Toben, Zundel And Stephen Sizer.
Stephen Sizer is against antisemitism.
I know that, he has said so.
But why does Rev. Sizer promote the Intifada Palestine blog, which as Seismic Shock demonstrates, has a great deal of sympathy with the Holocaust denier, Fredrick Toben ? [Warning links to racist filth, on Toben.]
And why does Rev. Sizer think a blog and authors that express sympathy for the neo-Nazi, Ernst Zundel is a fit place?
A snippet of the type of conspiratorial views to be found at the Intifada Palestine blog:
“While we also find rendition of Ernest Zundel from American soil and his seven year incarceration under German laws literally synonymous to the Gayssot Act. Such, brings justification for European outcry of undue Israeli influence on their political systems. And additionally upon the laws governing the courts of Belgian: a universal tribunal where Zionist goons are susceptible to prosecutions for crimes against humanity.”
Again, Mary Rizza, that well known supporter of the anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon, has her say:
“The last point on Ernst and Ingrid (Zundel) has become something of a mantra that I have had to recite so many times in the last year or so: Neither Ingrid nor Ernst has ever used violence, nor have they ever called on anyone else to use violence. Neither has ever discriminated against anyone on ethnic or religious grounds, nor have they called on anyone else to do so. “
Ms. Rizza forgets about Ernst Zundel infamous publication, “The Hitler We Loved and Why”.
Nizkor has more:
“Zündel, in his interview with Bonokoski, neither confirmed nor denied that he was Christof Friedrich, but Dietz definitely told Bonokoski that Zündel and Friedrich were one and the same. Furthermore, on the day after Bonokoski’s column appeared, Zündel openly admitted that he was Christof Friedrich in an interview with David Schatsky on CBC radio.
In February 1977, The Liberty Bell reviewed “The Hitler We Loved and Why” as follows: “(Friedrich) leaves no doubt about it. Hitler was well loved and loved in return, but this relationship between the Leader and his people was not the gushy, sickly-sweet effusion of an obese Jewish mother for her pimply, draft-dodging son. This was Aryan love. Strong, steady and uplifting.” Hitler is portrayed as a revered saint and holy man. a godly messiah who had rescued Germany with the salvationist ideology of white supremacy. Out of the rubble of a nation laid waste by the Jews, the Fuehrer built an orderly, corruption-free, economically vibrant, and morally pure society in which “our men were manly and our women feminine,” and “nutrition came before profit; quality before quantity.”
Everyone was properly cared for in this Nazi utopia, including the animals (even in wartime, it seems, there were ration cards for dogs as well as people). The disabled, however, did not fare as well, since Hitler devised a eugenic solution for them. Nor, according to ‘Friedrich,’ “were idiots, morons and imbeciles possible under National Socialism, simply because such sorry specimens were not allowed to reproduce.” Unashamedly, medical certificates of fitness or unfitness for child-bearing in the Third Reich are reproduced. “For… National Socialism is simply the application of Nature’s Laws to politics,” and “Hitler, the artist and designer, designed a society for loving human beings, not plastic dummies.” Through this great struggle, the white Germanic messiah prevented “the end of White Civilization.” “
Perhaps Rev. Sizer should be more careful of what he recommends, particularly when such a blog contributes to the promotion of Holocaust denial and neo-Nazism?
(H/T: Seismic Shock)
Rev. Sizer on antisemitism:
“It is true that at various times in the past, churches and church leaders have tolerated or incited anti-Semitism and even attacks on Jewish people. Racism is a sin and without excuse. Anti-Semitism must be repudiated unequivocally. However, we must not confuse apples and oranges. Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as anti-Semitism despite attempts to broaden the definition. Criticising a political system as racist is not necessarily racist. Judaism is a religious system. Israel is a sovereign nation. Zionism is a political system. These three are not synonymous. I respect Judaism, repudiate anti-Semitism, encourage interfaith dialogue and defend Israel’s right to exist within borders recognised by the international community and agreed with her neighbours. But like many Jews, I disagree with a political system which gives preference to expatriate Jews born elsewhere in the world, while denying the same rights to the Arab Palestinians born in the country itself. Jimmy Carter is not alone in describing the Zionism practiced by the present government of Israel as a form of apartheid.”
