weapons, that has left four rabbis dead, the following photo, proclaiming "This is the way from now on", is being widely distributed on Palestinian social media:

 (Hat tip: M.Z.)

And then there's this:

See http://www.meforum.org/4892/murdered-because-they-were-jews

"Rev Sizer’s Attendance & Active Role At Such A Hate-Filled Event Is Irreconcilable With His Position As A Minister In The Church of England": British Board of Deputies

Well, he would, wouldn't he?  Go from Teheran to de Nile:

Remember my detailed post here, regarding Stephen Sizer's participation in the second New Horizons Conference in Iran choc-a-bloc with Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 truthers (yeah, guess who did it?) and notorious antisemites?

Well,  British Board of Deputies vice-president Jonathan Arkush has issued the following statement:

"I am appalled that Rev Sizer participated in a conference of antisemites in Tehran, sponsored by the Iranian government, which ranks among the most vicious persecutors of Christians and others, and is sworn to the destruction of the State of Israel.

Rev Sizer’s attendance and active role at such a hate-filled event is irreconcilable with his position as a minister in the Church of England.  The Board is currently considering all the information reaching it concerning the conference and is keeping all its options open regarding any future action.  Meanwhile, the Board anticipates that the Church of England will wish to conduct its own investigation into the matter.” [Emphasis added]

 As the  British Daily Telegraph reports, the vicar has denied any wrongdoing, explaining in part:

“Jesus called his followers to be ambassadors of reconciliation – and ambassadors work on foreign soil.

Iran is foreign soil and I was there as an Englishman but also as a Christian leader where Christians and Jews are a minority and ambassadors are needed.

I was seeking to build bridges within a faith context to help to improve relationships for minorities and between our countries."

And adding, with terrific chutzpah:

"Those who criticise this kind of conference must think very carefully of the consequences of their words for Jews and Christians in countries like Iran.”

As a Christian analyst noted last week:

'When Sizer is confronted about his attendance at conferences organized by Holocaust deniers, he responds by saying he is merely interested in telling his audiences about Jesus Christ.'

And went on to say:

'Dr. Sizer’s participation in this conference is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the mediation agreement he signed with  his Anglican superiors and with the Board of Deputies in 2013.

There is simply no way  Dr. Sizer can square his participation in this conference with his promise not to promote anti-Semitism, even if this promise was made in the context of his postings on the Internet. Traveling to Iran to participate in a conference where Israel and its Jewish supporters are demonized is simply beyond the pale, or should be.

Dr. Sizer was given an opportunity to change his ways. He wasted that chance. He has returned to his Jew-baiting ways and must be sanctioned, in a big way.

Now the Church of England must act and it should not require another complaint from the Board of Deputies of British Jews to do the right thing.'
 [Emphasis added; see full article here]

More in the Jerusalem Post here

Has one of Sizer's Facebook friends just let the cat out of the bag regarding a new anti-Israel project?

(Sizer has "liked" that post by Salih, I'm told.)

Postscript: As for 9/11 conspiracy theories, I wonder whether the Board of Deputies knows of the vicar's squalid linkage to the "Five Dancing Shlomos" canard, shown in screenshot on my above-mentioned post?

PPS: (Facebook, 7/8 Oct. 2014):