Open Letter to Professor Nalin Thakkar

‘Your Decision to Censor a Statement Supporting the Palestinians at the Whitworth Cloud Studies Exhibition is Shameful and Cowardly’

Below is a letter that I sent earlier today to Nalin Thakkar, Manchester University’s Vice President for Social Responsibility, n.thakker@manchester.ac.uk. 

Together with the refusal of Forensic Architecture to allow its Exhibition to continue, the vast number of messages they received and the Manchester Palestine Action/PSC demonstration outside, the University caved in.

The far-Right UK Lawyers for Israel [UKLFI], who have no standing in this matter whatsoever, responded by saying that they were ‘“considering all options”. In other words their bluff has been called and they have no options other than to slink away.

Like the affair of the Stretford High School whose head tried to divert an appeal for the Palestinian victims in Gaza to Israeli ‘victims’, it shows that concerted mass action and campaigning can make a real difference.  It also shows that the effect of Israel’s attack on Gaza is to change the political climate on Palestine.

Open Letter to Professor Nalin Thakkar

Dear Professor Thakar,

Your decision to remove a statement in support of the Palestinians from the Whitworth Gallery Exhibition of Forensic Architecture is both shameful and cowardly. It demonstrates Manchester University’s contempt for freedom of speech and academic and artistic freedom.

In 2017 Manchester University bowedto the demands of the Israeli Embassy when it censored the title of a speech by Marika Sherwood, a Jewish holocaust survivor, who compared life in the Budapest Ghetto to those of the Palestinians.

In one of the most infamous incidents of murder in 2014 an Israeli plane machine gunned 4 children playing on Gaza's beach - according to Regev it was 'a tragic accident'

It might be thought that the experiences of a historian, who was a child survivor of the last Jewish community to be destroyed by the Nazis in Europe might trump the opinions of Israeli Ambassador, Mark Regev. Regev is infamous for justifyingIsrael’s war crimes in Gaza, which in 2014 killed 2,200 people, including 551 children.

As a diplomat Regev was sent to Britain in order to lie on behalf of his country. It speaks volumes that Manchester University’s Administration preferred a diplomatic liar, whose job it was to explain away war crimes, to that of a Jew who lived through the holocaust.

It is not as if Sherwood was alone in comparing Israel and Nazi Germany. Professor Ze’ev Sternhell of the Hebrew University wrotein Ha’aretz that in Israel there was a ‘Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism’.  Sternhell was a child survivor of the Nazi ghetto Przemyśl in Poland. Fortunately he wasn’t invited to speak at Manchester University.

Professor Yehuda Elkana, Rector of the Central European University, which was forced out of Budapest by Israel’s anti-Semitic friend, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, was a child survivor of Auschwitz. Elkana too compared Israel to the Nazis speaking of ‘the tragic and paradoxical victory of Hitler’ in the lessons that Zionism draws from the holocaust. Quoting Thomas Jefferson Elkana concluded that ‘democracy and worship of the past are incompatible.’ It would seem that democracy and Manchester University are also incompatible

Sternhell and Elkana would also have been censored by you and your fellow academics in your desire not to offend the Zionists. The fact that in Israel today mobs chant‘death to the Arabs’ just as in Poland and Nazi Germany they used to chant‘death to the Jews’ is irrelevant since power not truth is what determines your decision making.

The Exhibition, Cloud Studies, shows how the environment and atmosphere are polluted by man-made clouds, to the detriment of those living underneath them. The use of poisonous gas and white phosphorus against civilian populations, from Palestine to Chile are inevitably political since it is impossible to avoid asking which political and economic interest groups are to blame.

Of course the statement at the entrance to the Exhibition

would offend supporters of Israel and Zionism. It was your duty to stand up to the voices of censorship. Unfortunately Manchester University, once again, has failed abysmally in this respect.

Unsurprisingly Forensic Architecture’s director, Eyal Weizman, a British-Israeli professor, has demandedthat the exhibition be closed. What you lack in integrity others have to compensate for.

composite image of spatial analysis conducted by Forensic Architecture and Amnesty International in relation to Rafah 1.8.14

What is particularly disturbing is your attempt to justify what you have done. Free speech is meaningless unless it includes the right to offend. As George Orwell wrote:

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.”

Your response to those who have written to you has been that

artistic freedom, freedom of speech and expression and academic freedom ‘must be considered alongside other rights and obligations, including those under equality laws.’

This is disingenuous. There is nothing in the Equality Act 2000 that prevents criticism of Israel or states that commit war crimes. Would you have suppressed criticism of Apartheid in South Africa if there had been a domestic lobby of White South African expatriates?

You talked of the Statement’s ‘potential impact on some communities in the city, community cohesion and fostering good relations.’ These are weasel words employed to hide your desire not to offend the rich and powerful.  You arequotedin the Jewish Chronicle as saying that

“We are very sorry for any distress which has been experienced by members of our Jewish community in connection with aspects of the Cloud Studies exhibition, particularly the accompanying written statement.”

This is not only outrageous but in itself anti-Semitic. What you are saying, whether you realise it or not, is that British Jews have an investment in Israeli Apartheid and Israeli war crimes. The lack of self-awareness of Zionism’s apologists never ceases to amaze.

‘Anti-Semitism’ as per the OEDis ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’ The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism defines anti-Semitism as ‘discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews’.These are simple concepts, even for an academic.

Being a professor I think we can assume you possess a modicum of intelligence, despite acting as the ventriloquist for racist lobbyists. Can you find even one mention of Jews in the statement you censored?  The criticism is directed solely against the Israeli state.

There were 4 groups who lobbied you. UKLFI, Manchester Jewish Representative Council [MJRC], North West Friends of Israel [NWFI] and the Manchester Zionist Central Council.

UKLFI is a group of far-right lawyers who provided a platform for Regavim, an NGO that spends its time trying to secure the demolition of Palestinian homes in the West Bank.

NWFI is a group that has demonstrated with and organised with the fascist English Defence League and Tommy Robinson.

The MJRC is the Manchester Zionist Central Council under another name and does not represent secular or left-wing Jews. But even were that not the case, criticism of Israel is none of its business. British Jews are British not Israeli.

Instead of meeting with these groups (or Regev) they should have been told them that censoring an artistic exhibition was none of their business.  Instead you went out of your way to appease them.

Your behaviour reminds me of those German academics who took the cowards way out when they refused to stand by their Jewish colleagues as they were forced out of their posts. At least they could plausibly justify their behaviour out of fear for their own safety.

Tony Greenstein

Below are extracts from articles on the exhibition of Forensic Architecture that Manchester University censored.

Cloud Studies is filled with hope not hate

Media and activist criticism of Cloud Studies

An article critical of the exhibition, with one (anonymous) commenter describing the exhibit as “hate-filled”, was published in the Jewish Chronicle.  The commenter was quoted as saying “The information is totally decontextualised and there is no mention of Hamas or the reasons for the conflicts.”

This appears to suggest that art should conform to some sort of BBC balance standards. But this is an exhibit in an art gallery, art does not need to be balanced, and the BBC balance standards for years allowed equal footing to climate deniers, often financially backed by powerful fossil fuel interests, in debates against those fighting against climate change who had the backing of 99% of the scientific community.

For me the concept of balance has to be weighed against the evidence available and the power invested in both sides of an argument. And in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there is no doubt that the power lies with Israel and the weight of evidence shows that Palestinians overwhelmingly suffer the most human rights abuses in this conflict.

The Jewish Chronicle article also takes issue with the phrases of the “struggle against apartheid” and “settler colonial violence” used in the exhibit, as if this were unacceptable language. But when you look at the evidence of oppression and violence against the Palestinians by the Israeli state since “the Catastrophe” in 1947, the only rational conclusion is that Israel and the occupied territories are an apartheid state, with different rights for Arab and Israeli citizens, in which Palestinians are regularly subject to discrimination and violence.

Activists at UK Lawyers for Israel have written to the University of Manchester saying that they are concerned about “the impact of the inflammatory languageand representations contained in the exhibition on the Jewish people in Manchester”.

The director of Forensic Architecture, Israeli-born Eyal Weizman, replied to the allegation that the exhibit could inflame discrimination by saying, “I disagree with those that say so: like anti-Palestinian racism, we oppose and condemn antisemitism, and wrote it in our statement.”

It would be a backwards step for the fight for human rights across the globe, if Whitworth Art Gallery and the University of Manchester succumbed to the pressure being exerted against this exhibition, by curtailing its run or refusing to host similar exhibits in the future.

Drones

The use of an Israeli drone over Gaza to drop multiple canisters of teargas over Palestinian protestors, depicted briefly in the Cloud Studies film, brought to mind that Oldham is home to an Israeli owned Elbit arms factory. While the drone in the film was not an Elbit drone, the company is a primary supplier of Hermes drones to the Israeli military, and components manufactured in Elbit factories in England are used in Hermes drones. These drones have taken part in the attacks on Gaza in 2009, work carried out by Elbit factories across the UK contribute to the oppressive clouds over Gaza.

Meta-data and drones in Cloud Studies also took me back to the UK’s involvement in the US drone strike assassination programme, where suspected terrorists are identified not by evidence, but by meta-data, which is acted on to execute them by lethal attacks from military drones.

Carbon Cloud and the sources of fire, 2015

What Cloud Studies showed me, with the wide-ranging studies presented at this exhibition, was that meta-data and the wealth of digital information out there can be used progressively. It has restored my faith in the potential of the silicon revolution to steer humanity in the right direction, and away from the path dictated by state and corporations, which leads to an Orwellian future.

Big Brother is getting bigger, and increasingly connected.

With this exhibit Forensic Architecture have provided a growth spurt for the little brother, the one who believes in human rights and creating a fair society where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential, and not be surveilled and stamped on by those that abuse power.

Cloud Studies shows that you can find beauty and hope in man-made clouds, including the rapidly expanding digital cloud created by human actions and utilised by Forensic Architecture to such strong effect in this exhibition.

Investigating toxic clouds and environmental racism with Forensic Architecture

Tom Taylor21st July 2021

On Juneteenth last year, a day commemorating the emancipation of African American people from slavery, members of St James Parish gathered at the Buena Vista burial site in Louisiana. A video posted to YouTube shows mourners clutching bouquets of flowers whilst others hold black umbrellas to protect them from the hot sun. The group had gathered to honour their enslaved ancestors buried there. A placard resting on the ground reads: “Formosa: You are NOT welcome here”.

Formosa Plastics Group plan to build a factory on the banks of the Mississippiwhich would include the burial ground. RISE St James, a local community group, have organised against the development. 

“We’re going to stand up for St James Parish; this is our home and we’re not going anywhere”, founding director Sharon Lavigne says defiantly in the YouTube video. RISE say the factory will contribute to the poisoning of the air and water supply with toxic chemicals. Formosa disputes the accusations about health issues.

An extract from the video is featured in Cloud Studies, a new exhibition being shown at the Whitworth as part of Manchester International Festival. The exhibition situates the struggle for clean air in Louisiana within a wider investigation into how toxic clouds are weaponised by states, corporations, militaries and police forces around the world. 

Samaneh Moafi is a senior researcher at Forensic Architecture (FA) – the organisation behind the exhibition – and has oversight over the Cloud Studies project. FA is a research agency based at Goldsmiths, University of London, known for its use of architectural techniques to expose human rights violations. 

She tells me that ‘toxic clouds’ was a common theme across multiple investigations they had previously carried out, such as the use of tear gas in Hong Kong, herbicidal warfare in Gaza and chlorine dumping in Syria. “We realised that we had been able to develop new investigative techniques in order to map these clouds [and] bring liability around them”, she says.

The exhibition’s central film is shown on a huge curved screen which cuts across the gallery space. It demonstrates the techniques and technologies FA uses to investigate toxic clouds and draws comparisons between these human rights violations through narration voiced by Moafi. 

The section on Louisiana charts the connection between air pollution caused by petrochemical companies and high cancer rates in the area. It also highlights the fact that the area, known as the petrochemical corridor or ‘cancer alley’, was once known as ‘plantation country’ because of the large number of fallow sugarcane plantations that stood there.

 “The petrochemical industry has inherited the spatial logics of settler colonialism and slavery […] it is the latest phase of a continuum of environmental racism spanning 300 years”, Moafi says in the narration.

Olukoye Akinkugbe, an assistant researcher at FA, explains how the team built on existing research and technology to chart the spread of emissions. “We have been working with a scientist [who] has simulated particles in the air which represent particle emissions from sources that we map, and we’ve been able to build a 3D model”, he says. 

“You see the extent and volume of something you can never really see with your own eyes; you get a very spatial understanding of the extent”, he says. This research is then combined with interviews with local people to create a more detailed picture.

A room in the exhibition explores the ‘cancer alley’ investigation in more detail with videos and models visitors can engage with. A sign at the entrance reads: “If toxic air is a monument to slavery, how do we take it down?” 

Imani Jacqueline Brown, an artist, activist and researcher from New Orleans who worked on the project, explained the meaning behind this statement at a panel talk prior to the exhibition.

“If we remove all the monuments to slavery, to slave masters and to colonists, what then? What else is actually a monument to slavery?” she says. “[This region is called] ‘cancer alley’ because people living there have one of the highest EPA determined risks and rates of cancer in the US because they’re breathing some of the most toxic air produced by over 200 petrochemical plants […] that occupy the footprints of fallow sugarcane plantations”.

The exhibition is one platform FA are using to share their investigation, or one “forum” as they put it. It will also exist as an advocacy tool in court cases, a lobbying tool for changes in laws and regulations and as evidence in claims for reparations.

FA’s recognition by the art world is not something that has always sat comfortably with founding director Eyal Weizman. After FA was nominated for the Turner Prize in 2018, Weizman told artnet that “it’s very unexpected: we don’t consider ourselves to be artists”. It was telling that one of the first questions he considered at the panel talk was “why are we doing exhibitions at all?”.

It’s something I also talk about with Moafi when I ask why they chose to showcase their findings at an art gallery. “I think the question that had come up at the time of the Turner was a question of discipline – whether our practices were in the discipline of art or something else”, she says.

“To ask this question of discipline is a bit archaic because if anything the work that we’re doing is precisely on the intersections of different disciplines. A third of us come from the discipline of architecture, but we also have journalists, artists, software developers, legal activists and so on”.

Another researcher I spoke to, Omar Ferwati, hopes the field of architecture more broadly can learn from FA’s activism. “I think there is great potential and desire amongst individual practitioners to be engaged in politically aware and sensitive work that is responsive and be agents of change, rather than agents of normalcy”, he says.

Moafi hopes that people come away from the exhibition with an understanding that the struggles for air across the world are all connected. “How can we protect this universal right to breathe if not by locking arms?”, she asks.

It takes time to fully appreciate Cloud Studies. This is not an exhibition where you can flit from room to room because you will miss Forensic Architecture’s key message: struggles against toxic air around the world are interconnected. Whether you can call it art or not is beside the point; it’s challenging, purposeful and deserves to be seen.

Please write to the following apologists for Israel’s war crimes and ethnic cleansing:

Alistair Hudson, Director of the Whitworth alistair.hudson@manchester.ac.uk

Nancy Rothwell, President and Vice-Chancellor of The University of Manchester nancy.rothwell@manchester.ac.uk

Nalin Thakkar, Vice President for Social Responsibility n.thakker@manchester.ac.uk

Patrick Hackett, Registrar, Secretary and Chief Operating Officer patrick.hackett-REGISTRAR@manchester.ac.uk

Exhibition | Forensic Architecture: Cloud Studies (Whitworth Gallery)

From Gaza to Grenfell, Forensic Architecture’s latest exhibition, Cloud Studies, documents the perpetration of, and resistance to, slow violence as it is enacted by states and corporations, writes Esther Kaner in her review.

Ceasefire Magazine 13.8.21

Artists pull work from Whitworth gallery after Palestine statement removal

The Democratisation of Art? Manchester International Festival 2021 – Review

Artists pull work from Whitworth gallery after Palestine statement removal

UK university censors title of Holocaust survivor's speech criticising Israel

Louisiana Bucket Brigade

On Friday, June 19th, 2020, members of RISE St. James assembled on the site occupied by Formosa Plastics, formerly the site of the Buena Vista plantation, to honor their enslaved ancestors buried on the property. keep up with RISE on facebook here:

 If the plight of Afghanistan’s women was of concern to the US & NATO then it would have backed the PDPA from 1978-1992 instead of the Mojahedeen

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the United States’s humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan and it is one that the pundits and imperialists are reluctant to draw. The NATO occupation of Afghanistan and its puppet regime hadvirtually no support from Afghans. 

Lindisfarne and Neale describe how the Taliban in 2001 were overwhelmingly Pashtuns and their politics was Pashtun chauvinists. In 2021 Taliban fighters of many ethnicities have taken power in Uzbek and Tajik dominated areas. They also describe a situation in 2001 in which

‘for two years there was no resistance to the American occupation. None, in any village. Many thousands of former Taliban remained in those villages.’

In 2001 the US invasion was conducted in concert with the Northern Alliance of warlords operating from Mazar-i-Sharif. Today Mazar-i-Sharif has also fallen.  The Northern Alliance is no more.

The United States had no opposition in the first two years and yet it failed in its declared aim to rebuild Afghan society. Instead it preferred to wage a drone warPashtuns in Afghanistan and Waziristan in Pakistan.

Another Scuttle

However according to the BBC and media the only conclusion to draw would be that the United States and NATO spent over $2 trillion trying to introduce democracy, women’s rights and civilisation to Afghanistan.  Unfortunately the Afghans, primitive savages that they are, prefer medieval Islam, cutting off hands and stoning of women. There are also some at home, like 5 Pillars, who are quite happy to echo this nonsense by singing the praise of sharia law and theocracy.

We should be under no illusions that an Islamic state under Sharia law will be a repressive and corrupt state. Those who rule will use religion to legitimise the oppression of Afghani workers and peasants. Such a regime will inevitably be a racist regime.

The purpose of the Western invasion was not to introduce democracy nor was it about the ‘war against terror’. The United States and its friend Saudi Arabia proved that when it backed jihadists in Syria and Libya, arming them to the teeth. It was about imperial control of the vast mineral resources of Afghanistan, (to which they look like losing out to the Chinese), an oil pipeline crossing it and above all about controlling a country occupying a strategic place between the Middle East and Asia. Afghanistan is bordered by Iran, Pakistan, China as well as 3 former Russian republics.

A Brief History of Afghanistan

Imperialism has never managed to control and occupy Afghanistan. The British fought 3 wars - 1839-42, 1878-1880 and finally 1919 when they finally gave up. Amanullah,  who became King, was a liberal reformer influenced by the emerging nationalist and modernist movements of the day. However with British subversion of southern tribes he was exiled in 1928 and there followed a period of stagnation.

In 1973 Amir Zahir Shah was overthrown by his cousin, Mohammed Daoud, with the support of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan [PDPA]. Afghanistan became a republic. This led to the growth of a small Islamic movement led by figures such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Ahmad Shah Massoud. As Jane Challice wrote:

In 1978, Iranian followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini moved into Herat. Marxist army officers used this as an opportunity to overthrew Daud and installed a communist regime, which immediately moved to speed up the process of modernisation, demanding secular co-education and land reform. As part of the cold war strategy to weaken the Soviet Union, Jimmy Carter’s administration began covertly funding the Islamic opposition with the help of the Pakistani secret services, the ISI.

You would never guess from the coverage in the media that when the PDPA came to power in a coup in April 1978 the US supported the Mujahideen, the precursors of the Taliban.  The PDPA attempted to

replace religious and traditional laws with secular and Marxist–Leninist ones. Men were obliged to cut their beards, women could not wear a chador, and mosques were placed off limits. The PDPA made a number of reforms on women's rights, banning forced marriages and giving state recognition of women's right to vote. A prominent example was Anahita Ratebzad, .. a member of the Revolutionary Council (who) wrote the famous New Kabul Timeseditorial (May 28, 1978) which declared: "Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country ... Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention." The PDPA also carried out socialist land reforms and moved to promote state atheism. They also prohibited usury.

Unfortunately the PDPA employed mass terror itself. The base of the PDPA was in the cities and amongst the military and middling peasants. A reaction set in led by the war lords and landowners. Who did the West back? The Islamic fundamentalists.

The Taliban leaders

It was United States ally, Pakistan’s ISI which, from 1994 onwards, createdthe Taliban from the madrassah (religious schools) on the border with Afghanistan. Up to a third of their fighters were Pakistani themselves as well as thousands of Arabs and other Islamic fighters.

The US sponsored war against the Russians and the PDPA in Afghanistan was an integral part of the cold war against the USSR. The same had happened in Iran. As the BBC reported although in the official Iranian narrative of the revolution Ayatollah Khomeini defied the United States and defeated "the Great Satan" in reality, as newly declassified US government documents revealed,

Khomeini was far more engaged with the US than either government has ever admitted. Far from defying America, the ayatollah courted the Carter administration, sending quiet signals that he wanted a dialogue and then portraying a potential Islamic Republic as amenable to US interests.

The US tried, unsuccessfully, to engineer an international boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 in retaliation for the Russian decision to invade Afghanistan in support the PDPA the previous year.

Timothy Dalton as James Bond (left) with the West's Islamic heroes

That bell weather of imperialist politics, James Bond, even put out a film Living Daylightsin which Timothy Dalton plays the role of a latter day Lawrence of Arabia.  The Mujahideen were noble savages. Strangely enough this is the one Bond film that the BBC never shows in repeats!

Timothy Dalton as a Lawrence of Arabia figure in James Bond

For the next 10 years the CIA funded thousands of Mujahideen fighters waging war against the Soviet occupation. In 1989 the USSR which was itself collapsing withdrew. The PDPA government lasted, unlike the United States’s puppet regime today, for a further 3 years. As Nick Wright observedin the Morning Star:

The present Taliban leadership have learned from their predecessors. During the 1989 fighting, when a mojahedin offensive which initially seized Jalalabad airport saw the insurgents defeated by fighting between the contending jihadi factions, the Afghan army proved its operational efficiency.

The Hezb-e Islami faction led by the CIA’s most favoured commander, the murderous and perennially treacherous Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, infamous for throwing acid in women’s faces, had slaughtered fleeing civilians and surrendered Afghan soldiers which stiffened resistance and saw a strategic defeat for the mojahedin. Three years earlier Hekmatyar took tea with Thatcher at Number 10.

By the time that the USSR withdrew there had been 1.5 million deaths and an estimated 2 million refugees. In April 1992 rebel commander General Dostum and his Uzbek militias entered Kabul, arrested and executed Najibullah, the then ruler. Rabbani was installed as president, with Ahmed Shah Massoud as defence minister. However the Afghan war lords began waging war on each other. In November 1994 the Taliban captured Khandahar and in 1996 they captured Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan bar the Northern Alliance areas.

Within 10 days of 9/11 George Bush announced Operation Enduring Freedom the US began funding the Northern Alliance. Within 3 months the Taliban were ousted and John Simpson from the BBC was the first to enter Kabul in a British tank.