Update 2: Whilst I am sure that Rev. Sizer is opposed to antisemitism, I am not so sure that he can recognize anti-Jewish Racism.
In a recent post Rev. Sizer expressed his support for the bigoted Helen Thomas. Readers will remember Ms. Thomas’s outburst:
“Rabbi Nessenoff: Any comments on Israel? We’re asking everybody today, any comments on Israel?
Helen Thomas: Tell ’em to get the hell out of Palestine.
Nessenoff: Oh. Any better comments on Israel?
Thomas: Remember, these people are occupied, and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, and it’s not Poland.
Nessenoff: So where should they go and what should they do?
Thomas: They should go home.
Nessenoff: Where’s their home?
Thomas: Poland. Germany.
Nessenoff: So you’re saying the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?
Thomas: And America and everywhere else.”
I hope that Rev. Sizer pops in and has a read because I will explain for his benefit why Ms. Thomas’s remarks were so odious:
1) Typically bigots will say to ethnic minorities go home, we have all heard it before, particularly in Britain, “go back to Pakistan”, “go home to Africa”, etc
2) These are clear examples of xenophobia and racial prejudice.
3) This is the same way that Ms. Thomas is telling Jews to go back to Poland, the land where millions of them were killed.
4) Ms. Thomas and Rev. Sizer are expressly connecting Jews with Poland and implicitly arguing that is their historical homeland, along with Germany and elsewhere, despite how historically sensitive and offensive it is, given the mass murder of Jews in Germany and Poland.
5) To remind Rev. Sizer, after 1945 some Jews did return to Poland, but they were killed in pogroms by the Poles, so is that really the message that a man of the cloth should be sending?
These are Rev. Sizer’s views:
“Helen Thomas is one gutsy 90 year old lady to take on the Israel Lobby. In Haaretz earlier this week she gave her candid views on what led to her ‘retirement’.
Bring it on.
Read the rest of the article here”
6) Quite frankly Rev. Sizer you must realise it has nothing to do with some supposed “Israel lobby”, it is the fact that Ms. Thomas was expressing racially offensive views, telling people who were born in the Middle East to go back to Poland.
7) It is like telling Afro-Americans to “go back to Africa”, a racialist point of view.
I would hope that you, Rev. Sizer, wouldn’t tell ethnic minorities in Britain to go back “home” either, would you?
I doubt it, because you would realise that it is groups, like the British National Party and the National Front, which articulate such ideas.
Again Rev. Sizer, Ms. Thomas is talking about Jews and no one else, I would hope that you could see that, eventually, and why it is a racist notion.
Update 3: I hope these comments from Lanny Davis help Rev. Sizer understand the racism in Ms. Thomas’s words:
“Helen Thomas, who I used to consider a close friend and who I used to respect, has showed herself to be an anti-Semitic bigot. This is not about her criticisms of Israel. She has a right to criticize Israel and that is not the same as being an anti-Semite.
However, her statement that Jews in Israel should leave Israel and go back to Poland or Germany is an ancient and well-known anti-Semitic stereotype of the Alien Jew not belonging in the “land of Israel” — one that began 2,600 years with the first tragic and violent diaspora of the Jews at the hands of the Romans.
If she had asked all blacks to go back to Africa, what would the White House Correspondents Association position be as to whether she deserved White House press room credentials — much less a privileged honorary seat?
Does anyone doubt that my friends Ann Compton, head of the WHCA, and Joe Lockhart, who believe in the First Amendment right of free expression as much as I do, would be as tolerant and protective of Helen’s privileges and honors in the White House press room as they appear to be if she had been asking Blacks to return to Africa? Or Native Americans to Asia and South America, from which they came 8,000 or more years ago? I doubt it.
Of course Helen has the right as a private citizen under the First Amendment to speak her mind, even as an anti-Jewish bigot — but not as a member, much less privileged member with a reserved seat, in the White House Press Corps. “