I, like Robert Cohen, (Micah’s Paradigm Shift
http://micahsparadigmshift.blogspot.co.uk/) have appreciated Rev Dr Stephen Sizer’s work in confronting the ‘heresy’ of Christian Zionism, and also appreciated Cohen’s thoughtful and challenging pieces on the subject of Israel and Palestine. Stephen Sizer, I agree, made a mistake. Nevertheless I worry a little about Robert Cohen’s conclusions. It is possible to believe that both cock-up and conspiracy are at work in the world: it is often the cock up that reveals the conspiracy.

The offending article, if I have identified it correctly, asserts that only the CIA and /or Mossad could have planned and executed the attack on the Twin Towers. I suspect, I hope, that gives more credit to those agencies than they deserve, but both have history. And supposing they weren’t responsible there are still several questions that haven’t been satisfactorily answered. The two I’ve had in mind, long before the recent controversies, and before reading the ‘9/11’ article are, why was there a high-resolution video camera ideally placed to record the events, and why did the towers collapse in the manner they did? The latter had all the characteristics of controlled demolition.

As to the other details in the web article I’m not qualified to comment. If they are correct then Robert Cohen is mistaken in concluding that they don’t make a case. The case might not convince a jury, but it could well convince a prosecutor that there is a case to answer. Except to point out that the whole raison-d’etre for ‘WikiSpooks’ is to challenge official narratives, to ask uncomfortable questions. Robert Cohen says that the article is ‘deeply anti-Semitic’, but, is it? Wouldn’t that only be the case if the material were untrue? It could surely be argued that, even were the motivation behind the article anti-Semitic, if the evidence is accurate it should still be considered. Perhaps I am wrong here, but what if our efforts in defending free speech end with avoiding uncomfortable truths?

I also think that it is mistaken to say that the ‘motives don’t stack up’, or that the ‘implications’ of discovery outweigh possible benefits. One ‘uncomfortable truth’ is that American opinion was ‘galvanised’ to make war on Israel’s enemies. If that was what was intended then ‘cock-up’ is right, it is the law of unintended consequences, for the success of the ‘coalition of the willing’ has been a barely mitigated disaster.

And if, as Robert claims, the article is ‘hard core racism dressed up as anti-Zionism’ I shall have to rely on the defence that, unlike Stephen, I am not a trained academic; check out my (lack of) qualifications. I’ve read the article and the discussion page. I’ve not checked the references, so I treat everything with caution but I’d like to hear the case challenged not simply dismissed.

However, I believe Robert Cohen’s real point is that in posting the article Stephen Sizer made a tactical error allowing the Zionists to scream ‘anti-Semitism’ and to deflect attention away from better targets. If Robert Cohen is correct, and I believe in this respect he is, this whole incident may serve a useful purpose. That purpose is for those of us who are concerned for both Palestinians and Jews to develop better strategies and tactics to bring about the change we hope for. To use a ‘Palestinian’ analogy: there are too many of us throwing lumps of mud all over the place to relatively little effect, whilst the heavy artillery and snipers of the Hasbara pick of selected targets almost at will.

In response to any criticism of Israel the Zionist propagandist strategy consists in two messages; ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘de-legitimisation’. Our strategy must defend the right of Israel to exist, and challenge the re-definition of anti-Semitism. We must use the language of the CCJ ‘it is legitimate to criticize Israel’ full-stop, no discussion. As to our own messages my suggestions, (we should have no more than four carefully stated and fully researched), are, Racism, which is evident in Israeli society and is inherent in Zionism; Crimes Against Humanity, and the MisTreatment of Children. In all these cases there is plenty of evidence.

%d bloggers like this: