The Rev. Stephen Sizer, among the most unhinged critics of Israel in the Church of England (and a go-to guy for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement, as well as various anti-Israel church groups in the American mainline), has apparently gone too far even for his superiors this week. On Monday, he posted a link on Facebook to a web page called “9/11 Israel Did It.” The page, on something called WikiSpooks, isn’t just a 9/11 Truther page, but is full of “Zionist” (read: Jewish) conspiracy theories and other anti-Semitic tropes.
Among other things, it makes use of a video conversation between Gordon Duff and Alan Sabrosky, two of the geniuses behind the 9/11 truther/Holocaust denial/anti-Semitic sewer calledVeterans Today.
We can also find sub-heads such as these, for those who don’t have time or patience to wade through the swill:
Four key Zionist Network assets
WTC Security In Zionist Hands
Airport Security In Israeli Hands
The US Military Knows Israel did it
Zionism and Treason
9/11 Investigation in Zionist Hands: All appointed chief judges were Zionist Jews
9/11 Commission: Zionist controlled
Zionist 9/11 Personalities: Zionist Jews in all the Right Positions!
Al Qaida = Mossad Playing Dress Up
You get the idea. Even someone skimming this articles and picking up only on the sub-heads would have known that it was full of anti-Semitic codswallop, the modern equivalent of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” And yet Sizer posted the link, presumably because he agrees in whole or in part with it, and wanted to share it with his fans on Facebook.
Today, through the Diocese of Guildford, Sizer issued this alleged apology:
Dr Sizer said: “I very much regret and apologise for the distress caused by the sharing on Facebook of a link to an article about 9/11 from Wikispooks.
“It was particularly insensitive in that last week coincided with Holocaust Memorial Day. I removed the link as soon as I received adverse feedback, and realised that offence had been caused.
“I have never believed Israel or any other country was complicit in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, and my sharing of this material was ill-considered and misguided.
“At the request of the Diocese, I will be suspending my use of all social media and blogs with immediate effect and until further notice.”
What a load of grade A horse twaddle. If he “never believed Israel…was complicit,” why post a link like this, to an article that has no other purpose than to try to demonstrate just that complicity? He apologizes for “insensitivity” for posting it on Holocaust Memorial Day, and for causing “distress” and “offence,” and only took it down because of “adverse feedback.” He considers the posting “ill-considered and misguided.”
No, it wasn’t “ill-considered and misguided,” Reverend. It was hateful, bigoted, shameless, and evidence of insanity.
It wasn’t “insensitive,” either. It was outrageous, disgusting, and unChristian, akin to accusing MI5 of carrying out the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland to try to sabotage the Good Friday accords, or accusing the Chief Rabbi of Britain of arranging for the July 7, 2005 London subway bombings in order to blame Islam. It’s repulsive. And the fact that it was posted on Holocaust Memorial Day matters not one whit. It would have been just as loathsome to have done so the week before, or the week after, because it was about the timing, Reverend. It was about the pestilential content.
And please note that he didn’t take down the post because it was to a pack of vile lies–he took it down because of “adverse feedback.” In his hatred for everything Israel, he was apparently too dense to recognize the putrescent nature of the material he was “sharing” until his readers hit him across the skull with a digital two-by-four.
And what did the high mucky-mucks in Sizer’s diocese have to say about this?
The Bishop of Dorking, The Right Revd Ian Brackley said “The Diocese of Guildford is aware of reports regarding The Revd Dr Stephen Sizer and materials linked from his social media account, which have now been deleted.
“I want to reassure everyone that we are taking this complaint extremely seriously. Immediate steps are being taken to investigate and we are in contact with Dr Sizer as well as the Board of Deputies.
“The Diocese of Guildford is committed to building cohesive communities and fostering strong interfaith relations built on trust and respect.
“In 2013, The Diocese of Guildford facilitated a process of conciliation between Dr Sizer and the Board of Deputies, and is committed to ensuring this agreement is upheld.”
“The Bishop of Dorking.” If ever a man held a job title commensurate with his apparent abilities, it would be this guy. He’s going to hop right to it and investigate the hell out of this. Thanks, Bish.
What is there to investigate? A priest under your authority read, presumably understood, and then disseminated revolting hate literature. It was right there for the world to see, and he gives no evidence even now that he understands the gravity of his offense. It may make some time to charge and depose him, but investigate?
Stephen Sizer is a fetid stain upon the Church of England. He should be charged, tried, and defrocked as soon as possible, lest the stain become indelible.
(Hat tip: Jeff Walton of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.)
The Reformed Pastor 
January 31, 2015 at 3:59 pm
It is unfortunate that Mr.Sizer has gone too far, or has tried to make some sort of point that has been misconstrued. The big problem with what Mr Sizer has done, or Christian Zionist have do is to mix the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a political ideology. This will only lead to a roadblock to the gospel of Jesus Christ to a political paradigm.
It seems to be politically correct to trash a certain ethnic group, while elevating another group. This goes against the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I can supply mainstream essays depicting Arab countries in a negative light, but if the same words were replaced with Israel, people would pull their hair out. This really is the height of hypocrisy whether one view is politically correct or not. At one time it was in vogue to cast Jews in a dark way. The solution is not to switch ethic hate, the root problem of hate must be addressed.
God is done with theocracy, and now His people are found in every country in the world, this would include Israel or Palestine, the USA or China. To elevate Israel over Palestine, or Palestine above Israel would be an injustice, and a misunderstanding of the Gospel and the seed of the faith of Abraham.
January 31, 2015 at 4:12 pm
Sizer has not been “misconstrued.” You “share” anti-Semitic propaganda on social media, you get pegged as an anti-Semite yourself. Simple as that.
I agree that “Christian Zionism” is not correct either, inasmuch as it is identified as a species of political dispensationalism. My reasons for supporting Israel are moral, political, and pragmatic, and are in no way dictated by theology or a particular school of biblical interpretation. Since I do not believe modern Israel is a renewal or re-establishment of theocratic Israel, the Bible doesn’t have anything to do with it, except to the extent that the justice that Scripture demands is the justice that led to the establishment of modern Israel, and continues to undergird its existence.
The issue is not about “depicting Israel in a negative light.” It can be, and should be criticized, for its mistakes and failings, such as its settlement policy. Arab nations also should be criticized in when they fail to meet basic standards of human rights, as well as engage in hostile actions against neighbors. Neither should be treated as though they are the fount of all evil in the world, which Sizer would have us believe about Israel when he recommends neo-Nazi swill.
One final point. You say that anti-Semitism was in vogue “at one time.” Do not believe for a minute that it did not go out of vogue in certain circles, such as the far left and anti-Israel circles in which Sizer travels. Both the far left and far right marinate in hatred of Jews. It is what they do.
February 1, 2015 at 12:04 am
Nice talking to you
I am not sure if Mr. sizer is an anti-Semite, I don’t know the context of the post before of after the link. Sometimes criticism of Israel gets blurred as “racist” these are two different topics. I will do some research and see if he calls for the destruction of Israel or discrimination of Judaism.The problem with anti semites is that there really is no race of Jews. It is a religion, and once this fact is understood, then if there still is a problem, then we can discuss the persons concerns with Judaism. Then it becomes religious discrimination.
The problem with Zionism is that they blur a faith, as a race. Secular Zionism and anti-Semites share this distinction. Can you be a quarter, half or three quarters Christian? Is a person a Christian because you put up a tree on Christmas or go on an Easter egg hunt? Are you are Christian because your great-grandma was baptized? The closest I can come to explain it would be with Roman Catholicism-if you are baptized as an infant, then you are baptized into a covenant of faith, and need to repent to become part of this Covenant of faith, but don’t have to take the catechism to convert. This is even more extreme with zionists and anti semites, your great grandmother could be a practicing Jew-and you are then Jewish…even if you are an Eithiopian, or Polish and never been circumsiced. This is nonsense.
My family was kicked out of Egypt during the 67 crisis because they were practicing Jews, we have discussed the extent of the responsibility of the state of Israel’s policy for this happening to them, and also the responsibility of Egypt for their plight.They moved to Israel after, and then moved to Canada-where i was born.
My mother and father left Israel for a variety of reasons. One of them was so their children would not have to serve in an occupying army and protect settlers-which are very racist as a whole. Another reason is that the course Israel is on is very dangerous to its own survival, and it will not survive on this course, and they noticed the politics becoming more far to the right at that time.
Israel is in a no win situation, if you are to juggle any possible scenario around, there is trouble ahead. The majority of the responsibility of this trouble lays at the feet of Israel-not anti semitism.This is why I live in Canada.
You are not theologically attached to Israel, but are morally, politically and pragmatically attached-would you be willing to go to Israel? Check out Israel proper, the settlements and the occupied areas? It can be hard to enter into the occupied areas if you are not a Jewish citizen, but there are ways-I can set this up if you want. You sound like you honestly want to embrace morality, but without experiencing it first hand, it can only be an empty ideal based on a feeling.
I guarantee if you go to the occupied territories, you will have a dramatic change of morality.
February 1, 2015 at 4:43 pm
Nice talking to you, too, Naama. Thanks for coming by, but please answer me this: why do people assume that if you support Israel, it must be because you’ve never been there? I’ve been three times. Been to Arab towns in Galilee, been to East Jerusalem, been to the West Bank. Seen the security wall, which has been excellent in its purpose to protect Israelis from terrorism, but should have followed closer to the Green Line to avoid disrupting the lives of average Palestinians. Talked at length to both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. Still support Israel as the Jewish homeland, even as I do not hesitate to criticize it when it is wrong (as it has been from the beginning on the settlements, none of which should ever have been built).
I’m sorry your family was expelled from Israel, but unless you were Israelis, I can’t help but think that Israel bore no responsibility whatsoever. You were victims of an anti-Semitic mindset that was unable to distinguish between Jews and Israel, and held you responsible for something you had nothing to do with. That’s a form of bigotry if ever I’ve heard one. Your inability to lay blame at the foot of the oppressor–Nasser’s Egypt–makes it sound as though you somehow internalized the mindset of the oppressor, which says that your family was indistinguishable from Israel because you were Jews.
At the same time, I think you should realize that to suggest that Judaism is nothing but a religion is to fly in the face of Jewish history. From biblical times Jews have always been a people, comparable to the Kurds of Iraq, Syria and Turkey. They have their own language, their own history, and their own cultural heritage, as well as a unique faith. To deny that not only flies in the face of history, it singles Jews out as a people who are to be denied their peoplehood. I fail to see why, in a world in which the “right to national self-determination” is held sacred for so many, Jews (and Kurds) alone should be denied what is granted as a matter of self-evidence to a host of others (including Palestinians, whose statehood I support, but who have nothing like the thousands of years of unique identity that Jews have–even the word “Palestinian” as denoting something other than simply “an Arab who lives in historic Palestine” dates only from 1964).
February 1, 2015 at 9:35 pm
I am not suggesting that a person has to give up their support for Israel because they have visited the country, or the occupied areas. There is a big difference between unconditional support and support. A comparison would be to the vietnam war, or the 2 gulf wars, an American is not guilty of treason and not supporting their country if they oppose their countries actions.
As for the wall, if people are lobbying bombs my way, I have to ask the question as to why they are launching bombs in the firstplace-the conclusion has to lie on the governments shoulders of occupying and colonizing another people. The blame can shift from circumstance to circumstance, but the onus is on the occupying power. The occupied people are within their right to fight back an occupation by international Law. I don’t think it is in their best interests to do so, but it is within their right to do so.
If the USA did the same thing to Canada, the same result would take place, maybe not suicide bombers as that is not our culture, but you guys would be under constant attack-and vice-versa if it were possible.
My family were booted out of egypt, but i think that was a typo. i do blame egypt for the actions they took, but also blame the actions of the Zionists in that region because of cell attacks, and spying during the creation of israel and the wars with egypt.
In canada during WW2 the Japanese were persecuted on the west coast, to the point of being evicted from their homes and placed in internment camps-while the blame is on Canada, the country of japan has to bear responsibility also for its militant expansionist claims that caused a fearful protective reaction.
I am not stating that Israel should not be its own country for starters, and to embrace this point further, nationality does not hinge on, food, language or custom. Self determination was desired and achieved by people of mixed descent and religion and the outcome of this is now called Canada. If someone tells us that Israel can’t exist because it is not a race, or even a cohesive culture-this is not in the scope of reality. In the same sense, whether or not the name Palestine is old or a recent invention is just also an invalid reason for a state to be formed or to be denied. If this would be true, then the name Palestine would be more acceptable than Israel because the area was renamed from Judah by the Romans for 1900 years.how long a people have been identified also is not a nation maker, or breaker. Ukraine was not used to identify a people in a specific area until Lenin.
We have to be careful when we impose something with a nations right to exist. Zionists promote Israel as a democracy for its right to exist, but a democracy is not a condition for a state to exist, on top of this, Israel is not a true democracy as it defines itself by a specific race-this is a problem since 21 percent of Israel is not defined as Jewish, and to make matters worse, Israel denies the 1948 borders are valid, and validates the settlements with extended phantom borders that move outward beyond the 1948 borders-trapped in this is a large population with no rights at all-no right under the common law, and no right to vote based only on ethnicity, and religion
My comparison of race had nothing to do with statehood, as a people define a state, and few states are based on race. My comparison is with Zionists and Anti Semites who discriminate or identify based on some supposed race-not food, clothing or custom. In the face of any clothing, language, religion or food recipes, the anti Semites discriminate based on a person being 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 Jew-even if the people did not know it themselves. They took this definition from Zionists themselves-at least in the medieval times it was “convert or be kicked out” of Spain.
The Anti-semite and Zionist definition flies in the face of Torah, and is a secular definition, the people of Israel were called under Covenant under Yahweh, one people of faith, under one Covenant of faith. Those who did not believe were cut off from the people of Israel. when the unbelief became to great the people were exiled, and the unfaithful would assimilate into the pagan countries that surrounded them.
This still does not hinder a group of people from creating a country, they can identify themselves in whatever manner they choose.
The fact is that the modern secular Zionist movement has been very dangerous for those who practice Judaism, and also for those who want nothing to do with it, and that is why the Nazis identified people by their mother or grandmother, or even great grandmother.