Jewish Chronicle on Seismic Shock

From the Jewish Chronicle:

Dr Anthony McRoy, a lecturer on Islam and former National Front member, also complained that comments made about him on the blog, which was run from a Leeds University computer, were an incitement to violence.

Mr Weissman, a messianic Jew, said he had been at home in Leeds one Sunday morning at the end of last year, when police arrived at the door.


Filed under censorship

4 responses to “Jewish Chronicle on Seismic Shock

  1. zkharya

    This is what I wrote on Pearse’s thread, Mod.

    ‘As I said, I think the root of the problem between Mr Weissman and myself is our different positions on Palestine. The basis of my position is Amillennial eschatology, plus concern for equal rights for all people, irrespective of race and creed.’

    That is manifestly untrue. If you grant Lebanese Shi’a Islamic resistance quasi-Christian legitimacy, you must also to Jewish. Especially since Christian tradition holds ancient Jewish militant resistance as the antithesis to Christian self-sacrifice.

    You clearly grant Palestinian Muslim and Christian dispossession some measure of right of return and restoration, yet explicitly grant none to Jews. Logically, it seems to me, you must.

    Sizer has a similar problem. While he professes to stick to traditional Christian doctrines, he wholly avoids the inconsistency that arises when one holds to the New Testament and Patristic position that the Jews are dispossessed of temple, city and land as a punishment for their sins, but holds contrariwise when the same thing happens to Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Especially when Palestinian and other Arab Muslims and Christians historically attempted to exclude, dispossess then eliminate Palestinian and other Jews.

    McRoy has not, it seems, commented on this issue specifically, but he often refers to Israel by the Arab and Islamic nationalist code of ‘Zionist regime’, and the tenor of his discourse is highly anti-Zionist i.e. opposed to any Jewish national notion of right of restoration and return. Particularly vicious, as I have observed, is his misrepresenting the martyred saints of Rev 6, 9 as calling for revenge on Jerusalem, as opposed to Rome, for the reasons I state above, and then equating modern Jerusalem i.e. the modern state of Israel with the crucifiers of Christ.

    That is a very primitive and unsophisticated recapitulation of gospel anti-Judaism as anti-Zionism, with the modern state of Israel playing the role of neo-crucifiers, like the Jews of the gospels.

    The New Testament and Patristic forebears of Sizer and McRoy manifestly did not respect Judaism, and held the Jews to be justly dispossessed as a punishment for their rejection of Christ. One consequence of that is that, even in the 19th and 20th centuries, Jews were regarded as more nationally Judean than European or Arab, most being either killed or driven out, before 1914 mostly to America, after 1914 mostly to Palestine or what became Israel. Palestinian Muslims and Christians were among those in the world who most believed Jews to have been dispossessed for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets. Yet they denied Jews a refuge, even from genocide, never mind any kind of right of return or restoration. In addition to their traditional apartheid against Palestinian Jews, they then sought to halt all immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century, then sought to dispossess or eliminate Palestinian (and other) Jews.

    None of this finds mention in Sizer or McRoy, who consistently fail to subject their adopted charges, Palestinian Muslims and Christians, to the same standards they do Palestinian, Israeli and other Jews. There is no acknowledgment in their writings that Jews have been regarded as a nation dispossessed for most of Christian history, making the assertion or implication that Jewish attempts at national return and restoration is illegimate, while the Palestinian Muslim and Christian is wholly just, itself a rather grave injustice. The contrast in attitude between these two national movements is obviously unequal and unfair. How they reconcile this with their notion of Christian justice, I do not know.

    Indeed, as I said, there is rarely an indication in Sizer or McRoy that Palestinian Muslims and Christians have ever had any nationalists or national movement which has has an active role in the choices that have led to their plight e.g. rejecting partition and making war on Palestinian Jews, least of all a moral critique of it. All their moral criticism, usually to rigorous criteria, is reserved almosts soley for Jewish nationalism, nationalists and the Jewish state of Israel.

    This is an obvious bias, where Palestinian Christians and Muslims are let practically off the hook, while only Zionist, Palestinian or Israeli Jews are treated as moral adults with active agency in their and Palestinian Muslims’ and Christians’ fate. This omission resembles certain forms of Orientalism, where Arab Mulisms and Christians are treated as moral infants, with no real agency of their own.

    Manifestly McRoy and Sizer do not subject both or all parties to the same moral criteria, which is clearly an act of injustice in and of itself, hardly in accord with the absolute justice they claim to observe.

  2. zkharya

    ‘sorry, wrong thread, please delete.

  3. modernityblog


    I read it, it is very good and even a thicko atheist like me can understand your point 🙂

    So can I do it as a guest post?

  4. seismicshock

    Zak, I’ll put your post up in a couple of days – haven’t forgotten.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s