During their rule the Taliban massacredat least 15,000 Hazaris, a Shi’ite Iranian minority in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif. That is the answer to those idiots who claim that all will be well under Sharia Law. Sharia is the excuse used by the war lords to legitimise the plunder, pillage and rape of whole communities.

Australian SAS executes unarmed Afghan civilian

The last 20 years of US occupation have been a time of hundreds of thousands of deaths, and a corrupt US imposed regime notorious for its torture and murder. There were advances for women in cities such as Kabul but in the rest of Afghanistan there was little improvement other than in girls’ education and even that was minimal.

That didn’t stop the obscene spectacle of western feminists supporting the Afghan occupation in the name of Afghani women. Presumably the drones blowing them to pieces or the American massacres of Afghanis, women included, didn’t come under the rubric of feminism. Those women who did participate in NGO schemes to support women are now being abandoned

The most infamous example of feminist imperialism was when Amnesty International – USA, under former State Department official and Clinton supporter Susan Nossel, issued a poster‘NATO – Keep the Progress Going’. Nossell was forced to resign six months later after coming under criticism from anti-imperialist feminists. See Amnesty International USA’s Support for Afghanistan War.

That the US/NATO invasion was bound to fail is a given. There was no prospect that the United States could ‘nation build’ in Afghanistan. That is not the job of imperialism. The American occupation rested on the same warlords that the Taliban have recruited to their cause. The US was incapable of supporting a genuinely progressive regime because US imperialism is, by its very nature, exploitative and repressive. Corruption is in its DNA. That is capitalism.

The US spent over $2 trillion in Afghanistan yet very little of that went to Afghanis. It was used to line the pockets of US contractors, the military and the regime itself. Ashraf Ghani, the President, was quotedas having fled with

"Four cars (were) full of money, they tried to stuff another part of the money into a helicopter, but not all of it fit. And some of the money was left lying on the tarmac,"

The US having retreated with its tail between its legs the BBC, the Establishment’s faithful lapdog, is reporting on Taliban atrocities, such as that in Jalalabad where 3 demonstrators are said to have been killed. What the BBC hasn’t done is to put this in the context of the atrocities committed by the NATO forces in the past 20 years. Little matters such as the CIA Black Prison at Bagram Airbase where prisoners were ‘disappeared’ are not considered newsworthy.

The 4 Palestinians killed last week by Israel in Jenin went unreported by the BBC. That was left to Al Jazeera. Nor did the BBC report the murder of an 11 year old boy, Mohammad Abu Sara, sitting in his father’s car. If he had been Israeli it would have been considered newsworthy.

It remains to be seen, as Nancy Lindisfarne and Jonathan Neale argue, whether the Taliban have seriously changed in 20 years. Whether or not they do now represent a national movement of all Afghanistan’s ethnic minorities. What does seem clear is that their attitude to the Hazaris has not changed. Last month the Taliban murderednine ethnic Hazara men in the village of Mundarakht.

The present scenes of chaos at Kabul Airport are testimony to the abandonment of thousands of Afghan interpreters and security for the US and British forces. British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab couldn’t even be bothered to telephone his Afghan counterpart whilst on holiday.

Neo-Liberal Criticism of the Withdrawal

Already delusion neo-cons are arguing that the United States should have stayed in Afghanistan and that the blow to US credibility will destroy its reputation elsewhere. Dan Crenshaw in the Wall Street Journal arguedthat

‘There are many options between nation building and giving up, and we had found a good one in Afghanistan before President Biden abandoned it.’ ... The “no more endless wars” crowd ... prefer to live in a dream world rather than face the reality that our enemies are ideologically opposed to Western civilization and will gladly stage another 9/11 if they have the opportunity and means. They are at war with us whether or not we are at war with them.

In other words we are in a clash of civilisations. The United States should stay in Afghanistan despite there being no popular support for them doing so. Afghani views are considered irrelevant.

A good representative of these die-hard imperialists is Tom Tugendhat, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and a former Afghan veteran, who toldthe House of Commons to:

stop talking about ‘forever wars’, let’s recognise that forever peace is not bought cheaply — it is hard. It is bought through determination and the will to endure. The tragedy of Afghanistan is that we are swapping that patient achievement for a second fire and a second war.

There will of course always be those who are not reconciled to the loss of Empire. Tughendhat is just the latest version of John Bull. However what is emerging is an imperialist consensus to add Afghanistan to the list of failed and war torn states. Presumably Syria, Libya and Yemen are not sufficient.

What other explanation can there be for the decision of the United States to steal(or ‘freeze’ in the robber’s jargon) $9.5 billion of Afghan money, in addition to the IMF doingthe same.

Racist politicians  like Priti Patel will rail at the refugees who come as a consequences of their wars

There is no doubt that compared to the US regime under Ashraf Ghani the Taliban is relatively honest.  At least for now. That is why they have gained support in Afghanistan. Why pretend that the Taliban is not a legitimate regime? Because the US is now following a second strategy of destabilising Afghanistan. No doubt it will soon start funding rebel warlords as part of an attempted subversion of the Taliban regime. Indeed this may have already started. This will undoubtedly cause a further refugee crisis but keeping Afghanistan unstable serves the interests of Western imperialism.

Tony Greenstein

For further reading see:

Looking back over the ruins, Jack Conrad

Another Forced Scuttle, Daniel Lazare

Afghanistan: a brief history Jane Challice

Reasons for Afghan debacles– Daniel Lazarre

THE MASSACRE IN MAZAR-I SHARIF– Human Rights Watch

Afghanistan: The end of the occupation - Nancy Lindisfarne and Jonathan Neale

Neoconservatives seize on Afghan debacle to celebrate military force and ‘war on terror -  Phillip Weiss

Killing Field – Australian troops in Afghanistan

The war on terror is, was and will be a veil for imperialist expansion Kevin Ovenden

US intervention in Afghanistan: Justifying the Unjustifiable?Leoni Connah

Using Youtube’s bizarre ‘logic’ any film about racism is itself racist! 

In December 2019 Youtube removedthis video from my channel. I immediately restored the video but until a few days ago Youtube did nothing.

There have been a number of incidents of Israelis saying exactly the same as these Israelis. The most recent being two rabbis in the Eli premilitary school who concluded that Hitler’s only fault was that he exterminated the Jews rather than the Palestinians.

According to Youtube's Moronic Censorship It is Hate Speech to Publish This Photograph of the Warsaw Ghetto Jews and the Nazis

It is part of the warped ‘logic’ of Zionism that if you are Jewish and refuse to emigrate to the ‘Jewish’ state then you deserve to be the victim of anti-Semitism. And it is one step from that to actually wanting to see anti-Semitism in order to ‘encourage’ Jewish emigration. 

Many years ago writing in the Labour newspaper DavarAbraham Shpadrong (Sharon) expressed the thinking behind this example of Zionist Anti-Semitism:

"… if I had the power, as I have the will, I would select a score of efficient young men… and I would send them to the countries where Jews are absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction. The task of these young men would be to disguise themselves as non-Jews, and plague these Jews with anti-semitic slogans, such as 'Bloody Jew,''Jews go to Palestine,' and similar 'intimacies.' I can vouch that the results, in terms of considerable immigration to Israel from these countries, would be ten thousand times larger than the results brought by thousands of emissaries who have been, for decades, preaching to deaf ears. [See Naim Giladi, Ben Gurion’s Scandals, p. 306]

I’ve put the video on Dropboxfor the moment because not only has Google removed my Youtube channelbut it has also prevented me sharing the file on Googledrive!

Another of the videos I put up was one of the recent Jerusalem Day Demonstration where slogans such as ‘Death to the Arabs’ and ‘May your villages burn’ were chanted.  As a result of removing my video channel my blognow says that the video is unavailable.

Youtube has at least left the video at CTGN up, although they remind us that CTGN is funded by the Chinese government as a way of undermining its content. However Youtube don’t attach any such label to the BBC’s channel to remind us that they too are a state-funded broadcasting organisation funded by a compulsory tax!

There are only two conclusions that I can draw from this.

i.              That to work for Youtube you have to have an IQ of less than 80.

ii.            That under the rubric of ‘hate speech’ Google now equates those who expose racism and genocide with those who perpetrate it. In other words they are following a Zionist agenda.

Of course these are not alternatives. It may be that Youtube’s Zionist censor(s) are also stupid as well as malevolent.

According to Youtube's Moronic Censors Publishing this Video of Nazi Atrocities is an example of 'hate speech'

The implications of Youtube’s decision are potentially enormous. It means that if you post a photograph of Jews disembarking from the trains at Auschwitz you are justifying the holocaust. Or if you publish a picture of Black people being lynched, they can say you are justifying lynching.

According to Youtube's racist censors Haaretz was guilty of 'hate speech' for publishing this photograph

Of course Youtube don’t do this. They confine their censorship to Zionism and Palestine. Pictures of violence against Black people, have never been subject to Youtube or Google censorship which leads me to suspect that the reason that my Youtube channel has been taken down has nothing to do with ‘hate speech’, the all purpose excuse of racists and Zionist. Rather it is deliberate censorship on behalf of the world’s only apartheid state, Israel.

On 7^th August I received this message:

Notification of Removal of Youtube Channel

7^thAugust 2021

Hi Tony Greenstein,

We have reviewed your content and found severe or repeated violations of our Community Guidelines. Because of this, we have removed your channel from YouTube.

We know that this is probably very upsetting news, but it's our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all. If we think that a channel severely violates our policies, we take it down to protect other users on the platform – but if you believe that we've made the wrong call, you can appeal this decision. You'll find more information about the policy in question and how to submit an appeal below.

According to Youtube's 'policies' publishing this photograph of the Warsaw Ghetto is 'hate speech'

What our policy says

Content glorifying or inciting violence against another person or group of people is not allowed on YouTube. We also don't allow any content that encourages hatred of another person or group of people. We review educational, documentary, artistic and scientific content on a case-by-case basis. Limited exceptions are made for content with sufficient and appropriate context and where the purpose of posting is clear.

Meet Cashtiel - one of Israel's more Enlightened Rabbis

How this affects your channel

We have permanently removed your channel from YouTube. Going forward, you won't be able to access, possess or create any other YouTube channels.

What you can do next

There are steps that you can take if you want to appeal this decision:

·         Appeal here. Make sure that you fill in the appeal form as completely as possible, including your channel URL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDeILlYsP6CZV69q1k_gC-A

 If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to us here.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Team

Appeals

I have submitted numerous appeals to Youtube but it’s like engaging in dialogue with a speaking clock. You get no response but an inane computer produced message. In my latest appeal I wrote:

I'm not sure that a human being, certainly one of average intelligence actually reads these things... However I will AGAIN ask you to restore my channelwhich you deleted.

You took exception to 2 particular videos.  One was a reconstructionby Forensic Architecture of the murder of a Palestinian teacher, Yaqoub Abu Al-Qia, at Umm al Hiran, a Bedouin village in Israel's Negev that the racists were demolishing in 2017. 

It had been claimed that the teacher was trying to kill the police but Forensic Architecture showed that it was a lie.  Even Netanyahu acceptedthat the police evidence was a lie, because of the work by FA based at University College London, yet you took exception to my video. Clearly the little racist who made this decision was badly informed!

Even worse you objected to my video 'Hitler was right' which depicted a group of Israeli settlers shouting 'Hitler was right' and other epithets at other Jewish protestors.

Clearly I wasn't endorsing what they were shouting but exposing it.  But your moderators, who must have an IQ of at least 50, saw it as 'hate speech'.  I can’t believe your moderators are so dumb and stupid.

Perhaps if I put up a photo of a lynching or Jews at Auschwitz I could be accused of supporting the Holocaust or the KKK?  In other words exposing atrocities is as bad as perpetrating them.

I can't believe your moderators are sooo stupid.  I therefore ask, no I demand, that my channel is restored.

It EXPOSES racism it doesn't CONDONE it. 

Of course if your agenda is an Apartheid Zionist one then of course you will want to prevent such things being exposed.  Is that your real agenda?

Youtube's Corporate Censorship

There is no phone number that you can engage with at Youtube.  Google is wholly unaccountable for its decisions. I have therefore reached out to Electronic Intifada and others to publicise the latest examples of Corporate Internet censorship.

My first appeal to Youtube was on 8^thAugust. Because they have a 1,000 character limit for any appeal, presumably they are incapable of understanding more than about 200 words, I sent the appeal below about 4 times!

Youtube Appeals

It is difficult  to appeal against your decision when you have provided no explanation of why my Youtube channel has been removed other than to say that my channel ‘ severely violates our policies’.  You then go on to say that:

‘Content glorifying or inciting violence against another person or group of people is not allowed on YouTube. We also don't allow any content that encourages hatred of another person or group of people.’

You go on to say that ‘Limited exceptions are made for content with sufficient and appropriate context and where the purpose of posting is clear.’

Your removal of my channel on these grounds is outrageous. I have been an anti-racist and anti-fascist activist all my life.  I am Jewish and also an anti-Zionist. I suspect that that is the real reason my channel has been terminated. You don’t like criticism of the State of Israel.

NOTHING WHATEVER in my channel glorifies violence.

On the contrary my purpose in hosting videos showing violence against Palestinians is in order to build enough pressure on Israel to stop the wanton shooting of civilians, including children and the demolition of Palestinian houses. 

I suspect that whoever made this decision is a Zionist and supporter of the State of Israel.  You have therefore chosen to take sides and smear and defame anti-Zionists as ‘anti-Semitic’ and racist.

For example one video you removed showed 2 Israelis shouting ‘Hitler was right’ against Jewish protestors at Sheikh Jarrar in Jerusalem, where Palestinians have been under threat of eviction for not being Jewish. Far from glorifying their hate speech I was EXPOSING the settlers and their supporters for being racists and fascists.

Perhaps the person who made this decision is ignorant of what is happening in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

 Can I therefore suggest that they read the Report of B’Tselem, Israel’s most respect human rights organisation ‘

 Is Labour Anti-Semitic?was the title – but the answer was never in doubt

Please Support Paddy French's Fundraiser

https://tinyurl.com/23syu3ps 

Dear Friend

This is not an appeal on my behalf.  I’m writing to ask you to support an important legal battle between BBC Panorama reporter John Ware and the retired ITV current affairs producer and investigative journalist, Paddy French, for criticisms he made of the July 2019 Panorama programme “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?

Paddy French

Paddy French is an investigative journalist with more than four decades experience. He founded and edited the Welsh magazine Rebecca (known for its uncompromising Corruption Supplement) in the 1970s. He then went on to become an independent TV producer making programme for Channel 4, the BBC and ITV before joining ITV Wales as a staff producer.

The case is John Ware v Paddy French, QB-2020-002233.

Ware is suing Paddy for £50,000 over criticisms he made of the July 2019 Panorama programme “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?”

I am sure you will remember this BBC propaganda programme. You can refresh your memory with the two blog posts I did hereand here.

Ware is a former Sun journalist, a racist and Islamaphobe, who is on the record as saying in the Jewish Chronicle of 26.7.13. (where else!) that whereas anti-Semitism is ‘entirely irrational’ Islamaphobia, if it exists, is ‘reactive’. It is no wonder that Ware wonthe Islamic Human Rights Commission’s Islamaphobe of the Year award in 2005.

Is Labour Anti-Semitic opened with an Oscar winning performance by Ella Rose, Director of the Jewish Labour Movement and former employee at the Israeli Embassy.  Of course the programme mentioned none of this.  I don’t know how many takes Rose took but her performance demonstrated that she has chosen the wrong career.  Not mentioned in Ware’s propaganda programme was the fact that every witness to ‘anti-Semitism’ that appeared just happened to be officers of the Jewish Labour Movement, who openly describe themselves as the ‘sister party’ of the racist Israeli Labor Party, that is present in a coalition with the far-Right in Israel.

After retiring, Paddy launched Press Gang [press-gang.org], a website which “exposes rogue journalism”. And there is no bigger rogue that John Ware, a man who makes Keir Starmer seem like a model of truthfulness.

Paddy carried out the investigation which proved that News of the World investigations editor Mazher “Fake Sheik” Mahmood lied to the Leveson Inquiry about the number of convictions he’d achieved. He also published a long exposé of Piers Morgan.

Just before the 2019 general election, Paddy — at the time a Labour Party member and a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn — published a Press Gang pamphlet called “Is The BBC Anti-Labour?”

This was a broad critique of Ware’s Panorama programme and how it failed to meet the standards required by the BBC’s own editorial standards. You can read it here:

The case, already a year old, is now moving to trial.

Ware v French presents a unique opportunity to correct the historical record, as well as a risk – however small – that Ware will be able to bully Paddy’s legal team into submission. It is imperative that Paddy is not at any point pressured into an unfavourable settlement solely because his legal team are unable to bear mounting costs.

Paddy is determined to defend himself all the way and willing to risk both his property and livelihood in doing so. But if his legal team were at any point to advise entering into an unfavourable settlement, it will be difficult for Paddy to resist on a No Win No Fee arrangement. Such an outcome will then of course be used as ‘vindication’ by Ware and the BBC, with damaging consequences for wider efforts to correct the historical record. If, on the other hand, Paddy has the opportunity to mount his truth defence – or if Ware was to withdraw from the action – this case could potentially be a powerful check against on-going attacks on progressive left politics.

The case will be the only chance we get to have a forensic examination of how John Ware, Panorama and the BBC came to make a programme that was so outrageously biased. Although titled ‘Is Labour Anti-Semitic?’ the only concession that the BBC made to me during a lengthy complaint was to admit that the question mark in the title was unnecessary. The programme had formed an opinion from the outset and that was that Labour was anti-Semitic.

This programme was a classic example of how, when a radical leader is under attack, you can count on the BBC to represent the Britain’s racist establishment.  It did this with a reporter who is an open Islamaphobe.

Paddy is represented by the experienced solicitors Bindmans and the barristers Hugh Tomlinson QC and Darryl Hutcheon.

He needs at least £200,000 to be able to bring the case to trial.

His crowdfunder has raised nearly £30,000 from more than a thousand supporters.

In addition, private donors are putting up a further £60-70,000.

So he’s already half way there.

If you can, make a donation at the crowdfunder:

Before turning his attention to Ware, Paddy, together with Professor Brian Cathcart, one of the founders of Hacked Off , produced a devastating report on the unscrupulous anti-Muslim reporting of the Times’ journalist Andrew Norfolk. The Times was so stung that it took the highly unusual step of attacking Paddy and Brian in an editorial.

Paddy then began a long series of articles about John Ware’s Panorama programme. One of these articles led to Ware issuing his writ demanding £50,000 damages.

If you want to find out more, here’s a link to get started:

https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2021/02/28/ware-v-french-goes-to-trial/

Ware v French is the key legal action in relation to the Panorama programme and Paddy is determined to take this all the way to trial.

This is going to be a hugely expensive legal battle.  Please help him succeed.

Many thanks

Tony Greenstein

Einstein remarked that the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Is that also true of the Labour left?

The Left in the Labour Party is facing an existential crisis.  Can it survive?  Does it have a future in a party where democracy has been abolished? Where guilt-by-association is the modus operandi and where McCarthyism is the rule how can it operate other than by subterfuge?

The launch meeting of LAW - from right to left - Tony Greenstein, Moshe Machover, Jackie Walker and Ken Loach

Tomorrow Labour Against the Witchhunt, which was proscribed by Starmer’s minions on 10 July, will debate these and other questions at an All Members Meeting.

If you are a member you are welcome to participate and if you are not then you can still joinand participate.

I have submitted a strategy paper which raises these and other questions.  It is clear that Starmer is intent on purging the left from the Labour Party. Unfortunately the left is still divided into those who are considering doing something and those who believe, like Dickens' McCawber, that ‘something will come up’. The largest organisation Momentum, which can barely be called on the left, has simply refused to fight the witchhunt. It believes that by keeping its head down it can avoid being targeted.

The proscription of LAW, Labour-in-Exile-Network, Socialist Appeal and Chris Williamson’s Resist is the beginning not the end. Almost certainly next on the list is the Labour Representation Committee, whose President is John McDonnell. Already many members of its Executive, such as Pete Firmin and Graham Bash, have been expelled or given notice of auto exclusion.

Jennie Formby on Twitter today forgets that she began the ball rolling and Starmer picked it up from her

But organisations such as the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy have done their best not to fight the witchhunt, despite a number of their own members having been targeted. CLPD is particularly invidious in this respect. When Pete Willsman, its veteran representative on the NEC was suspended, the CLPD completely disowned him even though he was setup by a far-Right Israeli racist. And this happened under Corbyn and Formby not Starmer.

CLPD has effectively been dead for many years. Its heyday was in the early 1980s with the Benn for Deputy Campaign and the campaign to elect the Labour leader (prior to 1981 the leader had been elected by the Parliamentary Labour Party).

LAW fringe meeting at Liverpool Labour Conference 2018 with Chris Williamson speaking and the late Militant Councillor Terry Mulhearn

Labour Left 4 Socialism

A new organisation, Labour Left for Socialism(formerly Don’t Leave Organise) made up a number of groups, including the Bakers Union (whose President Ian Hodson is on the brink of expulsion) and the Fire Brigades Union, whose President Matt Wrack is Chair of the LRC and also a candidate for expulsion, issued a statement‘Labour Left Rallies To Reclaim Party As Democratic Force For Socialist Transformation’.

Unfortunately this is not true. Sectarians around the CLPD and Socialist Action, the undercover group that does not declare its presence, insisted on inserting a weasel worded clause which reads:

We stand firmly against proscriptions, and stand in solidarity with every grouping that is proscribed solely for holding socialist views. 

In other words it was only preparedto support Socialist Appeal, which was that part of Militant years ago which stayed inside the Labour Party. It doesn’t therefore support LAW or LIEN which were proscribed for opposing the ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt. It is for that reason that LAW, although signing up to the statement, found its name left off the initial signatories.

Momentum which was part of the DLO has since walked out.  Presumably the idea of fighting anything that Starmer does is too much for those who have inherited the mantle of Lansman. It was hoped that the victory of Forward Momentum over Lansman’s Momentum Renewal meant that Momentum might revert to a more activist stance but this has not proven to be the case. If anything things have gotten worse.

As it is Momentum is haemorrhaging members and an organisation which once boasted over 40,000 members is now believed to have less than 15,000 paying members, only a fraction of whom are now active. SE National Coordinating Group member Phil Clarke recently called a Brighton & Hove Momentum Zoom meeting. There was an attendance of 33, one of whom was me! In the days when we had physical meetings we would regularly get 60-70 and sometimes over a hundred attending. Zoom meetings tend to attract more not less people and at one time Brighton had some 1,500 supporters so if Brighton is anything to go by the organisation is in serious decline.

Corbyn’s failure to confront the Fake Anti-Semitism Campaign

If Jeremy Corbyn and those around him had understood that the fake anti-Semitism was about as genuine as a 9 bob note then Labour might be in government now. Instead Corbyn and McDonnell spent their time fighting the left and appeasing the Right. This culminated in the decision to oppose Open Selection, the only means of removing the scab Right in the PLP.

It was or should have been obvious that anti-Semitism was being weaponised. Even before Corbyn was elected, in August 2015, the Daily Mail ran a story about Corbyn being associated with a holocaust denier, Paul Eisen. That story disappeared but other fake stories came and went, always without any discernible victims. Indeed one of the most remarkable things about the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations is that there never were any Jewish victims.

Graham Bash - Jewish member over 50 years in the Labour Party - on the brink of expulsion - this is what Starmer's 'antisemitism' campaign has led to

At least not unless you consider those 2 Zionist harridans – Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth. Not forgetting of course Ella Rose, the Israeli Embassy employee who became Director of the Jewish Labour Movement and a potential Oscar winner when she starred in Panorama’s Is Labour Anti-Semitic?

Why anti-Semitism?  Because it gave a certain moral righteousness to the Labour Right that they otherwise would have lacked if they had attacked Corbyn for opposing austerity. To some extent they ran with ‘terrorism’ but ‘anti-Semitism’ made the racists of the Labour Right feel good.  After all who doesn’t want to oppose anti-Semitism?

July 10th Picket of Labour NEC which proscribed 4 organisations

If Corbyn and his advisers had had their wits about them they would have sussed out the Board of Deputies immediately.

In its 250 year history the Board has never opposed anti-Semitism. It has always urged caution. When Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists began organising in the Jewish East End of London in the 1930s the Board urged that Jews turn the other cheek.

The only ‘anti-racist’ demonstration that the Board has ever organised was in March 2018 and that was against Jeremy Corbyn!  And who attended it?  Those well known anti-racists Ian Paisley of the Democratic Unionist Party and Norman Tebbit, famous for his cricket test for Indians and Pakistanis.

The fact is that Zionism has never opposed anti-Semitism for the simple reason that they and the antisemites both agree that Jews do not belong in the countries they are living. As the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl observedin his Diaries (pp. 83/4), ‘The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies,”

When the fascists attempted to march through the East End of London in October 1936 the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Chronicle told them to stay indoors!

When Moseley decided, in October 1936 to march through the East End he was opposed by thousands of Jewish and non Jewish workers. Estimates range from 100,000 upwards. They were organised by the Communist  Party, the Independent Labour Party and the Jewish Peoples Council.  The Board of Deputies (& the Labour Party) were vehemently opposed. The Board told Jews to stay indoors and keep their heads down. As Harriet Sherwood observed:

The Jewish Board of Deputies and the Labour party were against confrontation. “Jews are urgently warned to keep away from the route of the Blackshirt march and from their meetings,” said the Jewish Chronicle. “Jews who, however innocently, become involved in any possible disorders will be actively helping antisemitism and Jew-baiting. Unless you want to help the Jew-baiters, keep away.”

Of course a party of nearly 600K members would have a few anti-Semites in it.  It had a hell of a lot more Islamaphobes in it too but no one seemed to be bothered about that. It also had, statistically some paedophiles in it but no one suggested it had a paedophile problem.

There was a time that the Labour Party had an antisemitism problem.  It was a problem of the Labour Right. Herbert Morrison, Labour Home Secretary during the war and grandfather of Peter Mandelson, was both a fervent Zionist and an anti-Semite. He also did his best to keep Jewish refugees from the Nazis out of Britain.

In October 1942 Morrison received a delegation of eminent churchmen and public figures such as Eleanor Rathbone and Lord Astor, asking him for visas for 2,000 Jewish children and the elderly in Vichy France. Morrison refused. Apparently anti-Semitism ‘was just under the pavement.’ A month later the Nazis overran Vichy France and these Jews were deported to Auschwitz. Morrison was said to doubt that there was a holocaust.[i]

On 31 December 1942 Morrison made it clear that although the Home Office might take a limited number of refugees ‘he could not, however, agree that the door should be opened to the entry of uncategorised Jews.’ [ii] Morrison believed that if the Jews were allowed to remain in Britain after the war ‘they might be an explosive element in the country, especially if the economic situation deteriorated.’[iii] In other words Morrisson’s real fear was of communist Jews. 

Yet Corbyn took the accusations of anti-Semitism personally instead of seeing them for what they were, part of a deliberate state destabilisation of the Labour Party. A radical, anti-imperialist pro-Palestinian leader of the Labour Party set off alarm bells not just in MI5 but in Tel Aviv and the CIA. The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign was the answer.

‘Anti-Semitism’ today is the false anti-racism of the Right. Donald Trump attacked the Squad, the group of 4 radical Black Congresswomen, for ‘anti-Semitism’ whilst at the same time tellingthem to ‘go home’ .

Yet instead of rebutting these accusations and seeing them as coming from the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement, eager to defend Israel, whose ‘sister’ party the Israeli Labor Party is now in coalition with the far-Right in Israel, Corbyn took them as genuine.

Corbyn, who had 30 years experience of pro-Palestine politics should have been aware of the fact that all Palestine solidarity activists are routinely accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ including Jewish anti-Zionists.  I doubt there is a single Palestine solidarity activist in Britain who hasn’t been accused of anti-Semitism. Yet Corbyn and McDonnell were oblivious to this.

Corbyn believed that he could appease the apartheid animal that is Zionism.  There was only one way to disarm the ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks and that was by confronting it.  It is to his eternal discredit that Corbyn took the path of least resistance, betraying those of use who were his allies.  In the Labour Leaked Report he and his office are quoted on page 306 and 333 thus:

Well we were all expelled but was trust rebuilt?  Of course not. The Zionists simply demanded more victims and Corbyn and Formby supplied them.  Formby was very proud of how many socialists she expelled. She and Corbyn were too stupid to understand that the more people you expel the more credence you give to the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations. In essence they were running on a treadmill.  The faster they ran the faster it revolved.

Corbyn apologised and apologised.  Did it make him stronger or weaker? Well the answer is obvious. Just as I predicted the near victory in 2017 I also predicted the debacle of 2019.

Corbyn’s strongest supporter in Parliament, Chris Williamson was targeted by the Zionists and instead of supporting him Corbyn abandoned him. Ken Livingstone was abandoned for telling the truth that during the Nazi period the Zionists collaborated with and worked with the Nazis, especially in the 1933-39 period.  This is simply a matter of historical fact. The Zionists were the right-wing nationalists of the Jewish community and they agree with the Nazis that Jews did not belong in Germany or anywhere outside Palestine.

Seamus Milne & James Schneider

If Corbyn can be forgiven for not being clued up, this is not true of either of his closest advisors, ex-public school boys Seamus Milne and James Schneider. Milne in particular must have been aware of what was happening yet he stayed silent. The suspicion must be that this scion of the ruling class was not all he seemed.

Today there is no pretence that people are being expelled for ‘anti-Semitism’. But when Starmer was first elected he promised to ‘root out’ anti-Semitism. His first action was to declare, in an interview with The Times of Israel that he was a Zionist (i.e. racist) ‘without qualification’.

When I was the first Jewish person to be expelled Starmer took to Twitter to welcomemy expulsion. That was the first time that I took notice of this apology for a personality. However I was expelled under Corbyn not Starmer.

Unfortunately Corbyn and Jennie Formby welcomed Starmer to their bosom despite him having been part of the chicken coup. Because Starmer used ‘anti-Semitism’ as his pretext much of the stupid Left (Momentum and CLPD) were fooled into believing everything was fine. Andrew Scattergood, co-chair of Momentum, even came out with a statementthat

“the suspension of [Jeremy Corbyn] risks politicising and undermining Labour’s response to anti-semitism.” 

How more stupid can you get? The whole point of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign was to get rid of Corbyn in the first place. With a left like this it’s no wonder that Starmer has had such an easy ride.

It probably still hasn't dawned on Scatterbrain that Jews in the Labour Party are now 5 times as likely to be expelled as non-Jews. This is the 'fight against anti-Semitism' yet Momentum stays silent.

Where to now

However we are where we are. The question is what next? The reformist left in the Labour Party, CLPD and Momentum, will be protesting their loyalty even whilst Starmer kicks them out.

However most Labour members don’t and never have accepted the fake anti-Semitism narrative. Some 120,000 at least have left the Labour Party and it is likely that another 100K or more will do so with the expulsion of Ken Loach.

It is also likely that not only will Starmer move to proscribe the LRC and CLPD and possibly even Momentum but that he will move against at least that part of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs who have at least given some indication of standing up to Starmer.

Although it is clear that many of the SCG are running for cover, 19 of them have signeda statement opposing the expulsion of Ken Loach. Which means that nearly half of them haven’t put their names to it. I emailed my own MP, Lloyd Russell-Moyle to ask why he hadn’t signed but I received no response. Lloyd has been so busy retreating from previously held positions that he hasn’t had time to answer!

But if much of what passes for the Labour Left is pathetic and cowardly then much of the socialist or far left is suffering from myopia.

At the LAW AMM tomorrow the Communist Party of Great Britain/ Labour Party Marxists will put its own strategy paper to the meeting. Their argument is for fighting in the Labour Party because it is supported by the trade unions. And essentially that is the limit of their strategy. It is more a dogma and article of faith than a rational argument. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it is any longer possible to fight the witchhunt in the Labour Party. The present witchhunt is the worst since 1945 and quite possibly ever.

CLPD refused to defend their own representative on the NEC

Where Labour is heading under Starmer

Starmer is, as he has made clear, determined to complete what Blair started.

Starmer’s distinguishing mark has been as a liar.  He has all the charisma of a wet fish on a windy day. He stood as a unity candidate with a radical set of 10 pledges. It is hard to believe that his first pledge, Economic Justice, contained the promise that he would

‘Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles.

He ended up opposing the Tory increase in corporation tax! A position that New Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson endorsed. The same Alan Johnson who gave birth to the term ‘hostile environment’. Given that Starmer relied on a few rich donors to fund his campaign, includingthe Zionist owner of Qwik-Fit, Sir Trevor Chinn, it is amazing that many Momentum supporters like Paul Mason and Lansman poodle Laura Parker backed him.

Yet despite this the opposition to Starmer’s political move to the Right has been almost inaudible.

We cannot just focus on those remaining in the Labour Party

It is true that socialists inside the Labour Party cannot just be abandoned and nor is a strategy that encourages them to leave a useful one.

However thousands have left and it is clear that Starmer intends to continue the purge, destroying Labour Party democracy in the process. It is equally clear that Corbyn, having failed to regain the Labour whip by rowing back on what he said, is determined not to lead the fight against Starmer.

It is crystal clear that that the fight against the witchhunt will fail, not least because the trade unions are giving it their tacit support and there is no rule that Labour's bureaucrats are not prepared to break. What then?

My own view is that we should be thinking of setting up a Socialist Movement in parallel to the Labour Party and as the precursor to an alternative party. If members of the SCG are expelled, as seems likely, then such a party could have real weight, especially if Corbyn were to join.  Given that it is highly unlikely he will be allowed to stand as a Labour member at the next election it is to be hoped that for once he will take decisive action.

But regardless there is no doubt that the traditional allegiance of the working class to Labour is dissipating.  The Red Wall effect may not simply confined to the North. Having lost the Scottish working class it is quite possible that Labour will also start to lose other sections, starting with the Muslim vote.

Unfortunately with the disappearance of traditional class consciousness, with the atomisation of the working class, old allegiances are also dying.

The question is whether the socialist left in the Labour Party can be bold enough to take a step outside the comfort of resolutionary socialism. There is no natural law that says that the Labour Party will continue to have the allegiance of the working class.

And that will effect our attitude to the trade unions.  If I was in the Bakers Union, which is considering disaffiliation from the Labour Party I would support such a motion.  Likewise in the FBU. For too long the Labour Party has taken the unions and the working class for granted. Now that Starmer wants to make Labour a safe capitalist alternative to the Tories there are serious questions that need to be asked about the future of the socialist left in Britain. And they may not involve automatic support for Labour.

For some like the CPGB there will never be a retreat from comfortable dogma and shibboleth.  But the same does not need to be the case for all socialists facing the dilemma of what to do next.

Tony Greenstein

LAW votes narrowly not to support setting up a socialist movement but votes to uphold No Platform for Fascists

Introduction

LAW held its All Members Meeting last Saturday night with over 100 members attending. The agenda and a record of the decisions are here.This is a brief report on what took place.

The context of the meeting is a witchhunt unprecedented in its scope and ferocity in which Keir Starmer and his glove puppet David Evans have torn up all democratic rules and procedures. Regardless of the electoral cost, Starmer is determined to drive the left out of the Labour Party. Acting on behalf of the ruling class Starmer is determined that never again will a socialist and anti-imperialist gain control of the Labour Party.

Can you imagine what the press would make of the Labour Party if Corbyn had proscribed Progress, Labour First and the other scab organisations of the Labour Right. They would have cried ‘dictator’ from the rooftops. However attacks on the left meet with their approval – from the Mail to the Guardian.

When Starmer came to power he announced his intention to ‘root out the scourge of anti-Semitism’ despite the fact that what passed for ‘anti-Semitism’ was not hatred of Jews but hatred of apartheid Israel and the Zionist movement.

Starmer immediately declared that he was a Zionist, ie a racist ‘without qualification’. The subsequent issuing of reports by B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group and Human Rights Watch declaring that Israel was an Apartheid State have had no effect on Labour’s racist leader.  On the contrary, whilst fighting ‘anti-Semitism’ he has quietly readmittedto Labour the Trevor Philips for whom Muslims are a ‘nation within a nation’ and who has describedthe adoption of Christian children by Muslims as ‘akin to child abuse’. There are some forms of racism that Starmer is perfectly happy with.

This is what 'Zionist Without Qualification' Starmer Supports

The mere mention of ‘anti-Semitism’ however was enough to send Momentum’s children running to nurse for fear of something worse. ‘Anti-Semitism’ was the evil by which all manner of deeds were done. So when Starmer wanted to be rid of Rebecca Long-Bailey, to whom he had felt obliged to offer the position of Shadow Education  Secretary, ‘anti-Semitism’ was the excuse to removethe last vestiges of the Corbyn left from the front bench.

The excuse was retweeting Maxine Peak condemning Israel’s Police for having taught the American Police the neckhold that killed George Floyd. Now whether this was strictly true was irrelevant. What is true is that the Zionist Anti-Defamation League boastedof having ‘trained 150,000 (US) law enforcement personnel—at no cost to taxpayers’ with the Israeli police.  The ADL has since taken this down but I quoted it here. Apparently this was an ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy’. What Israel’s police were not teaching was respect for human rights!

Likewise when Jeremy Corbyn was suspended Andrew Scatterbrain, head of Momentum, complainedthat this ‘undermined the fight against anti-Semitism’. Scatterbrain didn’t get it that the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations had been perfected to get rid of Corbyn even beforehe was elected as Labour leader.

The stupidity of much of the Labour left coupled with its cowardice has led to the present situation of automatic expulsions, where due process and natural justice have been abolished. LAW and its sister organisation Labour-in-Exile-Network were proscribed on July 20 for having called out the fake and spurious nature of the anti-Semitism allegations levelled by the Jewish Labour Movement, which is affiliatedto the main proponent of Israeli apartheid, the World Zionist Organisation which contains a Land Theft Division.

Although over 100 people attended the meeting and there were some good debates, it cannot be said that the meeting responded adequately to the needs of the hour. Partly this was because of the disarray of LAW’s Steering Committee whose 6 members are grossly unrepresentative of the organisation. LAW has had hundreds of new members since Starmer outlawed us yet 50% of the Steering Committee are members or supporters of the tiny Communist Party of Great Britain.

Now I have no objection to the group per se.  After all I have written for their newspaper the Weekly Worker for over 15 years, but they have a line on the Labour Party, that it was founded as a ‘united front of a special kind’ which is bonkers. The Fabians were amongst those that formed the Labour Party and they are and were an organisation of the liberal bourgeoisie, the Webbs and the Shaws.

The CPGB suggest that any attempts to build anything outside of Labour is doomed to failure. They follow what amounts to a rigid dogma, almost a theology.  I termed them the Catholic Church of the Left at the meeting! Regardless of changing circumstances they stick to the same line. Some 120,000 members of the Labour Party have already left in disgust at the behaviour of Starmer and they have nothing to say to them apart from stay in and fight!

The meeting was chaired by Jackie Walker, the Black-Jewish woman who was witchhunted in  disgraceful wave of racism and betrayed by Jon Lansman when Jackie was removed as Vice-Chair of Momentum  in the autumn of 2016.

Resist at the Rialto & Labour Left for Socialism

Two years ago, because of Zionist pressure on venues not to hire out venues to anti-Zionists we hired for 2 days the Rialto, a Brighton theatre whose owner has experience of supporting the Kent Miners and is unafraid of a few racist trolls.  Last time we put on a book launch for Bad News for Labour that Waterstones, under pressure from the Zionists had abandoned at the last minute.

This time we hiring the venue for 4 days and have a whole series of alternative events planned. from Sunday of the Conference to Wednesday. You can register for the events here. They provide an alternative to the controlled dissent of Momentum’s World Transformed. An outline of what is planned at Labour Party Conference is here.

A public meeting called by Defend the Left on 18^th September is planned with Ken Loach, Howard Beckett, Graham Bash, Esther Giles and other speakers. 

LAW has also participated, not without problems, in an organisation Labour Left for Socialism.  LLS has published a statement signed by 15 organisations, some of which, such as CLPD have effectively been complicit in the witchhunt.  Now of course people and organisations can learn the error of their ways, but the question unfortunately they haven’t.

After prolonged discussion LAW’s Steering Committee agreed to send two delegates to this organisation and to agree to the statement yet strangely enough LAW’s name has been left off the statement. What is even worse is that the statement contains the following weasel words. LLS ‘stand(s) in solidarity with every grouping that is proscribed solely for holding socialist views.’ What this meant is that of the 3 proscribed Labour Party organisations LLS only supports one of those organisation, Socialist Appeal.

Because LAW and LIEN have been proscribed for their opposition to the fake anti-Semitism witchhunt and this statement effectively refuses to support them. Stan Keable, the CPGB secretary of LAW sent an email to (LLS) expressing his ‘disappointment’ with them.

When I saw this anaemic email I immediately sent a somewhat stronger email saying that:

‘it really is disgraceful that Labour Against the Witchhunt, one of the proscribed groups, has been deliberately left off the joint statement by Don't Leave Organise, that purports to oppose the proscriptions but instead introduces the following weasel words:

'We stand firmly against proscriptions, and stand in solidarity with every grouping that is proscribed solely for holding socialist views.'

Unfortunately the co-Chair of LAW, CPGB supporter Tina Werkman took exception to my blunt words and at an emergency Steering Committee moved that I be removed as a delegate to LFS. My replacement has since decided not to take up his place as delegate, yet Ms Werkman, instead of proposing that I be restored as delegate has proposed that LAW just send one delegate, the CPGB’s Stan Keable. None of this was reported to the AMM meeting.

DISCUSSION OF MOTIONS

The first motion moved by the CPGB’s Kevin Bean welcomed the invitation to LAW and LIEN to participate in LLS without any criticism of it bar the fact that you can’t quote anyone who speaks in its meeting under the so-called Chatham House Rules. To me this seemed the least of its problems. No mention was made that Socialist Action, an ‘underground’ group which is part of the CLPD representation, had effectively tried to ensure that the group did not support those who did not go along with the ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt.

Tina Werkman moved an amendment putting this right and it was passed by 60-11 with the CPGB opposing.

The main vote however took place on the assertion in paragraph 2 that ‘LAW stands for unrestricted freedom of speech.’ I moved an amendment deleting ‘unrestricted’. I do not support free speech for overt racists, fascists, war criminals or organised scabs and I gave 2 examples. A meeting which socialists and miners from Kent NUM broke up in Brighton at the 1984 Tory Party conference. Apparently the CPGB would have supported the right of the scabs to freedom of speech despite using it as part of a campaign to starve the miners back to work.

The Board of Deputies has always opposed physical opposition to fascist anti-Semitism whilst at the same time condemning all opposition to Zionism and Israeli Apartheid

The Board of Deputies 

The other example I gave was of the 43 Group of Jewish ex-servicemen who, after they came back from the war in 1945, set about destroying the attempt of Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists to regroup by holding street meetings.  By 1950 the Union Movement was finished.  Interestingly for the benefit of Socialist Action, Red Labour, CLPD and others who are complicit in the witchhunt, the Board of Deputies, which today is so concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ – vehemently opposed the 43 Group. I suggest that they and LAW’s Steering Committee read this excellent article. The British Jews who fought postwar fascism on London's streets

Despite the majority of the SC opposing my amendment it passed by 35-32 votes.

What I thought was a non-contentious motion calling for no confidence in Keir Starmer, was passed by 75 votes to 8. The only opposition coming from the CPGB! Quite why the CPGB should have opposed the motion is unclear. As far as I am aware they don’t yet support Starmer though perhaps this is a sign of what lies ahead!

The main debate was on strategy. The motion from the CPGB which called for god, mother and apple pie, received 40 votes.  It called on people to do what they are already doing.

What it didn’t do was offer any strategy to take on board the fact that over a hundred thousand members have already resigned from the Labour Party, that thousands of socialists are in the process of being expelled and thousands more show every sign of deserting the good ship Labour. To these people this motion offered nothing except rhetoric about ‘continuing to campaign at a grass roots level against bans and proscriptions, and countering the ‘anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism’ smear campaign against the left.’

The CPGB motion was supported by 5 out of 6, ie. 84% of the Steering Committee. I moved a motion, seconded by Brighton members Dave Hill and Paddy O’Keefe and a background strategy paper written by myself and Esther Giles. Although I didn’t oppose much of the CPGB motion the problem was that it could have been written anytime in the past 5 years.

What set the cat among the pigeons was points 8 and 9 of my motion:

8.           We believe that it is essential to create a socialist movement, that encompasses people inside and outside the Labour Party, which will keep activists in the Corbyn Project together, with a view to forming a distinct socialist party in the near future.

9.           We believe that the time has come when socialists in trade unions should argue for disaffiliation from a party that is now part of the neo-liberal consensus.

In other words I called for the formation of a socialist movement which encompassed both those in and those who have left the Labour Party. It did not call for the formation of a new party today but said that that should be on the agenda in the near future. 

Of course this was anathema to the CPGB for whom devotion to the Labour Party is an article of faith. Contemplating a break from the Labour Party is akin to commiting idolatory in the temple. It is heresy in any language.

Despite my fear of being cast into perdition, the CPGB motion obtained 40 votes to 31 for my motion.  In other words 44% of those voting agreed with me that it was not enough to call people to fight in a Labour Party where democracy has been abolished.

I think I can make one prediction and that is this debate will not go away. What is also obvious is that membership of LAW’s Steering Committee needs to be doubled. Whilst I have no objection to the CPGB having representatives on the Steering Committee, it is undemocratic for them to have effectively 50% of members when they are a small and tiny group. In other words they will have to win votes by argument not force of numbers.

Tony Greenstein

Part 1: The Union of Jewish Students is not a Cuddly Group of Fragile Jewish Students – it is the Israeli State on Campus – Dedicated to Defaming Opponents of Israeli Apartheid

Part 2 will look at UJS's record of attacking Jewish anti-Zionists and dissident Jews

I have just learnt from a member of management at Bristol University,  who has to remain anonymous, unhappy about the pressure being exerted on the university to dismiss Professor Miller, that the hearing will be next week.

This is the BOD real agenda

The campaign to dismiss David Miller has been a combined campaign of the British Establishment, led by the Union of Jewish Students. Their supporters include the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust, over 100 MPs and peers, the All Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism and of course the lie sheetthat goes by the name of the Jewish Chronicle.

David Miller 

Extreme Pressure to Dismiss David Miller

The campaign to have David Miller dismissed for calling for an end to Zionism, a racist political ideology and his criticism of the Union of Jewish Students, has been in full flow ever since February when David spoke at a meeting of the Labour Campaign for Free Speech. Since then there has been a Zionist tsunami washing over Bristol University. It has been led by the Union of Jewish Students which, as Al Jazeera’s The Lobbyrevealed in January 2017, is funded by the Israeli Embassy.

Demonstration at Bristol University Earlier This Year

At the same time David Miller has been gagged by the university, unable to speak out in his own defence, to rebut the lies and half-truths peddled by his opponents.

What will it take for Bristol to sack this lecturer? wrote Sabrina Miller in the Jewish Chronicle of 4 March. ‘Jewish students do not feel safe from him yet the university refuses to dismiss David Miller.’ The idea that Jewish students are such snowflakes that anti-Zionist ideas make them run to mummy suggests that they belong in a kindergarten not a university.  In not standing up for David Miller, Bristol University has failed in its basic duty of care to David Miller. Vice Chancellor Hugh Brady should be ashamed of himself.

On the same day The Times reported that MPs and peers call on Bristol University to condemn academic in antisemitism row.

This campaign has continued incessantly since February. On August 12 the Jewish News reported‘Outrage as Professor Miller set to teach ‘offensive’ module despite investigation’ and of course the ‘Union of Jewish Students accuses University of Bristol of ‘legitimising the targeted attacks he made towards Jewish students’.

The Zionist campaign is perfectly understandable because in Israel, if you are a Palestinian, then you are guilty until proven innocent as the appalling case of Mohammed el-Halabi ‘Has a lone Palestinian aid worker been falsely accused of the biggest aid money heist in history?’ demonstrates. Despite being cleared by two audits of stealing money for Hamas, he has been imprisoned by Israel for over 5 years. Israeli prosecutors offered him deals to leave prison if only he pleaded guilty.  This is the Zionist justice that UJS and the Jewish Chronicle want Bristol University adopt.

On 30 June Jewish News told how ‘100 days and counting: Uni ‘dragging feet’ over ‘pawns of Israel’ investigation’. David Miller said that Israel and UJS used Jewish students as pawns not that the students were pawns (although some of them clearly are).

Jewish News reportedon 28 July that ‘Bristol Uni ‘refused to discuss’David Miller probe in meeting with UJS and J-soc’.  How strange that an employer refusesto discuss employment matters with external bodies. Perhaps Jewish News will enlighten us as to what has happened to its former foreign editor Stephen Oryszczuk? See ‘Jewish News foreign editor takes leave after criticising paper's coverage of Labour anti-Semitism row     

The corruptCommunities Secretary ‘Robert Jenrick has criticised one of Britain's most prestigious universities, saying that its Jewish students feel "unsafe and unwelcome". How one might ask does he know?  Has he spoken to any? Or is he repeating the lies of the JC?

The Jewish Chronicle of 13 August reportedhow

‘the All Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism wrote to Bristol Vice Chancellor Hugh Brady, attacking the university’s “institutional failure… to tackle anti-Jewish racism”. 

In fact the APPGA, including scab ‘Labour’ MP Rosie Duffield has written 3 times to Bristol University to pile the pressure on. At the same time the government has taken steps to ensurethat holocaust deniers can speak unchallenged at universities.

If you deny the extermination by the Nazis of millions of people, including 6 million Jews, then that is perfectly acceptable to these MPs.  But if you challenge the apartheid movement called Zionism and thereby challenge the basis of British foreign policy in the Middle East then you must be banned, sacked and vilified.

What did David Miller Say That Was So Offensive?

What was David’s crime? Calling for an end to Zionism as a functioning ideology. Can anyone imagine that a tenured professor at a British university would have been in danger of being dismissed for having called for an end to Apartheid 30 years ago? Yet these hypocrites dress it up as protection for Jewish students. It would have just as easy 30 years ago to say that opposition to Apartheid was a threat to racist white students.

This is not the first time a Bristol Academic has come under attack

In 2017 the Zionist ‘charity’ Campaign Against Anti-Semitism calledfor the dismissal of Jewish lecturer, Rachel Gould for having written an article ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’ for Counterpunch. Fat lump Eric Pickles, former Tory Friends of Israel Chair termed it the worst example of Holocaust denial he had ever seen. Bristol Post reporter Michael Ribbeck observedthat:

to claim, as Sir Eric Pickles has done, that Dr Gould's paper is "one of the worst cases of Holocaust denial" is quite frankly ridiculous and inflammatory.

Perhaps Sir Eric should read up on the discredited historian David Irving before he starts throwing around accusations and trite soundbites.

Kenneth Stern, the drafter of the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism wrote, in testimonyto the US Congress about this case that:

Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before. The university then conducted the inquiry. And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise
itself was chilling and McCarthy-like.

Chilling and McCarthy like. That is an excellent description of the campaign to dismiss David Miller.

Is this the 'abusive' message Isaacs claims was sent to him?

David Isaacs – Chair of Bristol J Soc and a Liar

The attack on David beganon February 15 in the Jewish Chronicle with an article by Liar Lee Harpin, arrestedfor having hacked phones at the Daily Mirror. He got away with that and has been defaming people ever since. He has since transferred his affections to the Jewish News which, on 13 August reported that ‘David Miller campaign accuses Jewish students of ‘whitewashing colonialism’.

‘The president of the Jewish Society at the university, Edward Isaacs, has also said that he was personally targeted for abuse in the wake of the academic’s broadside against the J-Soc.’

It went on to state that

‘‘The Union of Jewish Students has repeatedly criticised Bristol University for failing to take action “to protect Jewish students, who have been singled out and targeted.” 

This allegation is a complete lie and an example of the dishonesty of the campaign. Was the ‘abuse’ that Isaacs complains of from me? If so it was in response to an attempt by Isaacs to join Labour Against the Witchhunt Facebook Group. As the moderator I messaged him, asking what his motives were. 

‘You have applied to join Labour Against the Witchhunt. Why? You are Chair of a J Soc, i.e. the UJS which is funded by the world’s only apartheid state.

Why should a Zionist want to join an anti-racist group?’ Isaacs was attempting to join the LAW group as a spy. If this is anti-Semitic abuse then I’m a pear tree!

A second UJS member, AJ Solomon also applied to join the group. Solomon was Deputy Chair of Bristol J Soc and clearly he and Isaacs were acting in concert to try and infiltrate LAW. Unlike Isaacs Solomon responded to my question and we engaged in a conversation.  But then a funny thing happened.

He first started off accusing me of being an anti-Semite, the usual trope but I batted it back and he began to flounder – badly. So what did he do?  He unsent his messages! The conversation is below.  Losing the argument Solomon retreated. Was he harassed? Well if posing difficult questions to a Zionist is harassment then I guess I’m bang to rights!

Another article in the Jewish Chronicle of 13 August, a classic piece piece of McCarthyism complained that

‘Prof Miller is to teach two modules in the coming academic year, one of which has previously been condemned by the Union of Jewish Students for containing “offensive” material, the ‘Support David Miller Campaign’ accused the UJS and Bristol JSoc of existing to “whitewash Zionist colonisation of Palestine” and “manufacturing hysteria”.

The Zionist press assumes that Bristol University administration are as stupid as its few remaining readers.  And they might be right unfortunately. The first ‘Object’ in UJS’s constitutionreads:

2.11    Creating meaningful Jewish campus experiences and inspiring Jewish students to make an enduring commitment to their Jewish identity, Israel, and the community.’

Israel occupies the West Bank and allocates full democratic rights to Jewish settlers whilst granting no rights whatsoever to those of another ethnicity, Palestinians. This is a classic example of Apartheid. Two groups living in the same territory with different rights.

B’Tselem, Israel’s most respected human rights group said in a Report  in January that Israel is a ‘regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid.’

And in April Human Rights Watchdrew the same conclusions in a 300 page report ‘A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution’. The examples are numerous - from ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem to destruction of homes, water pipes and solar panels and the theft and confiscation of land.  All of which UJS defends in the name of Zionism.

This is just the West Bank.  In Israel itself the Palestinian minority is treated as a barely tolerated minority.  In May as Israel was attacking Gaza, there were widespread pogroms against Israel’s Arab citizens. This is what the attacks on David Miller by UJS are about. Both Isaacs and Solomon spent their summer vacation in Israel so they are fully aware of the pogroms and the ‘death to the Arabs’ March of the Flags in Jerusalem. They should bear in mind that ‘death to the Jews’ was the most popular slogan in Nazi Germany and Poland.

But what was it that David Miller said that caused such offence? Did he call for pogroms against Jewish students or threaten violence? Did he, like Bar Ilan Professor Mordechai Kedar who advocated the rape of Palestinian women, suggest raping Jewish women? To ask the question is to answer it.

Israel is a Jewish state, i.e. a state not of all its citizens but of its Jewish citizens. That is why it is inherently racist and that is why UJS seek to demonise anti-Zionist academics like Miller.

Below is a précis of what David actually said that the Union of Jewish Students and the Zionist claque found ‘offensive’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box7unWvr7E&t=5s

David Miller Addressing February 13 Meeting of LCFS

 ‘The enemy we face here is Zionism and the imperial policies of the Israeli state... an all out onslaught by the Israeli government on the left... it is how we defeat the ideology of Zionism in practice.  How do we ensure that Zionism is ended... how we end the material reality of the jackboot of Zionism on the neck of the Palestinians...

I’ve been attacked and complained about by the head of the Bristol J Soc along with the President of the Union of Jewish Students, both of which organisations are formally members of the Zionist movement. J-Socs are part of the UJS, UJS is a member of the World UJS which is a direct member of the World Zionist Organisation. In its constitution UJS mention being pro-Israel. [Davidmentions similar attacks on other academics at Warwick and other universities against anyone speaking out about the Palestinians or criticising Zionism]... We have to fight back against that and the way to do that is to organise proper debate.’

So for advocating a ‘fight back’ by organising a ‘proper debate’ David Miller is guilty of threatening the safety of Jewish students! This is Orwellian doublespeak where words take on the opposite of their actual meaning.

The Dishonest Attacks on David Miller

Of one thing we should be clear. UJS’s attack on David Miller has nothing to do with defending Jewish students – it’s about defending apartheid. As David’s campaign was reportedsaying:

“The UJS and Bristol JSoc have been manufacturing hysteria around Professor Miller’s work for over two years. This is due to his teaching about the role of parts of the Zionist movement in promoting Islamophobia and his expertise on the subject. Both the UJS and Bristol JSoc exist to whitewash Zionist colonisation of Palestine and promote Israeli diplomatic objectives in the UK. No serious observer should take the claims of ‘discomfort’ made by these pro-Israel campaigners at face value, and they should not be allowed to dictate policy to British universities.”

Watch the Defend Miller Rally on Facebook

Also Please Sign the

Petition Defend Professor David Miller - Defend Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom

Transcript of Exchange on Messenger with AJ Solomon – Vice Chair of Bristol J Soc

why do you want to join Labour Against the Witchhunt? To be blunt are you a Zionist? I note you are from the University of Bristol so we can if necessary check if you've been involved in the campaign against David Miller

28 Feb 2021, 02:28You sent

I asked you a question. You have not answered. You are a member of Bristol J-Soc  ie a racist and Zionist you are blocked. Goodbye

28 Feb 2021, 15:19

You sentI suggest instead of pretending that you and the other Zionist Jewish students at Bristol are victims, when you are in fact perpetrators, active supporters of Israel, that you become like the Shministim, the brave Israeli youth who refuse to serve in an occupation army https://www.facebook.com/refusersn/videos/652696338746821

28 Feb 2021, 17:19You sent

Yeah it must be very stressful supporting apartheid and having to face down anti-racists! https://tinyurl.com/yblgczbb

You sentEven more stressful having to deal with arguments you can't answer - it's called fake victimhood

28 Feb 2021, 22:59

AJhttps://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/what-is-anti-israel-anti-semitic-anti-zionist

2 Mar 2021, 06:44

Is that the same ADL that spied for South Africa's secret police (BOSS) and trains US Police Forces in how to kill Black people better? Your as much a victim as Germany's 'Aryans' were in 1933! https://www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-organization/signature-programs/partnering-with-law-enforcement

2 Mar 2021, 10:24

AJJust deflecting from the fact that this clearly calls both you and David Miller an anti semite

2 Mar 2021, 19:12

You sent

Then that shows what a rubbish definition it is then. If you redefine anti-Semitism to mean opposition to Zionism then fine. We're all 'antisemitic' But at least I'm not a racist scumbag like you!

AJThe article does not say anti-Semitism is the opposite to Zionism, it says anti-Zionism may be motivated by or a result of anti-Semitism

What is anti-Semitic is saying all Jews such as myself is responsible for Israel’s actions

You sent

that is the position of the ADL. Anti-Zionism is never motivated by anti-Semitism. That's why the friends of Zionism are people like Trump, white supremacists like Tommy Robinson and Richard Spencer and leaders like Viktor Orban. You are wet behind the ears. You know nothing of Jewish or Zionist history. Polish Jews voted overwhelmingly for the anti-Zionist Bund in the last free elections. In Warsaw out of 20 Jewish Council seats the Bund won 17 and the Zionists precisely one

You sent

Yes it is anti-Semitic to say that all Jews are responsible for Israel's crimes but you need to take it up with Israel not me. Israel calls itself a Jewish state and specifically states that it is a state of the whole Jewish people (a nonsense in itself). It is Zionism which plays into the hands of anti-Semites which is why Zionism has historically formed alliances with anti-Semites. I suspect like most Zionists you know nothing about Zionism. Try reading Herzl's Jewish State where he talks about the 'power of the purse' of Jews. Or the social Darwinist writings of Arthur Ruppin, the second most important Palestinian Zionist after Ben Gurion who openly proclaimed he was an anti-Semite. Do you even know of the concept of the Negation of the Diaspora? When Zionism began most Jews accused it of being a Jewish version of anti-Semitism.

For 40 Years UJS has been Weaponising Anti-Semitism & Harassing Anti-Zionist Jews – now it’s turning its attention to Anti-Zionist Academics

In my blogon Bristol University’s use of a kangaroo court to effect the dismissal of Professor David Miller by using the vitriolic attacks of the British Establishment, I pointed to the role played by UJS. UJS portrays itself as a cuddly organisation whose sole concern is the 'safety' of ‘vulnerable’ Jewish students who are ‘upset’ by lecturers who hold anti-Zionist views.

This is the image as portrayed by the British press and the BBC. However the reality is entirely different. What is never mentioned is that UJS’s constitutionspecifically commits it to ‘inspiring’ Jewish students ‘to make an enduring commitment to their Jewish identity, Israel, and the community.’

UJS is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation via the World Union of Jewish Students. The WZO is a funder and co-ordinator of the settlements in the West Bank. It has a ‘land theft division’. Of this UJS says nothing.

If Jewish students in Britain were subject to the persecution that Palestinian students face on the West Bank, including arrests on campus, beatings and torture, then they would have just cause to complain of anti-Semitism.  As it is we should treat members of UJS for what they are - spoilt White racists.

Al Jazeera’s documentary ‘The Lobby’ showed how Adam Schapira, a candidate for the Presidency of UJS openly admitted that UJS was funded by the Israeli Embassy.

The campaign against David Miller has been waged on behalf of the Israeli state. That is why a raft of MPs, none of whom have ever had the slightest concern about racism, like Ian Paisley, signed a letterto Vice Chancellor Hugh Brady, demanding the dismissal of David Miller.

I understand from sources at Bristol University that the panel which will be hearing his case is nothing more than a formality. That a consensus has already been formed that in order to relieve the pressure on the university, Miller must go.

Among the racist signatories to the letter are Baroness Cox and Bob Blackman, Tory MP for Harrow East.

Cox is the Queen of anti-Islamic bigots. In February 2009, Cox and UKIP peer Lord Pearson invited the fascist leader of the Dutch Freedom PartyGeert Wilders, who supports banning the Islamic religion outright, to show the anti-Islam film Fitnaat the House of Lords. Wilders was banned from entering Britain.Cox accused the Government of appeasing militant Islam.

In 2010 Cox and Pearson hosted Wilders and his film with 200 members of the fascist EDL marching in support of the screening.  Cox said in a speech in Israel that “Islam is using the freedoms of democracy to destroy it”

Cox is prominent in the Henry Jackson Society and is a directorof the far-Right Gatestone Institute which hostsher writings online. In 2007, she toldthe Jerusalem Summit, of which she has been co-president since 2005, that “Britain has been deeply infiltrated” by Islamist extremists, who have converted the country into “a base for training and teaching militant Islam”. She added that “Britain’s cultural and spiritual heritage are under threat.”

Cox also told the Jerusalem Post she was concerned about “the disturbing alliance between the Islamists and the Left in the UK,”

According to Craig Murray, Cox is “a prominent supporter of organisations which actively and openly promote the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Gaza.’

Bob Blackman MP is the most racist member of the House of Commons. And this is a hotly contested title. MP for Harrow East, Blackman was accused of Islamophobia after posting an anti-Muslim article on Facebook for which he subsequently apologised. Blackman had shared a story: “Muslim Somali sex gang say raping white British children ‘part of their culture'.”

Blackman had previously retweeted an anti-Muslim post by Tommy Robinson. Vicerevealedthat Blackman had been a member of several far-right Islamophobic Facebook groups such as "Britain for the British", "For Britain Political Party" and "Pendragons Fight Back".

"Britain for the British" is administered by BNP supporter Steven Devlin. It features numerous pro-Hitler comments and others which wish violence upon London Mayor Sadiq Khan, accusing him of being an "Islamofascist" and "traitor", and hoping that he dies.

Blackman is also a patron of the racist far-right Zionist group the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.

Blackman is a supporter of the BJPPrime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. When the Conservative Friends of Kashmir began, Blackman urgedBoris Johnson not to recognise them.

When the BJP declared martial law and occupied Kashmir, Blackman wroteto Johnson describing it as an ‘excellent decision’. It would, he said allow the Kashmiri people ‘to enjoy the benefits of being part of India.’ Strangely enough the people of Kashmir weren’t so appreciative!

Blackman also hostedHindu racist Tapan Ghosh in the Commons. Ghosh called for the UN to control the birth rate of Muslims, praised the genocide of Rohingya Muslims and said that Muslims should be forced to leave their religion if they come to a western country.

The Milli Gazette described Blackman as a ‘rabidly pro-Hindutva Tory MP’.  Untouchables in India are treated as sub-human yet Blackman sought to remove protection against caste discrimination in the Equality Act. Blackman succeeded in this.

Blackman also opposes ‘Hinduphobia’. Anyone who challenges caste discrimination or supports Kashmiri self-determination is a ‘Hinduphobe’. They have taken a leaf out of the Zionists’ book.

Baroness Cox - a bigot for all seasons

TheyWorkForYou described how Blackman almost always voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.

Ø   On 18 Jul 2019:Blackman voted not to legalise abortion under any circumstances in Northern Ireland.

Ø   On 9 Jul 2019:Blackman voted not to permit same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland.

Ø   On 26 May 2016:Blackman voted to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998.

Ø   On 16 Apr 2013:Blackman voted against making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of caste

In Bob on caste as a protected characteristic Blackman revealed how

‘MPs received a written ministerial statement making it clear that this protected characteristic is going to be removed from the Equality Act. Bob urged the Minister to bring forward, without delay, proposals to remove this unnecessary, ill-thought-out and divisive move in the Equality Act 2010.’

Sunny Hundal of the Hindustan Times ‏tweeted“Astonishing. Tory MP in London playing Hindu divide-and-rule caste politics with leaflets for Hindus. Nasty”.  See Blackman not supported!

These are some of the supporters of dismissing David Miller at Bristol University. But what of the Union of Jewish Students?

The Experiences of Emma Clyne, Chair of SOAS J-Soc

Emma become Chair of the Jewish society at SOAS in 2006-7 despite not being a Zionist. Emma describedthe ‘intense pressure’ from UJS:

Before she became the chair of the SOAS Jewish Society, she had found it was like an Israel Society…. She took over the chair on condition that there was to be a clear distinction between the Jewish Society and the Israel Society. This led to a furious reaction from UJS which told her: “That’s not what the Jewish Society does. You can’t separate Israeli politics from Jewish identity. It is all the same.”

The antagonism reached a peak after she went to the launch of Independent Jewish Voices in 2007 and found the speakers “honest articulate and inspirational.” When she invited some of the speakers [like Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC] to a meeting at SOAS to discuss “the impact of nationalism on Jewish identity” the pressure on her increased, and she was told that UJS and the Israeli Embassy were very concerned about the meeting.

I described in an article for the Guardian’s Comment is Free [before Jonathan Freedland banned anti-Zionists] what happened next:

According to... Emma Clyne, posters for a meeting the society put on were repeatedly torn down. Ms Clyne told a meeting of Independent Jewish Voices on May 15 that she had to put new ones up every day.

A clue as to the reason for its silence might lie in an article in the Jewish Chronicle of April 27 ("Students in censorship row over IJV debate").

The then Chair of UJS, Mitch Simmons, made clear ‘"It is the view of the UJS that certain views are not acceptable under free speech."This is what UJS really stand for. My own experiences were similar.

Despite having been Vice-President of Brighton Polytechnic Student Union for 2 years, on the National Union of Students Polytechnics Committee, also for 2 years and a delegate to NUS Conference 13 times, UJS tried to ban me from campuses.  Why?  Because I was anti-Semitic! 

Some of the delightful material I was regularly sent

No matter that I was a founder member of Brighton & Hove Anti-fascist Committee, Secretary of Brighton Anti-Nazi League from 1979-1982, on the Executive of Anti-Fascist Action from 1986 onwards and the victim of a number of attacks by fascists (some of whom were convicted of assault), that I received regular death threats from fascists including making a guest appearance on Red Watch, a neo-Nazi site which prints details of anti-fascists in order that they can be attacked.  

I am even the author of the only book on the Fight Against Fascism in Brighton and the South Coast. According to UJS I am anti-Semitic! This is from people who have never lifted a finger to fight fascism.

Meeting at the LSE 5 November 1986

Throughout the Lebanon invasion and its aftermath I spoke up and down the country at Student Union Union General Meetings and on campuses.  UJS never failed to try to get me banned!  Being Jewish most people cottoned on to what they were trying to do and they failed without exception.

But it was at the London School of Economics in 1986 that UJSs tactics came unstuck. I had been invited to speak to a meeting of the Palestine society and sure enough, the well oiled-machinery of UJS sprang into action.

I was portrayed as a racist and anti-Semite.  Why? Because the then NUS President David Aaronovitch, who is currently the pro-war neo-liberal columnist for The Times but who was then in the Communist Party (although equally right-wing!) had banned me from NUS Conference.

Naturally the LSE J-Soc expected everyone to take their word for it that I was what they said I was. The problem was that the local Labour society decided to investigate for themselves and quickly found out that UJS were not telling the truth. Comrades in Anti-Fascist Action such as Unmesh Desai, (who is now a right-wing Blairite on the Greater Labour Assembly but was then a socialist), testified that I was anything but a fascist. So too did friends at the Institute of Race Relations and in other campaigns. 

The result was that the Labour Club printed a leaflet which gave both sides of the story which was the last thing UJS and LSE J-Soc wanted. UJS often forgets that this is not Israel. There is still, at least the remnants of free speech in Britain. There is no such thing as a 'gag order' or censorship in Britain unlike Israel.

As an anti-fascist organiser I was subject to a number of physical attacks - whereas UJS spend most of their time defending Israeli fascists

James Paget described how a friend of his was accosted by 5-6 Zionists: ‘When he turned around he was greeted with a viciousness I have rarely seen.’ When Paget defended him he too was labelled a fascist. Paget described how his friend

Has been a supporter of anti-fascist organisations since he was 16 and he has been a strong and fervent activist against all forms of racism. To accuse someone who has fought so clearly and consistently against racism of being a racist naturally causes great distress and I can only describe it as disgusting. My friend was apparently abused because he was involved in the Labour Club’s examination of the Tony Greenstein affair.’

The Labour Club Executive itself issued a statement on this affair and it is worth reprinting in its entirety because it casts a light, not only on what is happening in Bristol with the attack on David Miller but the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations which played such a pivotal part in undermining Jeremy Corbyn.

Dear Editor,

Regarding the Friends of Palestine meeting with Tony Greenstein the Labour Club was approached by several members of the UJS. We contacted several national organisations for information about Tony Greenstein and as a result produced a leaflet with the two contradictory accounts of his views and activities. We distributed this outside of the meeting where a speech was made condemning the Labour Club for being racist and anti-Semitic. The members who heard this left in a distressed state after the insults and the ruthless accusations.

One of the Labour Club members who had left earlier was approached in Houghton St. by several members of the UJS who proceeded to insult him publicly, calling him a racist, anti-Semitic, fascist. He was deeply distressed and grossly insulted  as he has been involved in anti-fascist groups for nearly 10 years.

We are firmly opposed to all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism. We utterly condemn this slanderous public intimidation of members of our club.

What happened at the LSE is standard tactic of the UJS. If you don’t agree with them then you too are a racist. It is an example of racists calling anti-racists ‘racist’. I was often called a racist by members of the National Front who said I and my comrades were ‘anti-White’. There is nothing new in this form of abuse and people should stopped falling for this. They wouldn’t have done so when it came to Apartheid in South Africa and they shouldn’t because supporters of Israeli Apartheid are Jewish. They trade on the memory of the Holocaust.

Tony Greenstein

See Guardian Comment is Free Vetting in Practice

OPEN LETTER TO CAROLINE LUCAS MP – Why Have You Signed a Parliamentary Letter Attacking Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech in Support of Apartheid Israel?

The alliance between Israel, Zionism and Hindu Nationalism is based on a shared belief in ethnic cleansing and ethno-nationalism  and UK: Corbyn, the Hindu far-right and Israel’s partisans

 Edward Isaacs is a Liar

I have just had a Facebook message from Edward Isaacs, the racist Chair of the Bristol Jewish (i.e. Israel) Society who spent his  holidays in Apartheid Israel with his fellow racist, A J Solomon, Deputy Chair of Bristol J-Soc.

No doubt they had talks with the Israeli Ministry of Dirty Tricks aka Strategic Affairs as to how the campaign to sack David Miller was going. I am sure it is very profitable going on expenses free trips to Israel as ‘victims’.

Isaacs messaged me to say that if I called him a Liar again he would sue me for libel.  As Clint Eastwood said in Sudden Impact‘Go Ahead.  Make My Day.’

In my blog I called Isaacs a liar and for some strange reason he took exception to it.

For the avoidance of all doubt Edward Isaacs is a Liar and a Racist.  As the latter is a matter of fact he probably won’t sue me on that account!

Tony Greenstein

  Israelis Mourn as Border Police Sniper Barel Shmueli is Killed By Those He Tried to Kill

It isn’t often that we get good news from Palestine. Palestinians are celebrating the escape of 6 prisoners from the maximum security Gilboa prison. In Israel’s lexicon these prisoners have ‘blood on their hands’.

It is a phrase that wasn’t used to describe the Border Policeman who murdered, in cold blood, the autistic boy Iyad Hallak who died in a hail of bullets on 30 May 2020. Iyad was cowering in a garbage hut in East Jerusalem when the animal in uniform unleashed a volley of bullets as he whimpered on the floor with his carer screaming at them not to shoot and that he was disabled.

The pathetic excuse of his killer was that he mistook a mobile phone in his hand for a gun. It is strange that no Jewish children have ever been gunned down because their mobiles are mistaken for a gun.

We should remember that when Keir Starmer or his echo chamber Lisa Nandy tell us that sanctions on Israel is ‘anti-Semitic’. We should also remember it when the cowards of Labour’s ‘left’ – Momentum under Andrew Scattergood and the CLPD – hide in the corner, afraid to mention the word ‘anti-Semitism’ in case the wrath of the gods might descend on them.

These fools and cowards still have not got the message that ‘anti-Semitism’ is a weapon deployed to deflect support for the Palestinians and opposition to the racist movement that is called Zionism.

Iyad’s death struck me personally because I too have an autistic boy aged 32. He is a boy because although physically a man he has the mental age of a child. Yet I would not expect a British cop, even the finest specimen of the Metropolian Police, to gun him down because they had such bad eyesight that they couldn’t tell the difference between a mobile phone and a gun.

However we should be grateful that a year later the Border Pig that executed Iyad has been charged with ‘reckess manslaughter’ which carries a maximum of 12 years prison.

You can rest assured though that the Police Killer will not even serve a fraction of 12 years, even if he is found guilty. The Israeli Right will be baying about a cop being charged in the line of duty. Indeed even before charges are filed the excuses have begun:

Ha’aretz reports that his lawyers are already claiming that the police misconduct investigation unit’s "unfortunate decision" reflected a "serious mistake in judgment," and a "complete lack of understanding" of operational matters by the unit. 

And one can but have sympathy for them because if this prosecution goes ahead, other officers who  might kill more Palestinian children may be dissuaded ‘from acting in the future for fear of being prosecuted. A situation in which an officer acts in good faith while on-duty and finds himself on the docket is an intolerable situation," they continued. 

celebrating the escapes

Despite there being 10 CCTV cameras in the area where Iyad’s murder took place apparently none of them were working on the day. In Israel police investigators don’t even bother to hide or disguise how corrupt they are. Forced to file a minor manslaughter charge they were equally determined to ensure that the truth of this execution did not appear on film.

No doubt as the trial gets nearer, assuming it ever goes ahead, there will be right-wing demonstrations, portraits of the killer surrounded by his family and friends, testimonies to how he loves his children etc.

But if we had one piece of good news this week with the escape of 6 Palestinians from gaol there was also another piece of good news, also involving a member of the hated Border Police.

For the past 4 years Israel has deployed snipers along the border fence with Gaza to deal with demonstrators who get too close to the fence. Over 300 unarmed demonstrators have been murdered and thousands injured by illegal ammunition designed to cripple people. This includes 21 year old medic Razan al-Najar, murdered whilst tending to the wounded. If Russian or Chinese Police were to mow down unarmed demonstrators it would be front page news and on the BBC’s 24 hour rolling news cycle but of course it’s Israel and the least said the soonest mended.

the killer who was killed

Last week border guard police officer Barel Shmueli was in the process of shooting at unarmed demonstrators when a Palestinian fighter rushed to the scene and shot him through the very hole he had been using to shoot people through.  Most people would say that what happened is justice but Prime Minister Bennett called him ‘‘a fighter in his life and a fighter in his death’.

What kind of state is it when those who kill civilians are lauded for their bravery?  By these standards we should reevaluate the behaviour of the SS in Yugoslavia. This is what Israel has become.  As Gideon Levy, one of the few Israeli columnists with a conscience wrote, in a week when the Israeli army killed 6 Palestinian civilians, including a 12 year old boy whose car was machine gunned by Israel’s bravest, the only killing which merited any coverage was that of Police killer Shmueli.

  ‘Behind all this is contempt for Palestinian lives. Nothing is valued less in Israel than the life of a Palestinian. Draw a straight line from the construction workers falling like flies to their death at building sites in Israel with nobody to care, to the unarmed protesters in the occupied territories fatally shot by soldiers while nobody bats an eye.’

And yet there are those who say, like the despicable Lisa Nandy, that to call Israel a racist state is anti-Semitic.

As Levy noted it is only permissible to shoot one way – from Israel into SS Gaza.  To shoot the other way is ‘terrorism’.

When other countries’ armies fire at protesters, Israelis cluck with disapproval: What evil regimes these are. But when our army does this, it is not only pure, it is the victim. The ”terrorist” dared to shoot the sniper who came to shoot him. How barbaric, what savages they are in Gaza, we need to smash them with everything we’ve got. Just ask the people praying in the Soroka Hospital parking lot.

According to Shmueli's mother, the reason for their son's death is the fact that the present Israeli government coalition rests on the support of an Arab party, Ra'am. 'If the prime minister sits with [Ra’am party leader Mansour] Abbas, it’s an assassination of Israel.'

Naturally Israel’s Labor Zionist President, Isaac Herzog paid his condolences to Shmueli’s family, and said: “Barel fell as a hero’.  You would think Shmueli had fallen trying to take out a machine gun nest of an opposing army.  He fell trying to wound and kill unarmed protestors.  This is the brave Israeli army!

But we should not think that Gideon Levy is necessarily representative of Ha’aretz. Its Security Correspondent Amos Harel clucked that Palestinian Prison Break Could Embolden Terror Groups in West Bank and Gaza.

This comes after the attack on Gaza in May when 12 families were erased from the Earth. This followed Operation Protective Edge in 2014 when 142 Palestinian families were erased (742 people in total). As Amir Hass reported, these were not mistakes. These homes were deliberately targeted by an airforce which can precisely target a room in a block of flats. Israel holds the population registry of Gaza. It knows where each individual lives. Somewhere in Israeli military echelons a decision was taken to wipe out complete families.  This is Nazi style behaviour from a state which claims the holocaust as its moral foundation. See Gaza Lives Erased: Israel Is Wiping Out Entire Palestinian Families on Purpose

Tony Greenstein

In Israel, the cold-blooded killing of Palestinians is met with silence

Scores of unarmed Palestinians, including children, have been murdered since the end of Israel's May assault. Yet this is now so normal, the Israeli media and army barely mention it

Gideon Levy

Superficially, things are relatively quiet these days in the Israeli-occupied territories. There are no Israeli casualties, almost no attacks in the West Bank and certainly not inside Israel. Gaza has been quiet since the end of Israel’s latest offensive there, Operation Guardian of the Walls.

In the West Bank, the despair-inducing routine of daily life grinds on during this so-called period of quiet - which is precisely the irony crying out for our notice in this terrifying statistic: since May, more than 40 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank.

In a single week at the end of July, the Israeli military killed four Palestinians - one of them a child of 12. Two of the 40 were from one village, Beita, which lately has lost six of its residents; five were unarmed protesters, and one was a plumber reportedly summoned to fix a faucet somewhere. None of the four killed in late July posed any threat to the lives of any Israeli soldier or settler.

Using live ammunition against any of these people was prohibited, never mind aiming to kill, as did the Israeli soldiers who shot them. Four human beings or, if you prefer, 40 human beings, with families whose world was shattered, people with plans and dreams and loves, all suddenly ended by some young Israeli soldier so casually and so brutally.

In case all that is not enough, note this: the Israeli media hardly covered these killings. Neither of Israel’s two leading newspapers mentioned the killing of the 12-year-old boy in Beit Omar, between Bethlehem and Hebron, nor did either of the two most important commercial televisions stations bother to report it.

Put another way, the killing of a boy of 12, Mohammed al-Alami, who had been shopping with his father and sister when Israeli soldiers levelled a stream of bullets into the family’s car, killing the boy, who like his father had done nothing wrong - this was evidently deemed by some Israeli media a story of no importance and no interest.

Indifference to murder

There is no other way to explain this widespread inattention to an act of murder. Consider also that all those other murders since May were barely reported, never mind investigated, and you get a picture of Israel’s repression and denial of the occupation via the media’s version of “iron dome”, courtesy of the free press, in all its wretchedness. 

Protected by a silenced media, Israelis were spared this ugly picture of their army and its brutal modus operandi. Protected by that silence, denial and repression, even Israeli politicians and generals were not made to explain or even address the fact that rarely a week goes by in the occupied territories without Palestinian casualties, even during this relatively quiet period.

"If the soldiers were to shoot stray animals as casually as they shoot Palestinians, there would be public howls of outrage and the soldiers would be tried and severely punished"

Thus until a few days ago, no army commander had issued any criticism of the behaviour of these soldiers, let alone any mention of bringing charges or opening a serious investigation. Only after a series of articles and editorials in Haaretz did commander-in-chief Lieutenant-General Aviv Kochavi, viewed as a figure with moral standards, communicate a “request to lower the temperature”. Not an order; a request. No charges and no investigation, just a vague declaration of good intentions for the future. 

Behind all this is contempt for Palestinian lives. Nothing is valued less in Israel than the life of a Palestinian. Draw a straight line from the construction workers falling like flies to their death at building sites in Israel with nobody to care, to the unarmed protesters in the occupied territories fatally shot by soldiers while nobody bats an eye.

One common factor unites them all: the conviction in Israel that Palestinian lives are cheap. If the soldiers were to shoot stray animals as casually as they shoot Palestinians, there would be public howls of outrage and the soldiers would be tried and severely punished. But they’re only killing Palestinians, so what’s the problem?

When an Israeli soldier shoots a Palestinian child in the head or a Palestinian teenager or demonstrator or plumber through the heart, Israeli society is mute and apathetic. It makes do with the flimsy explanations and sometimes outright lies provided by the army spokesperson, omitting any expression of moral qualms about the need to kill.

So many of these fatalities I have investigated and documented and written about in the newspaper have evoked no particular interest.

Death of a plumber

Shadi Omar Lotfi Salim, 41, a prosperous plumber who lived in Beita in the central West Bank, left home on the evening of 24 July, heading for the main road where the mains valve to the village’s water supply was located, after someone evidently discovered a problem there.

He parked his jeep alongside the road and walked back toward the valve, a red monkey wrench in his hand. It was 10:30pm. As he neared the valve, soldiers in the vicinity suddenly opened fire and fatally shot him. They later claimed that he had run toward them holding a metal bar. The only metal bar was the red monkey wrench left behind on the ground alongside his packet of cigarettes and a bloodstain, already dry when we got there a few days after his death.

One week later in the same village, soldiers killed Imad Ali Dweikat, 37, a construction labourer, father of four young daughters and a two-month-old boy. This was during the village’s weekly Friday protest. Beita residents had been demonstrating weekly for the last two months or so against the establishment of a rogue outpost on village land. The settlement, Givat Eviatar, was erected unofficially, and then emptied of its residents by Israel - but the 40 structures rapidly built there were not demolished. The land has not been returned to its owners, who are not allowed to come near it.

Since Givat Eviatar was launched over 10 weeks ago, five Palestinian protesters have already been killed there by soldiers. None of the five was close enough to endanger the soldiers in any way, even as demonstrators were throwing stones and burning tyres to protest against the takeover of their land.

The residents are determined to continue resisting until their lands are returned to them, and meanwhile the blood flows, week after week.

Shot at random

Dweikat was drinking a glass of water when an Israeli sniper chose him, apparently at random, and shot him through the heart from a distance of several hundred metres. The bullet exploded inside his body, damaging his internal organs, and Dweikat died on the spot, blood pouring from his mouth. His baby boy, Ali, was made an orphan soon after his birth.

These deaths were all executions. There is no other way to describe them

A few weeks earlier, soldiers shot teenager Muhammad Munir al-Tamimi from another protesting village, Nabi Saleh, and killed him. Tamimi was 17 and became his small village’s fifth fatality in the last few years. Everyone in the community belongs to the Tamimi family and for years now they have been resisting the theft of their lands by the surrounding settlements.

These deaths were all executions. There is no other way to describe them. Shooting unarmed protesters, teenagers, children, a plumber, a construction labourer, people demonstrating publicly in the quest to regain their property and their freedom is a crime. There are very few regimes in this world where unarmed protesters are shot - apart from Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East”, where the people’s peace of mind shows barely a tremor.

Even the grumbling heard here and there at the systematic killing has to do with whether it might lead to a deterioration in the situation overall. On the question of the legality and especially the morality of the murder of innocents, nobody says a word.

Israel is considered a democracy, a darling of the western world with similar western values. Forty unarmed civilians killed in the last two-and-a-half months, and four killed in the last week of July alone, are painful if mute testimony to the fact that while still viewed as a democracy, Israel is measured by a completely different yardstick than that applied to any other country.

Can We Worry Only About a Wounded Israeli Soldier, and Not the Victims in Gaza Too?

Gideon Levy

Is it permissible to look in another direction? Is it even possible? The grave injury of Border Policeman Barel Hadaria Shmueli has swept Israel into an almost unprecedented display of concern and media coverage, combined with moral blindness. His distraught father rebukes the country’s leaders, somebody records the harsh conversations and sends them to others, someone else rushes to publicize and make a big deal of them; a careful score is kept and a denunciation issued for anyone who took too long to visit or didn’t visit at all; the IDF chief of staff and government ministers sneak into the hospital by the back door lest the family’s angry accusations against them be made public, while mass prayers continue outside.

There is a ranking system for the wounded, too, in terms of public interest, just like for the fallen and for captives – on the basis of their identity, their affiliations and politics. There is Hadar Goldin and Shmueli and there are other families. Shmueli is not the first, and won’t be the last, to be seriously wounded. The pain of his family and friends is altogether human and understandable. Less so for all the rest.

Once again, at the Gaza border, things are turned upside down. The victim becomes the accused, the tyrant becomes the victim. Through the slit in the Gaza wall it is only permissible to shoot in one direction. Gunfire in the opposite direction is a crime for which the two million inhabitants of Gaza must be punished. Shmueli is a policeman and sniper who was brought to the fence to shoot protesters. By what moral criterion is it okay for an Israeli sniper to shoot protesters while a Palestinian is not permitted to shoot at those who are shooting at him?

When other countries’ armies fire at protesters, Israelis cluck with disapproval: What evil regimes these are. But when our army does this, it is not only pure, it is the victim. The ”terrorist” dared to shoot the sniper who came to shoot him. How barbaric, what savages they are in Gaza, we need to smash them with everything we’ve got. Just ask the people praying in the Soroka Hospital parking lot.

In Gaza there are more than 300 bereaved families from the previous wave of protests, at least 36 families who lost children that were killed by this accursed wall, and thousands of families with a wounded or disabled family member from the 27,000 who were wounded, 88 of whom lost limbs.

No one thinks about them. No one talks about the boy Omar. Is it permitted in Israel to worry about him? Is it permitted to think that he is the main victim? Or are we all Shmueli, only Shmueli?

Politics and the English Language – How Herr Stürmer Changed the Meaning of Ordinary Words

We are all familiar with the abuse of language. When the Mafia ask you to pay them ‘protection money’ they are not offering you an insurance policy, at least not in the normal sense of the word. What they mean is that if you don’t hand over regular amounts of cash then your life may not be worth living.

Likewise when Keith Stürmer and his glove puppet David Evans talk about ‘rooting out’ anti-Semites what they really mean is getting rid of anti-racists and anti-imperialists. None of this is new even if the debasement of political language has reached new heights under Sir Stürmer.

In 1946 George Orwell wrote an essay"Politics and the English Language" describing this phenomenon.

‘Political language …is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’

Orwell described how

‘political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.’ That was why ‘political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.’

Orwell wrote 1984 about a dystopian future in which terms such as Newspeak and Doublethink entered the English language. We see this clearly in the Labour Party with terms such as Notice of Investigation that victims of the purge are sent.

The process bears as much relation to an ‘Investigation’ as the Inquisition did. A genuine investigation starts out from a dispassionate search for the truth whereas ‘investigations’ in the Labour Party are merely a search for any evidence, however trivial with which to exclude you. The decision has already been reached, what is necessary is  turning up some evidence.

Orwell saw the debasement of language as reflecting the debasement of society and a not too subtle attempt to control and restrict the parameters of thought of the lower classes. Just as the Victorians opposed teaching children to write, as opposed to reading, because they might start thinking of challenging their condition (reading being necessary in order to read instructions), so the idea behind distorting and changing the meaning of words is to restrict peoples’ ability to think beyond the mundane.

A good example is the term ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’. When I was arrested earlier in the year on a Palestine Action outing to Elbit, I was remanded for a week in Birmingham prison. At reception a prison officer asked me whether or not I was an ‘extremist’.  I used the opportunity to probe into what she meant by extremist and it was clear that she had very little idea of what this loaded term meant. I put it to her that all those who had fought for freedom in the past, from the Chartists to the Suffragettes had been termed ‘extremists’ in their time.

Of course the Jewish Chronicle, an ‘extreme’ example of journalistic malevolence (indeed to describe the Jewish Chronicle’s scribblers as journalists is another abuse of language) then said I had compared myself to the suffragettes. Proof if any were needed that stupidity isn’t confined to the lower classes!

Of course the term ‘extremist’ is used as a way of delineating the boundaries of acceptable thought. So the Prevent Thinking programme is based on eliminating extremists whom they define as people who think subversive thoughts.

So if you support Israel bombing a few families in Gaza into oblivion then that is fine, because that is how we introduce third world peoples to the benefits of western civilisation.  But if you support the Palestinians, then that is ‘extremist’ because according to the IHRA Definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ (itself a prime example of Doublethink) you are anti-Semitic.

The use of the term ‘moderate’ is another example of how language is changed in order to bestow an air of neutrality on loaded political terms. So if you support Trident nuclear submarines which can murder millions of people at a drop of a hat you are a ‘moderate’. However if you oppose weapons of mass murder you are an ‘extremist’ and a threat to our way of life.

A good example of the use of the ‘moderate’ v ‘extremist’ binary is when the Roosevelt Administration in 1933 were trying to prevent the Boycott of the Nazi regime growing. A State Department spokesman argued that Hitler represented an ‘element of moderation’ in the Nazi Party and that a boycott campaign would undermine his position! (Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement, p.19)

What is remarkable is how someone with nothing to say came to lead the Labour Party - a perfect picture of nothing

Closely allied to this is Doublethink or to put it in psychological terms, Cognitive Dissonance. Holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time. So there are for example people who describe themselves as Zionists who also believe that they are Anti-racists.  Owen Jones is probably the best example of someone who effortlessly manages to lie to himself (as well as to everyone else!)

A friend of mine, who shall have to remain nameless given the State of Terror currently in force in the Labour Party has compiled a list of common terms in the Labour Party and their new meanings. Unfortunately I cannot give him or her the credit which is due because an appearance on my blog would give rise to an automatic auto-exclusion (itself of course an example of the debasement of language since you are not excluding yourself, they are excluding you!).

Tony Greenstein

Anti-semite  used be a person who hates Jews, now a person Jews hate – that is, Jews as defined by the Board of Deputies (see below).   Whereas the old anti-semitism was a stick used by the far-right with which to beat Jews, the “new antisemitism” is a stick used by racist Jews and non-Jews  to beat anti-racists with.

Broad Church– The Broad Church is a building whose central element is a Knave (used to be spelled “nave”) but now updated.  “B” also for

Board of Deputies– used to be a body opposed to any physical resistance to anti-semitism. Today it is a BODy calling those advocating physical resistance to fascists anti-semites (see above, or rather, look away).

Community– this retains its old meaning but when preceded by the word “Jewish” loses its plural form.  “C” also stands for

Confidentiality– this used to indicate a protection for those accused of an offence but today denotes a stripping away from those accused of the right to announce or discuss accusations or seek support in any form.   “C” also stands for

Candidate     a person chosen by the leadership for his or her loyalty to Keir Starmer.

Denier          (disambiguation: nothing to do with nylon stockings) and

Denialist        This used to be applied to holocaust deniers (anti-semites) but today refers to the denial of statistics offered by the Community Security Trust, denial of exaggerated estimates of anti-semitism promoted by the Labour leadership in favour of evidence-based estimates or denying that David Evans has the right to determine what can and cannot be discussed in a branch meeting.  If talking about the weather seems unsuitable it can be used as common conversation opener: “Do you deny that there was anti-semitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn?”

Enough         (as in Enough is enough) – a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “Dayenu”, convenient for any placard. 

“Emet           (truth) this term has fallen into disuse.  It is an intriguing example of “culture capture”, like Israel using the Star of David, whereby a religious idea is adopted for political purposes (see also “Dayenu” the refrain of a Passover prayer).  Used to be limited to the phrase “Enough already” but this is long out of use. 

Forde             a disappearing act, as in the phrase “to do a Forde”, that is, to so redefine your purpose so as to discount your own existence.  It is an updated version of what happens when Snark hunters find a Boojum.  (For all literary references see Rule Book 2019)

Governance and Legal UnitGLU (no “e” in the spelling but don’t let that spoil the joke) is an organisation that will stick at nothing. Also known as the Teflon Truth Unit.  Generally confused with the Compliance Unit, which is itself generally confused.

Hasbara         refers to Israeli state propaganda, which according to the leadership does not exist because to say it exists is an anti-semitic trope.  “H” also stands for

Humpty Dumpty          famous for his arbitrary definitions.

Inclusive      an archaism now only found in documents that exclude Party critics, usage otherwise ornamental.  Also 

Investigation      a long drawn-out procedure following a punishment (Historians say it used to be the other way round).  Also

Israel             the only country with no propaganda machine (see above for Israeli state propaganda).

Jew               a person designated as such by the BoD, a supporter of Israel no matter what.  Member of a rapidly dwindling group in the Labour Party.  Not to be used in the phrase “anti-Zionist Jew”, even in a party that loves oxymorons.

Keir Starmer name of a legal expert that wouldn’t know a clause from a Klutz.  A person “doing a Forde” (on his own).  “K” could also stand for

Kafka             a man who wasted his time describing an unnamed victimising bureaucracy when he could just as well have described the current Labour Party.

LAW              (not to be confused with the phrase Book of the Law) this used to be a campaign but has now been redesignated as a Political Party because it wouldn’t “do a Forde”.   (See “Support”, or rather, don’t if you want to stay in the Labour Party.)

McCarthyism      a theoretical movement whose founding document starts with the words “Are you or have you ever been…”  Although not currently an acknowledged source, its practices have been adopted by the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit.  (Disambiguation: nothing to do with current hard-nut Cardiff City manager.)

Nakba            a Palestinian festival in which hundreds of thousands of people flee an imaginary threat never to return, an illusion (see Hasbara)

Open Laboura Labour Party oxymoron.  (Note: The Party loves oxymorons; example: Keir Starmer, the Unity candidate (for Unity, see below).  Another important “O”-word (apart from oxymoron itself) is

Offence         This cannot be defined except by those claiming offence and since they feel offended there is nothing left to discuss.

Political Party     this term is used in the old rule book (see below) to refer to organisations competing electorally with Labour; it now refers mainly to campaigns meriting proscription even if they call on their members to support Labour.  It is thought that anyway the whole concept of the Political Party will soon disappear in favour of the more modern term: Electoral Platform.   For the reason “P” also stands for

Potential Parliamentary Candidate– a person unblemished by Labour Movement activism.

Qu’ran           the Holy Book (like the Rulebook) of a people generally disregarded by Labour. 

Rulebook     when thrown at members they seem to disappear without “doing a Forde”

Supporter     member of a Political Party (see above) that the leadership wants to see disappear.  Note a significant change in meaning here.  The archaic use of the term referred to a person giving regular material support to an organisation.  Today it refers to anyone not agreeing to punish or proscribe a person or organisation.

Tigs                an organisation that “did a Forde” (see above) and disappeared. 

Unity             related to the word Unicorn, an imaginary beast (see under oxymoron:  Keir Starmer, the Unity candidate)

Values           a new term, often following the word “Labour” and replacing others with a clearer meaning like policies and principles.   

Welcoming   (opposite of Uncomfortable) – a “welcoming atmosphere” is one which refuses to allow any statement that might challenge the deeply held views of a Zionist in the audience.

X – termination – Andrew Adonis’ term for debate within a broad church.  And, of course,

X-pulsion       this used to be a forcible exclusion of a member following a protracted investigation, followed by a review by the NCC or NEC or both.  The procedure has now been automated and auto-triggered (see “doing a Forde”).

Yaxley-Lennon   term no longer in use outside journalism.  Current equivalent Tommy Robinson.  Mr Robinson is a fascist who supports the Israeli right.

Zionism         historically considered by Labour to be a liberation movement but since today this is obviously ridiculous, it is increasingly used instead as a replacement for Judaism.   Note: whereas Zionism is never said to be the same as Judaism, anti-Zionism is considered to be the same as anti-Semitism.

The Attack on Ken Loach and Perdition for Telling the Truth About Nazi-Zionist Collaboration is not only Dishonest it is Anti-Semitic

When Israel’s 2014 attack on Gaza was at its height, during which 2,200 Palestinians including 551 children murdered, Jones was more concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ in Britain which he describedas ‘a menace’. Zionism according to Jones was not, however, a menace. 

The summer of 2014 was when the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism was formed, widely suspected to be funded by Israel’s dirty tricks Ministry of Strategic Affairs with the remit to smear supporters of the Palestinians as ‘anti-Semites’. Amongst the CAA’s first targets was Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman who labelled Israel’s behaviour in Gaza as ‘Nazi like’.

There is nothing 'left wing' about identity politics as the neo-Nazi Generation Identity have demonstrated

Jones is not a socialist although he considers himself on the left. He is an exponent of identity politics. And everyone has an identity. That is how racists and neo-Nazis describe themselves today as Generation Identity.

Instead of identifying with Palestinians Jones identifies with Zionist (not anti-Zionist) Jews. Throughout the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn Jones worked with the right-wing Jewish Labour Movement which was refoundedin 2015 to take-out Corbyn. When the JLM passed a vote of no confidence in Corbyn Owen Jones said nothing.

Jones described how excitedhe was to deliver a lecture to the JLM. He kept company with all their MPs - Margaret Hodge, Ruth Smeeth, Luciana Berger, Louise Ellman – all right-wing and anti-Corbyn whilst convincing himself it was all about ‘anti-Semitism’.

When Ken Loach was expelled from the Labour Party Owen Jones condemnedwhat had happened. But it didn’t last long. As soon as the Zionists piled-onJones began walking his comments back.

What happened was a repetition of the previous 5 years. Jones initially supported Jackie Walker, the Black Jewish socialist who was subject to a tsunami of racist and misogynist attacks. But when the Zionists stepped up their attacks on her Jones backtrackedand retreated into the safe spaces where a thousand identities flourish.

Jones once saidthat ‘Loach was always a hero of mine” however when the Zionists falsely accused Loach of being a holocaust denier, twisting his remarkthat “I think history is for all of us to discuss” Jones backtracked. Loach made it clear that he opposedHolocaust denial but that didn’t suffice. The Zionists want people to be holocaust deniers in order that they can argue that opposition to Zionism is motivated by anti-Semitism.

Jones began retreating so fast that you couldn’t see him for the dust. Jones said that Loach had produced a play that was ‘incredibly distressing to Jewish people.” The play was in fact based on the Israel’s Kasztner trial(1954- 1958).

According to Jones not some Jewish people but all Jewish people were distressed. If I had said that all Gay people were as reactionary as Jones that would be classified as homophobic.

Jones repeated a Zionist quotation attributed to Jim Allen, the socialist playwright who wrote Perdition. Even if the quote is accurate, it has been distorted out of all recognition. Perdition was apparently

"the most lethal attack on Zionism ever written because it touches at the heart of the most abiding myth of modern history, the Holocaust. Because it says quite plainly that privileged Jewish leaders...”

Clearly Allen wasn’t calling the holocaust a myth because the play was based on the extermination of nearly half a million Hungarian Jews. The real objection of the Zionists is that the play labelled the leaders of Hungarian Zionism collaborators with the Nazis.

Allen described how the Zionists had created a whole series of myths around the holocaust, not least their own role in it. As Israel Shahak, a child survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and Belsen once said:

‘It's not an awareness of the holocaust but rather the myth of the holocaust or even a falsification of the holocaust (in the sense that “a half-truth is worse than a lie”) which has been instilled here (in Israel ).’ Israel Shahak, ‘Falsification of the Holocaust’, 19 May 1989, Kol Ha'ir, Jerusalem].

Israel’s supporters did the same to Chris Williamson, whose expulsion Jones also supported. They twisted what he said into its exact opposite. When Williamson said:

“The party that has done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party.... I think our party’s response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion… we’ve backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic. We’ve done more to actually address the scourge of antisemitism than any other political party. Any other political party. And yet we are being traduced.”

that became Labour has been too apologetic for anti-Semitism. Now they are doing the same with Ken Loach and Owen Jones is more than willing to help them out.

Asa Winstanley pointed outthat Jones, by agreeingwith Lara McNeill that Labour Against the Witchhunt should be proscribed, had agreed to the expulsion of Loach. Loach has supported LAW since its foundation. Winstanley argued, referring to Labour List, that the whole purpose of proscribing LAW was to remove Ken Loach.

Asa gave Jones a history lesson in the background to Perdition. Kasztner, the leader of Hungarian Zionism and a senior official in Israel’s ruling Labor party sued Hungarian refugee, Malchiel Greenwald, who had accused him of being a Nazi collaborator.

Judge Benjamin Halevi of the Jerusalem District Court found that Kasztner had ‘sold his soul to Satan’by reaching an agreement with Adolf Eichmann. In exchange for a train carrying the Zionist and Jewish elite out of Hungary Kasztner would help pacify and mislead the Jews of Hungary into voluntarily getting onto the deportation trains which were going straight to Auschwitz.

Of course this story is distressing to Zionists. Their propaganda rests on making non-Jewish people feel guilty over the holocaust and keeping quiet about atrocities against the Palestinians. If the actual record of the Zionist movement during the holocaust was known, then people might not be so willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Asa pointed out that Jones was knownas the weather vane of the left. Just before the June 2017 General Election Jones calledfor Corbyn to step down. When the election came Corbyn obtained the biggest swing to Labour since 1945. Jones wrote:

The polling for Labour is catastrophic.... Yes, polls can be wrong: 2015and 1992 represent the two big polling disasters of our time. Yet in both cases, the disaster was overestimating Labour’s lead... precedent suggests the real picture is even worse for Labour.

Rudolf Kasztner  - agreed with Eichmann to keep silent over Auschwitz in exchange for a train taking the Zionist elite to Switzerland

Ironically Loach wrote an Op Ed Don’t blame Corbyn for the sins of Blair, Brown and New Labour a day before Jones. The contrast between the two articles tells us everything we need to know about the difference between Loach and Jones. Loach wrote:

‘In the parts of Britain that have been left to rot, people support Jeremy Corbyn’s policies. So why aren’t MPs promoting them?’

 It was a question that Jones, the Prince of Identity Politics, hadn’t thought of asking. Loach described how

‘the spate of calls for Jeremy Corbyn to quit since last week’s byelections in Stoke and Copeland has been as predictable as it was premeditated. It says everything about the political agenda of the media, and nothing about people’s real needs and experiences.’

The article repays reading. Jones parents may have been working class but Jones has nothing in common with them. He is part of the metropolitan elite, divorced from ordinary working class people.

These 4 children playing on Gaza's beach were executed by an Israeli warplane - Israel dismissed it as a 'tragic accident'

What Loach wrote came from his socialist politics. Just as this blog was virtually alone in predicting that Corbyn would do well. My first blog, on April 20, just days after the election was called was ‘Labour Can Win if Corbyn is Bold’10 days later I wrote Owen Jones: Every Quality of a Dog Except Loyalty! I called him a racist hypocrite for prioritising ‘anti-Semitism’ and ignoring Israel’s invasion of Gaza in particular his failure to call out Israel’s execution of 4 children playing on Gaza’s beach who were machine gunned to death.

On June 2I wrote another article Is Labour on the threshold of victory?. It was clear that something was happening. Unlike Jones I didn’t live in a media bubble. Jones is the weather vane of the left. But as Bob Dylan sangyou don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!

Jones was stung by Asa’s article into responding. People with integrity may disagree politically while ensuring that they do not distort their opponents’ arguments. Jones however lacks all integrity. He went out of his way to distort what Asa was saying relying on a left-Zionist masquerading as an anti-Zionist to speak for him!

The reply was headed No, Jews did not collaborate in their own genocide. Of course Asa had never said such a preposterous thing. Jones could only defend the indefensible by lying through his teeth.

The destruction of half a million Hungarian Jews was not an act of collective suicide. They were betrayed by the leaders of Hungarian Zionism. Kasztner, the Jewish Agency representative, reached an agreement with Eichmann that in exchange for a train allowing the Jewish and Zionist elite to escape, the Zionists would mislead and misinform the Jews into voluntarily reporting for deportation.

Narcissistic, self-obsessed, prefers identity politics to socialist politics

Jones first lie was that ‘several nonzionist and antizionist Jewish socialists’ contacted him to explain why Perdition ‘was problematic.’ I don’t believe that any non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews contacted Jones. What he means is members of the Zionist Alliance for Workers Liberty agreed to help out!

Jones went out of his way to befriend the JLM. Treachery never had a better friend than Owen Jones. The JLM calledthe Israeli Labor Party its ‘sister party’. This is the party that carried out the ethnic cleansing of ¾ million Palestinians in 1948. It is the party that drew up the plans to ‘Judaise’ the Galilee and Negev. It is explicitly opposed to Arab and Jewish equality and believes in separationof  Jews and Arabs. The JLM boasts that it is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation, an organisation which has a ‘land theft division’.

When Trump was elected President Israeli Labor’s former leader, now Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, wrote.

Warm congratulations to the president of the most powerful nation in the world: Donald J Trump! Your win shows elites are thing of past

Herzog also declared that his nightmare was waking up to find that Israel had an Arab Prime Minister and 61 Arab Members of Israel’s Knesset. He declared that he wanted to dispel the false impression that the ILP were ‘Arab Lovers’ a deeply racist term.

Jones is incapable of defending his attacks on Ken Loach for producing the play Perdition so he has posted on his blog a ‘brilliant detailed response by a Jewish antizionist’. The response is neither detailed nor brilliant. This so-called anti-Zionist, who won’t even put his name to the article (I shall call him X) is a fraud.

My Response to Owen Jones ‘Anti-Zionist’

1.           X says it is not unusual for some of the oppressed to be accused of ‘collaboration’. This is true but we are not talking about a few individuals but a whole political movement. When Hitler came to power the Zionist movement was determined to extract the maximum advantage. Whilst world Jewry reacted with fury and immediately launched a Boycott of Nazi Germany the Zionist leadership in Palestine and Germany welcomed them.

2.           Berl Katznelson, deputy to David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, saw the advent of the Nazis as “an opportunity to build and flourish like none we have ever had or ever will have”.[1]Ben Gurion was even more optimistic. ‘The Nazis victory would become “a fertile force for Zionism.”[2]Rabbi Joachim Prinz, a German Zionist leader admitted that:

        “It was morally disturbing to seem to be considered as the favoured children of the Nazi Government, particularly when it dissolved the anti-Zionist youth groups, and seemed in other ways to prefer the Zionists. The Nazis asked for a 'more Zionist behaviour.” ^[3]

3.           Etan Bloom in his Ph D thesis Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Modern Hebrew Culture, quotes Emil Ludwig, the biographer ‘who expressed the general attitude of the Zionist movement:’

‘Hitler will be forgotten in a few years, but he will have a beautiful monument in Palestine….the coming of the Nazis was rather a welcome thing. So many of our German Jews were hovering between two coasts… riding the treacherous current between the Scylla of assimilation and the Charybdis of a nodding acquaintance with Jewish things. Thousands who seemed to be completely lost to Judaism were brought back to the fold by Hitler, and for that I am personally very grateful to him.’ [4]

The Zionist national poet Chaim Nachman Bialik believed that ‘Hitler has perhaps saved German Jewry, which was being assimilated into annihilation.’

4.           The Zionists therefore agreed in August 1933 a trade pact Ha'avara with the Nazis which resulted in 60% of capital investment in the Palestine Jewish economy between 1933 and 1939 coming from Nazi Germany. Hitler literally built the ‘Jewish’ state.[5]

5.           Throughout the war the Zionists fought against the admission of Jewish refugees to any country other than Palestine. For example Alaska.Ben Gurion opposed the decision of the British government to admit 10,000 Jewish children from Nazi Germany in after Kristallnacht. On the 9 December 1938 he said:

‘If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.’[6]

Chaim Weizmann, third from left with fellow colonisers

Malcolm MacDonald, the Colonial Secretary, told of a conversation with Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first President:

‘I remember at the time that Weizmann’s attitude shocked me. He insisted on the children going to Palestine.  As far as he was concerned it was Palestine or nowhere.’ [7]

6.           There was a cruel logic to this policy. Zionism was formed on the basis of the negation of the Jewish diaspora. In their view anti-Semitism stemmed from Jews not having a state of their own. To move Jews from Germany to America would not solve the problem. It would simply transfer it. That was why they actively opposed the lowering of the immigration barriers in the US.

7.           In 1938 the US sponsored the Evian conference on Jewish refugees. The Zionists were hostile to it. Christopher Sykes explained why:

‘From the start they [the Zionists] regarded the whole enterprise with hostile indifference... If the 31 nations had done their duty and shown hospitality to those in dire need then the pressure on the National Home and the heightened enthusiasm of Jews with Palestine would both have been relaxed.This was the last thing that the Zionist leaders wished for…. Even in the more terrible days ahead they made no secret of the fact, even when talking to Gentiles, that they did not want Jewish settlements outside Palestine to be successful... The Zionists wanted to do something more for Jews than merely help them to escape danger…. It is hard, perhaps impossible, to find a parallel in history to this particular Zionist idea... that such was the basic Zionist idea is not a matter of opinion but a fact abundantly provable by evidence...’[8] (my emphasis)

Noah Lucas, another pro- Zionist historian, described how “the Zionists were not displeased by the failure of the Evian conference.’ [9]Zionist historian, Robert Silverberg, reached the same conclusion:

‘… truly dedicated Zionists hoped for the failure of the Evian talks. How disastrous it would be for Zionism if Australia say were to agree to admit a million Jews at once!… They did not want a Jewish colony in Australia; they wanted Europe’s suffering Jews to go only to Palestine, and if getting them there meant a prolongation of their suffering until the political climate was right, so be it.’^[10]

8.      It is a lie to say that ‘many Jews who expressed distress about Perdition held antizionist beliefs.’ I have never met one.

9.      X distorts what happened in the Kasztner Trial saying that

‘It is understandable why Hungarian Jews who’d lost their whole families in the Holocaust, looking for someone to blame, might point the finger at other Jewish survivors and ask ‘why did you save other peoples’ families and not mine?’ or ‘what price did you pay to get out?’

10.      Jacob Freifeld testified that he had asked Kasztner’s friend Hillel Danzig about where the deportation trains were going.

‘he gave me a tip. I should try to go to Kenyermezo as soon as I could, because the first arrivals there would get the best places.’^[11]

Under cross-examination Danzig admitted that he knew that he was being taken “to a safe place” and that people like Freifeld would be taken to “a place much worse.”^[12]

All of Freifield’s family bar himself, were gassed in Auschwitz. Dr Imre Kertesz, the 2002 Nobel Laureate for Literature confirmed this.^[13] Danzig left on Kasztner’s train.[14]Yechiel Shmueli, Levi Blum and David Rozner confirmed Freifeld’s account.[15]When Rozner was asked why Kasztner would have been killed if he had set foot in Kolosvar after the war, he replied ‘Because he was the man who misled the Jews to believe in the good intentions of the Germans.’[16]

Kasztner and his henchmen misinformed and misled the Jews of Kolosvar to thinking that they were going to a non-existent place Kenyermeze. This wasn’t jealousy this was treachery.

11.      X informs us that

‘Winstanley describes the Jews who Kasztner saved as ‘an elite group’ of ‘mostly fellow Zionists, family and friends’. Winstanley does not provide a citation for this claim... Kasztner was not simply concerned with a small elite but was involved with various rescue efforts which helped thousands upon thousands of Jews.’

X admits that ‘it seems Zionist Jews may possibly have been prioritised by Kasztner but the mission certainly did not exclusively rescue Zionists.’ No one ever suggested that it did. It included rich, bourgeois Jews and a handful of ultra-orthodox anti-Zionists but the vast majority were Zionists.

X wants sources. Well one source is the Kasztner Reportthat was written in 1946. Kasztner described the train (p.125) as an ‘aliya gateway’. The passengers were destined for Palestine. The train was known as the ‘Train of the Prominents’. Kasztner described how ‘I once again inquired about the prominent people from the provinces.’ Kasztner complained that ‘More than 300,000 have already been sent to Auschwitz and there was no possibility of saving even one of the 300 prominent figures.’(p.137)  There are repeated references to ‘prominent individuals.’ [17]

The idea that ‘many working class Jews’ were present is false. Lob describes how his father, a businessman ‘was listed as a ‘farmer’ because Palestine required farmers not businessmen.’ [18]

The list of Zionist organisations whose members were saved is documented. (p.163) Kasztner was even planning ‘in case of a deportation of the Budapest Jews, a second train for 1,500 people. In other words Kasztner was planning to sacrifice the 250,000 Jews of Budapest. (p. 168)

According to Lob ‘The frequent use of Hebrew terms reflected the ideology and practices of the Zionist organisation which dominated our entire group.’ [19]Judge Shimon Agranat of Israel’s Supreme Court[20]agreed that Kasztner’s decision to include a high number of Zionists on the train was ‘perfectly rational.’[21]

12.      388 of the seats on the train consisted of Kasztner’s friends and family from Kolosvar led by his father-in-law, Josef Fischer.

13.      X resorts to semantics. ‘Can anyone fleeing from a state which wants to kill them for belonging to a racial minority meaningfully be described as elite?’ Yes. If they bought their safety at the expense of working class Jews.

14.      X says that ‘There is no credible evidence that Kasztner had any agency to save any more Jews than he did.’ Clearly he never heard of Rudolf Vrba. Vrba was one of just 5 Jews who successfully escaped from Auschwitz. He and Alfred Wetzler reached Slovakia on April 24 and wrote the Auschwitz Protocols 3 weeks before the deportations started from Hungary. For the first time there was proof that Auschwitz was an extermination camp. Previously it was believed to be a labour camp.

15.      Kasztner was given the Protocols on April 27. What did he do? He suppressed them. If they had been distributed in time then most Hungarian Jews would not have reported for deportation. Those who didn’t report survived. There were less than 200 SS men in the whole of Hungary. The war was going badly, the Nazis could not afford more men. The Russians were at the doors. It was ONLY because of collaboration by the Zionist AND the bourgeois leaders that Hungarian Jewry were deported.

16.      Fortunately copies of the Protocols had been made and Kastner could only delay their distribution. The Protocols led directly to the cancellation by Horthy, the Hungarian ruler, of the deportations on July 6. As a result the Jews of Budapest were saved. That was Vrba and Wetzler's doing NOT Kastner. People like George Soros owe their lives to the Auschwitz Protocols.

17.      As Elie Wiesel, a staunch Zionist and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a child survivor of Auschwitz, said:

‘Why didn’t we know? To this day I try to understand what happened. If ever there was a tragedy that could have been prevented, it was that one.’

        Wiesel told in his book Night (p.20) how their maid Maria

‘came to them ‘sobbing’. ‘She begged us to come with her to her village where she had prepared a safe shelter.’

        Wiesel told how

‘We were taken just two weeks before D-Day, and we did not know that Auschwitz existed… everyone knew except the victims.’

18.      That is why the role of the Zionists is relevant. As Vrba wrote later in the Daily Herald:

‘I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that “I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war. This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler's gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence. Among them was Dr Kasztner.” … I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers… Kasztner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’

19.      This is what Owen Jones defends. Of course there is a connection between Zionism, what it did to European Jewry and the Palestinians. It was the same mindset that led to ethnic cleansing. They thought in terms of race, saving the few out of the many. Kasztner’s defence counsel Chaim Cohen put it succinctly:

‘If in Kasztner’s opinion, rightly or wrongly, he believed that one million Jews were hopelessly doomed, he was allowed not to inform them of their fate; and to concentrate on the saving of the few. He was entitled to make a deal with the Nazis for the saving of a few hundred and entitled not to warn the millions ... that was his duty… It has always been our Zionist tradition to select the few out of many in arranging the immigration to Palestine ... Are we to be called traitors?’

“Eichmann, the chief exterminator, knew that the Jews would be peaceful and not resist if he allowed the Prominents to be saved, that the Train of the Prominents was organized on Eichmann’s orders to facilitate the extermination of the whole people. … if all the Jews of Hungary are to be sent to their death he is entitled to organize a rescue train for 600 people. He is not only entitled to it but is also bound to act accordingly.”

20.      Judge Moshe Silberg took issue with this argument:

‘‘then he acted innocently and cannot be charged with collaboration with the Nazis in facilitating the extermination of the Jews, even if he, de facto, contributed to this result.

I must say that I cannot accept this argument. Is this ‘innocence’? Is there ‘representation’ of despair? Can a single individual, even jointly with some friends, despair on behalf – and without the knowledge – of 800,000 people?…. The burning question of ‘By what authority’ and ‘quo warranto’ is an adequate answer to such a claim of Bona Fide.

21.      Instead of hawking his conscience around the left Jones should shut up about things he knows nothing about. He should also stop using fake anti-Zionists. There’s a long history of non-Jews using Court Jews to attack other Jews.

22.      The Zionist movement betrayed the Jews of Europe, including many thousands of Zionists. As Wiesel observed:

‘Jewish leaders of Palestine never made the rescue of European Jews into an overwhelming national priority. We know that Zionist leader Itzhak Gruenbaum... considered creating new settlements more urgent than saving Jews from being sent to Treblinka and Birkenau.’ [22]

23.      Kasztner lied on oath when he said that he hadn’t given evidence at Nuremberg in favour of a Nazi war criminal, Himmler’s personal emissary Kurt Becher of the SS. But even worse was his testimony in favour of at least 5 other leading SS men including Dieter Wisliceny, who was hanged by the Czechs after the war.

24.      Kasztner tried to save Wisliceny who had been responsible for the deportation of 60,000 Jews from Slovakia. Wisliceny was also responsible for the deportation to Auschwitz of nearly the entire Jewish community of Salonika, some 2/3 of Greek Jewry.

25.      Kasztner also gave evidence in favour of Eichmann’s deputy, Herman Krumey, who had commanded the special Nazi detachments in Warsaw, Lemberg, Amsterdam and Paris. ‘Krumey arrived in Hungary already crowned by glorious achievements.’ [23]Krumey was responsible for implementing the Hungarian holocaust. Yet Kasztner gave evidence in his favour.

26.      Krumey led the SS in its massacre of the Czech village of Lidice when 84 children were butchered. This is who Jones and his ‘anti-Zionist’ friend are defending when they defend Kastner.

27.      X derides Asa’s claim that the Jews of ‘one specific ghetto’ could have overcome theirNazi guards ‘and escaped to safety across the Romanian border’ if Kasztner had not misled them. In fact the claim was made by Joseph Katz, a lawyer from Nodvarod, who testified that its Jews knew nothing of Auschwitz. 

Shmuel Tamir: ‘Did you know how to use arms?’

Katz: Yes. It was easy to escape into Romania. Jews were safe in Romania at that time. Some skeptics did escape—because they didn’t like the Nodvarod atmosphere.[24]

28.      Having got most of his facts wrong, X engages in semantics. He criticises Asa Winstanley’s use of Eichmann’s interview with Dutch Nazi journalist, Wilhelm Sassen. He asks rhetorically:

As most GCSE History students learn, an account of the Holocaust told through Nazi testimony is likely to be ‘biased’. And yet Winstanley quotes from Eichmann largely uncritically, as if Nazi accounts of the Holocaust are to be trusted.’

29.      Eichmann’s interview with Sassen is extremely valuable because he boasted of his role in the holocaust. It is a retort to holocaust deniers because he admitted that Jews were exterminated by gas.

30.      But if X is right then it is not Asa he should be criticising but the Israeli state! Because the Prosecution in the Eichmann Trial used Eichmann’s interview as evidence. It was Eichmann’s lawyer who objected on the grounds that Eichmann was drunk! The judges largely accepted the objection. But let us be clear.  Eichmann did not want his interview to be introduced which suggests that it is indeed a truthful account of his foul deeds.

31.      Of course some Nazi accounts are truthful. Even the Devil occasionally tells the truth! Is X suggesting we don’t quote the Goebbels Diaries? What some Nazis said is historically valuable and a good historian can sift the wheat from the chaff!

32.      Most historians accept that the Nazis favoured the Zionists in preference to the anti-Zionists. 30,000 Jews were arrested after Kristallnacht. Those connected with the German Zionist Federation were immediately released. As David Cesarani wrote:

‘The efforts of the Gestapo are oriented to promoting Zionism as much as possible and lending support to its efforts to promote emigration.’ [25]

33.      In May 1935 Schwarze Korps, paper of the SS, wrote that

‘the Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state.... The assimilation-minded Jews deny their race and insist on their loyalty to Germany or claim to be Christians because they have been baptised in order to subvert National Socialist principles.’^[26]

34.      X claims that 60,000 German Jews were ‘rescued’ under the Ha'avara agreement. Not so. About 20,000 were. Most came to Palestine with certificates. Ha'avara saved virtually no one because it only benefitted the richest Jews who could have gone elsewhere. What it did was to break the Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany and ensure the survival of the Hitler regime.

35.      X describes the Nazi state as ‘white supremacist’. It was of course primarily anti-Semitic and the Jews were White not Black. This is fake radicalism.

36.      X demonstrates how reactionary he is when he argues that:

‘We do not need to minimise Nazi intentions, overemphasise Jewish power or spin history to claim that ‘Jewish leaders collaborated in the oppression of their own kind’ to make a case for why Zionism is bad.’

Perdition did no such thing. To say that Zionism collaborated with the Nazis is not to minimise Nazi intentions. Nor does it say anything about ‘Jewish power’. Did the collaboration of Quisling or Petain say anything about French or Norwegian power? X talks of Jewish leaders collaborating in the oppression of ‘their own kind’. This is the language of race. X tells us that:

‘Zionism is wrong, not because of its possible implications for Jews, but because of what it does to Palestinians. To claim that Zionism needs to have harmed Jews as well to be condemned is to decentre Palestinians in their own story. Palestinian pain is important on its own terms and we do not need to prove that Zionism has hurt non-Palestinians to denounce, discredit and fiercely oppose Zionist ideas.’

More fake radicalism. Zionism would be racist and reactionary, even were there no Palestinians. Just as Garveyism was reactionary in its own terms despite it being a mass movement.

Zionism was reactionary and racist because it abandoned the fight against anti-Semitism and allied with the anti-Semites. It posited intra class unity between Jewish workers and their bourgeoisie rather than solidarity between Jewish and non-Jewish workers.

37.      When Herzl wrote, barely 6 months after the conviction of Alfred Dreyfus for treason, that

‘In Paris... I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism’

he demonstrated why Zionism was a form of Jewish anti-Semitism. Zionism agreed that Jews did not belong where they lived. It abandoned the fight against anti-Semitism for the fight against the Palestinians. It is wholly artificial to separate off the acceptance by Zionism of anti-Semitism from what it did to the Palestinian. Alec, a character in drr Simon Blumenfeld’s novel Jew Boy put it well when he said , ‘I don’t see why I should change one set of exploiters for another because they are Jewish.’

X is neither a socialist nor an anti-Zionist. Just like Jones. If there were no Palestinians and if Zionism had colonised an empty Pacific island I would still oppose it.

38.      The Zionist movement even tried to prevent German Jewish refugees emigrating to any country bar Palestine.

‘the ZVfD lobbied the Gestapo, which was charged with implementing the Nazis’ anti-Jewish policy, to ensure that German refugees could only go to Palestine. The Gestapo ‘did everything in those days to promote emigration, particularly to Palestine.’[27]

Feivel Polkes, a Haganah intelligence agent, offered to become an informant for the Gestapo, sharing Haganah intelligence information with them, in return for which the Gestapo would pressure the Reich Representation of Jews in Germany (RVt) to require emigrating Jews to settle exclusively in Palestine.[28]

        The German Zionists used their relationship with the Gestapo to weaken their Jewish opponents. They demanded parity with non-Zionists on the Reichsvertretung despite the Zionists being in a minority. Dawidowicz attributed this to the Zionist belief that the Gestapo favoured them over the non-Zionists.

‘The Zionist demand for parity stunned  the non-Zionists and their paper, the C-V Zeitung of 9.5.35. ‘branded it ‘unjustified, disruptive and astonishing’. [29]

Owen Jones and X believe that telling the truth about how German Zionists worked with the Nazis against their Jewish opponents would distress Jews today. If it is true then so be it. Sometimes the truth is very distressing.

Selig Brodestsky - President of the Board of Deputies - Marcus Retter in the Jewish Chronicle (5.2.93.) spoke of 'the tireless efforts of Professor Selig Brodetsky, president of the Board of Deputies to sabotage the efforts of Rabbi Shonfeld who headed the Chief Rabbis Rescue Committee to save Jewish Refugees

The Board of Deputies today claims it is opposed to anti-Semitism. In 1940 Selig Brodetsky of the Zionists won the Presidency of the BOD. Throughout the war both Brotman, its Secretary and Brodetsky opposed any campaign to save Jewish refugees. When an attempt was made in October 1942 to persuade MPs to set up a Committee to relax Swiss restrictions on the entry of refugees, Brotman was ‘furious’.[30]

When FO officials urged Brodetsky not to issue public statements or hold demonstrations against the extermination of Hungarian Jewry, he obliged. At a Board meeting on 18 June 1944, held to protest what was happening in Hungary, Brodetsky warned ‘against over emphasizing the sufferings of the Jews.’[31]

Jones pleads that all he has done is to ‘marry unequivocal support for Palestinian justice with opposition to antisemitism.’ But this is not true. Owen Jones’s opposition to anti-Semitism has nothing to do with hostility to Jews and everything to do with Israel. Jones supported the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitismwhich conflates anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Jones accepts that opposition to a Jewish  identity based on Zionism is in itself anti-Semitic.

That is why he supported the expulsion of Jewish anti-Zionists such as Jackie Walker as well as Marc Wadsworth and Ken Livingstone. Jones accused Asa of doing

‘nothing, literally nothing, to advance the cause of the Palestinian people. They speak to a tiny online faction who they succeed in making very angry’.

Jones is speaking about himself. Asa Winstanley is one of the few journalists to have called out the fake anti-Semitism campaign and to have seen it as an attack on supporters of the Palestinians, especially Jewish anti-Zionists. That has been demonstrated clearly by Keir Starmer, a Zionist without qualification.

Jones has said nothing about Starmer’s anti-Palestinian racism. It’s Jones who has done less than nothing. Until recently he derided the idea of Israel as an Apartheid State. He also opposed BDS. Above all he has given legs to the fake anti-Semitism campaign that was directed, not against antisemites but supporters of the Palestinians.

Does Jones really believe that the Board of Deputies was sincere in its opposition to anti-Semitism when it held its first ever demonstration against ‘racism’ in March 2018 against Jeremy Corbyn, alongside such progressive politicians as Norman Tebbit and Ian Paisley?

Has Jones even one word of explanation as to why the British media was happy to join him in opposition to anti-Semitism?  What is it that joins the Daily Mail and Jones other than ‘anti-Semitism’?

After trying for years to ride 2 horses at the same time – the Zionist stalking horse whilst purporting to support for the Palestinians, Owen Jones has felt increasingly unable to maintain his balance. He is in danger of falling off hence his vituperative attack.

Tony Greenstein

 Stern’s Dissembling over the IHRA is a Result of the Contradiction Between Being a Zionist and a Diaspora Jew

Thousands of words have been spent analysing the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism [WDA], nearly all of them scathing and scornful. Yet still the WDA has been widely accepted by governments, civil society and establishment bodies. Why? Because it has become a hegemonic narrative, immune to reason but serving the interests of the ruling elites in capitalist society.

Kenneth Stern is an unlikely hero. He is the person who drafted the WDAand yet he has also spoken out strongly against its use as a weapon to silence debate on Palestine and Zionism in academia. How can we reconcile this contradiction?

I want to suggest that Stern is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, someone who holds two different philosophies or beliefs at the same time. Stern is, on the one hand, a Zionist who thinks nothing of smearing and vilifying his opponents as ‘anti-Semitic’. On the other hand he is a diaspora Jew for whom academic freedom is a value he holds in high regard.

In my Open Letter to Stern (below) I put a number of questions to him about his role in creating the WDA and the problematic nature of the definition.

It is impossible to understand why Stern thought there was a need for a new definition of anti-Semitism unless conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism was his main objective. Nothing Stern has said makes sense otherwise. Stern himself cast doubt on the whole exercise:

IHRA’s zealous supporters often say that to combat antisemitism, one has to define it. In my view, that simply isn’t true. Definitions are useful for data collectors, but it’s not as if people didn’t fight antisemitism before the definition was created over 16 years ago.

My dad fought Oswald Moseley’s fascists at the Battle of Cable Street in London’s East End 85 years ago despite being told to stay at home by the Board of Deputies and the Zionists. He and thousands of others, Jewish and non-Jewish, didn’t need a definition of anti-Semitism to in order to fight it.

The American Jew who was run by Israel as a spy 

Stern’s commitment to freedom of speech on campus conflicted with his support for Zionism, a Jewish supremacist ideology. Stern embodies the conflict between the interests of diaspora Jewry and a Zionism which seeks to alienate Jews from their place in society.

Despite the WDA illustration holding that ‘Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel... than to the interests of their own nations’ is anti-Semitic, it is Zionism itself which demands that Jews’ first loyalty should be to Israel. That is why ‘traitor’ is an epithet flung at anti-Zionist Jews by Zionists.

BDS according to Stern is anti-Semitic

This contradiction exploded into the open in 2013 when Israel’s Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Absorption conducted a survey which asked American Jews where their loyalties would lie if there was a crisis between the two countries.

When Stern and Cary Nelson, President of the American Association of University Professors penned an open letter criticising what they termed a ‘perversion of the definition’, claiming that it ‘was not drafted to label anyone an antisemite or to limit campus speech’, they met a fierce backlash by those who believed that that was exactly why it was created!

 ‘American Jewish Committee Executive Director David Harris apologised for the open letter from Stern, calling the letter “ill-advised.” after an angry reaction from Stern’s fellow Zionists.

After Stern gave testimonyto Congress in November 2017 stating that ‘The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus’, following this up with a Guardian articlethat accused rightwing Jews of ‘weaponizing it’,Andrew Baker, Deidre Berger and Michael Whine hit backdeclaring in an open letterof January 2021 that far from being the principal author of the WDA, Stern was just one amongst many.

On 10 February 2021 Stern repliedto his critics asking

What would you do if, out of the blue and more than sixteen years after the fact, three former colleagues posted an open letterfalsely accusing you of making up a significant professional accomplishment – in my case being the lead drafter of the “working definition of antisemitism?”

Given the use to which it has been put, one wonders how Stern can call the WDA a ‘significant professional accomplishment’.I had personal experience of this Zionist campaign when suing the Campaign Against Anti-Semitismfor libel. Gideon Falter, their Chair, in paragraph 29 of his witness statement, wrote that:

‘The Claimant states that one of the numerous drafters of the predecessor to the IHRA Definition, ... condemned CAA’s actions ... I do not know who the supposed drafter of the EUMCXR Definition is.’

Falter was lying. He was more than aware of who Stern was as his solicitors had previously demanded from us a copy of Stern’s Congressional testimony! Stern had described as ‘egregious’ the CAA’s attempt to have a Jewish Professor, Rachel Gould, dismissed by Bristol University for having written ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’.

The fact that the person who drafted the WDA definition has condemned the way it is being used is, of course, welcome. However that doesn’t excuse Stern’s role in creating it in the first place.

At best Stern is guilty of naivety. At worst he is guilty of duplicity. It was Stern who created a definition that labelled anti-Zionists as anti-Semites and which redefined anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. It beggars belief that Stern was unaware of what he was doing.

Tony Greenstein

OPEN LETTER TO KENNETH STERN

Although Stern excepts these Orthodox Jews from the 'antisemitism' smear, it is clear that they are associating with 'antisemites'!

Tuesday 21 September 2021

Dear Kenneth Stern,

Like many people I welcome the fact that you have criticised the way in which the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism [WDA] has been used to chill debate on Zionism and Palestine. However I find it difficult to accept your assertionthat ‘the working definition of antisemitism’ [WDA] was never intended to silence speech’ when that seems to have been its primary objective.

Your explanation as to why the WDA was created is implausible, begging more questions than answers. According to your testimonyto Congress

‘The definition was drafted to make it easier for data collectors to know what to put in their reports and what to reject. It focused their attention away from the question of whether the actor hated Jews, and focused them on whether the actor selected Jews to be victims.’

Eric Pickles, former Tory Minister and Conservative Friends of Israel Chair - Britain's racist delegate to the IHRA

I have a number of comments to make:

1.    The definition doesn’t focus attention away from motive and whether anti-Semites hate Jews. On the contrary it defines anti-Semitism as ‘a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.’ (my emphasis)

2.    You said that the reason for the creation of the WDA was that the European Union Monitoring Committee [EUMC]

 ‘didn’t know how to deal with the problem of a Jew being attacked on the streets of Paris or anywhere else as a stand-in for an Israeli.’ [1]

and that it was ‘neither necessary nor helpful’ to ask whether the perpetrators‘reallyhate Jews’. That is exactly what the WDA does by defining anti-Semitism in terms of a ‘certain perception’, hatred.

3.           The WDA defines anti-Semitism narrowly leaving out a range of behaviours, such as hostility or dislike, which fall short of hatred. For example a parent who opposes his children marrying a Jew is not anti-Semitic according to the WDA. That is why Zionists loveSteve Bannon despite him opposing his daughter going to a Jewish school because Jewish children were ‘whiny brats.’

4.    In your talk"The Working Definition – A Reappraisal" at a conference in 2010, whose sponsors included Israel’s Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Public Affairs and Diaspora plus the World Zionist Organisation, you explained that the origin of the WDA lay in Israel and that the idea for a common definition was ‘first articulated by Dina Porat’ in April 2004.

I recall Dina, who gets very animated when she latches on to a good idea, talking to me, to my colleague Andy Baker, and just about anyone else she could corner about the need for a definition.

5.           Porat is a hardline Zionist. When Netanyahu reached an agreement with the Polish government over legislation which criminalisedsaying that the Polish state or people had participated in the holocaust, it was Porat who signed off on it. Even Zionist historian Yehuda Bauer branded it as ‘collaboration’ with holocaust distortion.

6.    You saidthat the WDA was a ‘workable, non-ideological approach to task of identifying antisemitism.’ This is dishonest. The WDA was only ‘non-ideological’ to a committed Zionist.

7.    You gave a list of organisations which had adopted it including courts in Lithuania and Germany, making a mockery of the claimthat it was ‘non-legally binding’.

8.    You said that ‘of course the definition has been a target of some who would like to protect criticisms of Israel which are antisemitic in nature’, which is wholly untrue. Unsurprisingly you gave no examples because there are no examples.

9.    You also said that the problem arose because the EUMC had defined anti-Semitism in terms of Jewish stereotypes. However if anti-Semitism was defined as attacking Jews because they are Jews then that problem disappears. You also said the EUMC had constructed a ‘clunker of a definition’ which seems a good description of the definition that you drafted!

10.      If your real concern was attacks on Jews because of the actions of Israel, then surely one remedy would be for Israel to stop calling itself the State of the Jewish people? Another remedy would be for groups like the Board of Deputies, which claims to be the ‘Voice of British Jews’, to stop supportingIsrael’s murderous attacks on Palestinians in the name of all British Jews.

11.      If Jews are attacked because of the actions of the Israeli state then there are more than adequate definitions available, such as the Oxford English Dictionary definitionof anti-Semitism,‘Hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ or the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism [JDA]

        ‘Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).’

12.      Instead you constructed a definition of anti-Semitism which is a model of obfuscation and opacity. David Feldman described it as ‘bewilderingly imprecise.’ Hugh Tomlinson QC described its language as ‘unusual and therefore potentially confusing’. Geoffrey Robertson QC stated that it was ‘not fit for purpose’

13.      Stephen Sedley, the Jewish former Court of Appeal judge went further arguing that it is ‘calculatedly misleading’ and ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite.’

14.      The WDA says that:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property....”

15.      This raises a number of questions:

              i.                   If anti-Semitism is a ‘certain perception’ what is that perception?

            ii.                   Why confine anti-Semitism to perception? Who does the perceiving? Is this not an example of looking into someone’s head, which was what you said the definition was designed to avoid?

         iii.                   If this perception ‘may be expressed as hatred towards Jews’ what else might it be expressed as? Anti-Zionism?

         iv.                   Why define anti-Semitism as being ‘directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals’? Is everyone a victim of anti-Semitism?

16.      In the WDA A Reappraisal you recalled how you questioned Beate Winkler, the Director of the EUMC, about a Montreal Jewish school which had been firebombed in reaction to an Israeli assassination. You said that this attack did not fit within the existing EUMC definition of anti-Semitism and that‘something better needed to be crafted, something that was easy for the monitors to understand – count this, don’t count that.’

17.      Could you explain why this attack, which was clearly anti-Semitic, would not have come under the OED or JDA definitions? It was an attack on Jews because they are Jews.

18.    The only conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that the WDA wasn’t about the difficulty in defining attacks on Jewish schools as anti-Semitic. You don’t need 500+ words to do that. If I am wrong perhaps you would care to explain:

a.     How does the WDA’s: ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’ help with the problem of defining an attack on a Jewish school as anti-Semitic?

b.     How does labelling as anti-Semitic criticism of Israel as ‘double standards’, help when Jews in the diaspora are attacked?

c.      How does defining criticism of Israel as a racist state ‘anti-Semitic’ help you call out attacks on Jews outside Israel?

d.     How does rejecting the ‘right’ of the ‘Jewish people to self-determination’, which assumes that there is one single Jewish people, help you define anti-Semitism? Why is this hatred?

e.      The WDA states that ‘Manifestations [of anti-Semitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.’ Historically it was anti-Semites who asserted that Jews formed a separate nation. As Herzl wrote in The Jewish State‘It might more reasonably be objected that I am giving a handle to Anti-Semitism when I say we are a people – one people.’

That was also the basis of the Nazis’ Nuremberg Laws.

When Donald Trump accused American Jews of being ‘very disloyal’ he wasdefining Israel as a ‘Jewish collectivity’. How is a definition of anti-Semitism, which includes the assumption that Israel is an entity to which Jews feel loyalty, helpful?

19.      Another anti-Semitic illustration in the WDA is the assertion that Israel is a product of Jewish self-determination. If that is true then Jews are responsible for Israel’s actions, since Israel is the state of the Jewish people, as it claims. How can you then criticise those who hold Jews responsible for Israel’s actions? The WDA also says that ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’ is anti-Semitic. A total contradiction!

20.      Not only is the WDA incoherent and opaque but it’s anti-Semitic!

21.      In ‘Israeli Attempts To Define Antisemitism’ (circa 2006), you wrote that whilst there is

‘lessdifficulty in classifying an act or expression as antisemitic when it is motivated by religious or race-based hatred. Matters get somewhat more problematic, or at least controversial, when dealing with anti-Zionism.

 ‘when the perceived deficiencies of the society are used to undermine its basic legitimacy... this is, in effect, antisemitism.’

22.      You go on to say that ‘Trickier still, is anti-Zionism antisemitism?’ and that there are ‘two rare exceptions to contemporary anti-Zionism being antisemitism.’

23.      You also say that:

‘There is a strong argument to be made that antisemitism is involved when the belief is articulated that of all the peoples on the globe (including the Palestinians), only the Jews should not have the right to self-determination in a land of their own.

There are many people e.g. the Scots, Kurds and Basques who are denied the right to self-determination. Unlike Jews they are nations. Why do you suggest that the motivation is racism? The WDA is clearly not a neutral definition of anti-Semitism for the purpose of collecting data but a politically loaded definition.

24.      What has any of the above to do with hatred or hostility to Jews as Jews? What you were doing was redefining anti-Semitism for Zionist purposes.

25.      IWhy you did not include a fourth category – anti-Semitic Zionism? Unlike anti-Semitic anti-Zionism you are spoilt for choice, from Tommy Robinson to Steve Bannon, Donald Trump to Richard Spencer, Viktor Orban to Arthur Balfour. Indeed it’s extremely difficult to find a prominent anti-Semite who wasn’t also a Zionist. Why did you omit this category?

According to Stern, demonstrations such as that in Afula do not mean that Israel is an apartheid state

Antisemitism is hatred toward Jews because they are Jews and is directed toward the Jewish religion and Jews individually or collectively. More recently, antisemitism has been manifested in the demonization of the State of Israel. (my emphasis)

27.      The 38 word WDA definition defines anti-Semitism in terms of hate, yet you arguedthat people could say or do things that are anti-Semitic ‘without harboring hate’. Leaving aside this obvious contradiction what is the purpose in labelling political speech ‘anti-Semitic’ if you are not suggesting hate or hostility to Jews? Which Jews is it protecting?

28.      You were the American Jewish Committee’s anti-Semitism expert. The AJC is an unashamedly Zionist organisation boasting that ‘Around the world—from the hallways of the UN in New York... AJC advocates for Israel at the highest levels.’

Stern doesn't consider excluding Israeli Arabs from 'Jewish' villages an example of Apartheid

29.      You went on to give further examples of ‘anti-Semitism’:

In my view, the comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, while perhaps less serious than that made between Israel and the Nazis, should still be considered an expression of antisemitism, just as I do not see much distinction between denial of the Holocaust and the similar anti-historical canard that rejects any significant historic Jewish link to the land of Israel

30.      I realise that Shlomo Sand’s Invention of the Jewish Peoplewas only published in 2009 but the ideas behind it are not new, e.g. Abram Leon’s The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation. Was Leon, who was murdered at Auschwitz, also anti-Semitic?

Is it still your view, in the light of the B’Tselem and Human Rights Watch reports, that to call Israel an apartheid state is anti-Semitic? Are B’Tselem and HRW also anti-Semitic?

31.      The suggestion that denying any political or genetic link of Jews to Palestine is comparable to Holocaust denial is bizarre. It was Wilhelm Marr, the ‘father of anti-Semitism’ who argued that Jews were Semites.

The fact that Israel, like Nazi Germany, is not a state of all its inhabitants doesn't make an apartheid state according to Stern

32.      Israel is a state of its Jewish citizens not all its citizens. In the West Bank there are two sets of laws – one for Palestinians and another for Jews. That is apartheid.

According to the Jewish Electoral Institute25% of American Jews believe Israel is an apartheid state. Are a quarter of American Jews also anti-Semitic?

33.      What you are saying is that something can be anti-Semitic and also true. Historically Zionists did believe this but I am surprised that you agree with them. Jacob Klatzkin, the editor of Die Welt and the Encyclopaedia Judaica wrote that

‘If we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-Semitism we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism... Instead of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends, who desire to defend our rights.’

34.      You claim that comparing Israel and Nazi Germany is anti-Semitic? Why? Such a comparison might be right or wrong but how does it demonstrate hatred or hostility to Jews?

35.      Ze’ev Sternhell, a child survivor of the Nazi ghetto of Przemysl, wrote in Ha’aretz of ‘In Israel, Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazis’. Was Sternhell an anti-Semite? Another Israeli Professor Yehuda Elkana, a child survivor of Auschwitz, wroteof how the creation of Israel was ‘the tragic and paradoxical victory of Hitler’. Was Elkana also an anti-Semite?

36.      You seem to suffer from the Zionist habit of labelling all arguments you find difficult to argue against ‘anti-Semitic’.

37.      You also wrote that ‘everyone is entitled to their own point of view, people are not entitled to twist the facts.’ But that is exactly what you and Porat were doing. Can anyone seriously dispute a comparison between mobs in Israel chanting ‘death to the Arabs’ and mobs in Nazi Germany shouting ‘death to the Jews’?

38.      You condemned in your testimonyto Congress the ‘chilling and McCarthy-like’attempt of the misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism to have a Jewish professor at Bristol University, Rachel Gould, dismissed for writing ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’. However your attempt to dismiss this as the machinations of right-wing Zionists is disingenuous. It was the definition that you were responsible for drafting that fashioned a weapon for the CAA to use against critics of Zionism, including Jewish critics.

I therefore wish to ask whether you now accept that the WDA/IHRA Definition was fatally flawed from the outset? Do you accept, as Peter Eisenstadt wrotein a review of your recent book that ‘If you give witch hunters a manual for the discovery of witchcraft they will find witches.’ That was the problem of the WDA. Attacking free speech on Palestine/Zionism was inherent in it from the start. 

I hope that you will now reject the WDA in favour of the JDA which, unlike the WDA, does focus on anti-Semitism?

I suspect that you will disagree with what I have written. I am happy to debate these issues with you. I am sure it would be an interesting debate!

Regards,

Tony Greenstein

Like Brutus, Starmer bided his time, waiting for the opportunity when he could plunge the knife between Corbyn's shoulder blades

It’s not just that Starmer has the personality of a poodle pretending to be a German shepherd dog. Nor is it that when give the choice he prefers to lie. It’s not even that he portrayed himself as the unity candidate standing on 10 pledges from the Corbyn Manifesto. It isn’t even that Starmer has an utter contempt for Labour Party democracy, suspending whole parties for having the temerity to discuss and debate the suspension of a former leader, Jeremy Corbyn. 

It’s not even his treachery in staying in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and ensuring that Labour’s approach to Brexit would spell disaster. It is all of these things and more. Starmer’s only achievement to date is that he has made dishonesty into a fine art. And let’s face it.  This is the best that New Labour can offer.

I looked at his 10 pledges and there isn’t one he has kept. The first pledge was to reverse Tory cuts to corporation tax.  So what did he do when the Tories raised corporation tax?  He opposedthem!

He pledged to ‘put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do.’ Which presumably is why he tried to keep the GND off the agenda at this week’s Labour Party conference!

Perhaps it’s Pledge 4, Promote peace and human rights that sticks most in the gullet. He promised

‘No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.’

So what did he do?  He supported the Tories Overseas Operations Bill, sacking3 shadow cabinet members who voted against a bill that effectively grants immunity to British soldiers guilty of war crimes and torture! The Spycops Bill that would render the activities of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Demonstration Squad legal, including its rape of women, was also supported by Starmer.

But perhaps the biggest lie of all was Pledge 10 that promised ‘Effective opposition to the Tories’. Instead we have had uncritical support of Boris Johnson throughout the COVID crisis and use of that crisis to further the privatisation of the NHS.

Ken Loach starts off by comparing Starmer to a Mr Bean who is trying to be Stalin, unlike Gordon Brown who took the reverse path! I’m not even sure that Stalin is the right comparison for this tin pot dictator who best resembles an incompetent Asiatic despot.

This is a superb demolition job on Starmer. Loach doesn’t spare Starmer as he pours contempt on this miserable man. The exodus of 150,000 members and the destruction of the party whose membership Corbyn virtually doubled into becoming the largest political party in Europe will be Starmer’s main legacy.

We only have to look at the lie that Starmer’s changing how leaders are elected in order to give power back to ordinary trade union members.  Just another small lie. If Starmer was serious about giving power to trade unionists he would pledge to get rid of the anti-trade union laws.

Starmer promised to ‘root out the poison’ of a non-existing anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Yet what has he done? Jewish members of the Labour Party are 5 times more likely to be suspended or expelled than non-Jewish members. 

If Starmer (and the Labour Right) had had any honesty they would have admitted that their concern was support for the Israeli state not anti-Semitism.

Starmer waited until he was elected Labour leader to revealthat he was a ‘Zionist without qualification’. Just as he waited until he was elected to reveal that a host of millionaires had fundedhis campaign including Sir Trevor Chinn, who bankrolls a variety of Zionist groups including Labour Friends of Israel, to the tune of £445,000.

Starmer withdrewof a Ramadan iftar after the Board of Deputies lobbied him to do so after it was revealed, shock horror, that one of the organisers supported the boycott of Israeli dates!

And just to emphasise his racist and imperialist credentials, Starmer and that other waste of space, Angela Rayner, decided to speak at a Labour Friends of Israel/Jewish Labour Movement meeting on the same day as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinians.

More Lies which the sheep swallowed

But Loach does not simply demolish Starmer.  He also provides us with an alternative. The Left has to grapple the nettle now or forever lose the opportunity that the Corbyn Project and its dissolution has provided it with. We need to build a new socialist movement, not a party, that can provide the basis for a challenge to a Labour Party that is now a Tory Party Mark II. 

The Labour Party today under Starmer is a party of the British ruling class and a safe alternative to the Tories when they fall out of favour with the electorate. A party which will not provide an alternative either to capitalism or imperialist war.

Watch it and enjoy.

Tony Greenstein

I am also reprinting this excellent resignation letter to Keir Starmer on Skwawkboxfrom Stephen Smith, Faringdon town councillor and Labour conference delegate. Stephen Smith has resigned his party membership and all his positions in the local party after being targeted for suspension as part of the Labour right’s attempt to protect Keir Starmer’s acting general secretary from democracy– he has yet to decide whether he will remain a councillor.

Councillor and delegate’s blistering resignation letter lists Starmer’s crimes against Labour, democracy and the people

by SKWAWKBOX (SW) 24/09/2021

‘I at least expected the most basic standards of honesty and integrity. How naive… You can’t even lie competently… How fucking dare you?!’ Councillor resigns membership and all party offices and tells Keir Starmer he is putting ‘insatiable factionalism’ above the needs of the country

 It was the Betrayal of Chris Williamson by Corbyn, Formby and Lansman That Paved the Way to Starmer's Stasi

Lee Garratt, Thinkwell Books, 2021

The suspension and forcing out of Chris Williamson from the Labour Party was a watershed moment in the death of the Corbyn Project. Alone amongst Labour MPs, Chris understood that the Zionist 'anti-Semitism' campaign was not about anti-Semitism but the removal of Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership of the Labour Party. For anyone interested in how a popular Labour leader went from near victory in 2017 to humiliating defeat in 2019 this book is essential reading.

The book opens with a quote from Nietzsche, that ‘there are no facts, only interpretations.’ Why Lee Garratt opened with this post-modernist nonsense is unclear but the Nakba of 1948 when ¾ million Palestinians were expelled is a fact, regardless of the Zionist interpretation that they ran away. Likewise the holocaust is a fact. I can only assume that it was included as a reference to the fake evidence that was used to 'prove' that the Labour Party was overrun by anti-Semitism.

Tommy Sheridan, the former Scottish Socialist Party MSP, provides a foreword and makes the point that the ‘creation of a narrative during the last decade that casts (Corbyn, Livingstone and Williamson) as anti-Semites underlines the preposterous and perverse power of the billionaire-owned mainstream media.’ This is the basic political lesson that Formby, Corbyn and McDonnell forgot.

There is a preface on the origins of the word ‘anti-Semitism’ and the question of whether to hyphenate it. Garratt argues, in my view correctly, that to hyphenate ‘anti-Semitism’ is to forget the hidden intersections between Jews and Moslems and the history of the term ‘semite’. It also reminds us of how anti-Jewish racism became racialised in the latter part of the 19th Century.

There follows an interesting discourse on the definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ and the Zionists’ IHRA definition. Lee points to one of the illustrations of ‘anti-Semitism’

‘accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than the country they live in’.

arguing it is a fact that many Jews proudly declare that their first loyalty is to Israel. Indeed fundamental to Zionism is the belief that Israel is the nation state of the Jews which therefore demands their allegiance. This is a good example of how the Zionism and anti-Semitism coincide.

Unfortunately the book has a potted history of anti-Semitism that accepts the Zionist myth of an eternal 2,000 years of Jewish suffering. In fact Jews were both oppressors and the oppressed. As Abram Leon wrote in The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation:

 ‘Zionism transposes modern anti-Semitism to all of history and saves itself the trouble of studying the various forms of anti-Semitism and their evolution.’[i]

Lee Garratt also argues that the Israeli state itself has changed since 1948 when it was ‘leavened with left, egalitarian views e.g. the kibbutz movement.’ In fact the Kibbutzim were the pioneers of Zionist apartheid. Arabs could not be members of a kibbutz. They were Jewish only stockade and watchtower settlements.

When Chris Williamson was suspended, after his speech to Sheffield Momentum had been twisted and distorted to mean its exact opposite, I wrotethat ‘The Suspension of Chris Williamson MP is Shameful – This May Be the End of the Corbyn Project.’

The suspension of Williamson and the refusal to support him when under attack by Tom Watson and the Right was perhaps the most shameful aspect of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. More shameful even than the suspension and expulsion of Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth, Ken Livingstone and myself.

It is to the discredit of John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Laura Pidcock, Dianne Abbot and the other members of the Socialist Campaign Group that not only did they fail to offer any solidarity with Chris but Pidcock told him not to come to SCG meetings anymore. Richard Burgon’s excuse was ‘What can 10 MPs do against 100?’ It was an attitude of utter defeatism.

Ian Lavery as a former President of the NUM knew better than anyone what the meaning of solidarity is yet he too failed to utter a single word of support to Chris Williamson. The sole exception to this scabbing by the SCG being Laura Smith, the MP for Crewe and Nantwich, who unfortunately lost her seat at the last election.  And ironically Fabian Hamilton, the Leeds NE MP who is also a Zionist! (p. 67)

When Corbyn was suspended the SCG ‘released a few ambiguous, wishy-washy faux solidarity statements to the media.’ They expressed regret at Corbyn’s suspension whilst at the same time wanting him to issue another apology. Garratt is right when he says that:

‘it has been these erstwhile supporters that have done the most damage to the left. It is much easier to deal with one’s enemy when he or she is out in the open. Right-wing bully boys such as Ian Austen can easily be seen for who they are and their comments are taken as such. But when people like John McDonnell express support, yet saddle it with further conditions, one would be better off without that support in the first place; their crocodile tears and misplaced concern serving only to give further credence to the lies and calumnies.’

Garratt gives as an example of the complicity of the SCG in the witch-hunt, the attack by Alliance for Workers’ Liberty supporter Nadia Whittome MP on Nottingham East CLP for having the temerity to discuss the EHRC report. One Jewish Zionist left the meeting after having made false allegations against another member. Other Jewish members supported the motion. The Chair, Louise Regan, quite rightly refused to rule the motion on the EHRC out of order. Instead of supporting the democratic rights of CLPs, Whittome condemned them for not obeying David Evan’s dictat. Ms Regan was suspended almost immediately. Unfortunately the SCG has no procedure for suspending or expelling scab members.

In the Kafkaesque atmosphere of the Labour Party, merely challenging accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ ‘denialism’ is deemed proof of anti-Semitism. Just as in 17^th century Salem, denying that you were a witch was proof of being one.

What were the ‘crimes’ that Williamson was suspended for? There were two major offences:

1.           Chris’s speech to Sheffield Momentum of 23 February 2019.

2.           Booking a House of Commons committee room for a showing of Jackie Walker’s film ‘The Witchhunt’.

The first offence was a classic example of how the words of people were twisted and mangled to serve the Zionist agenda. It is proof of the poisonous nature of the British press and British politics. It was an example of Orwellian Doublethink. War is Peace or in this case Anti-racism = Racism and opposition to anti-Semitism = anti-Semitism.

After being suspended Chris was asked by Labour’s Thought Police about what he had said in Sheffield:

During this meeting did you say “The Party... is being demonised as a racist, bigoted party... I think the Party’s response has been partly responsible... we’ve backed off on too much, we’ve given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic?” (p.149)

If so please explain what you meant when you said this.

Chris’s response was that this 

‘selective and highly misleading quote above is without context and appears to have been provided maliciously and vexatiously... with the deliberate intention of my words being misconstrued.’

What then were the actual words which Chris had said?

‘We are not a racist party, are we? We’re not an anti-Semitic party. We are the party that stood up to racism throughout our entire history... It was Labour that was the backbone of the Anti-Nazi League in the 1970s when we confronted the anti-Semites, the racists, the Islamaphobes on the streets and we defeated those fascists, didn’t we? And now we – Jeremy, me and others – are being accused of being bigots, of being anti-Semites. And it’s almost as we’re living within the pages of Orwell’s 1984. You know the Party that’s done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party.

And I’ve got to say I think our Party’s response has been partly responsible for that. Because in my opinion...– we’ve backed off far too much, we’ve given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic. What have we got to apologise for?  For being an anti-racist party? And we’ve done more to actually address the scourge of anti-Semitism than any other political party. And yet we are being traduced. And grassroots members are being traduced.

Chris can certainly be criticised for giving too rosy a picture of Labour’s record when it came to fighting racism and fascism. It’s not true that the Labour Party mobilised for the Battle of Cable Street. On the contrary members were dissuaded from going just as Jews were urged by the Board of Deputies not to confront the fascists. It was the Communist Party and the Independent Labour Party and Jewish workers themselves who took the lead.

The record of the Labour Party from the Kenya Asians Act in 1968 to the Blair government’s hostile environment policy (Home Secretary Alan Johnson coined the phrase) was anything but anti-racist. Labour’s record on support for imperialism, from India to Africa to Palestine, is a shocking one.

There is nothing in what Chris Williamson said in his speech that was remotely racist or anti-Semitic nor did it criticise the Labour Party for fighting racism and anti-Semitism. What he was saying was that the Labour Party should have been done more to reject and rebut the false allegations of anti-Semitism. 

Yet what was the reaction to Chris’s speech? The Independent led the mob: ‘Chris Williamson: Labour MP filmed telling activists party is too 'apologetic' about antisemitism’. Matt Greene, also of the Independent chimed in with a particularly disgusting opinion piece: ‘Chris Williamson has given Labour the perfect opportunity to show it is serious about tackling antisemitism’ which compared Chris’s failure to apologise for Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ to the failure of the US Congress to apologise for its ‘maltreatment’, in fact extermination  of the native Indians or the failure of David Cameron to apologise for the Amritsar massacre when he visited India in 2013.

There were no depths to which the press wouldn’t sink in order to demonise Williamson. Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ was a contested allegation. 70%of Labour members believed it had been weaponised by the Zionists.[ii] A belief that has been thoroughly vindicated by Keir Starmer who in his mission to ‘root out the poison’ of anti-Semitism has expelled and suspended 5 times as many Jews as non-Jews.

Greene’s comparison of Williamson’s speech to the massacre of thousands of native Indians or the machine gunning of a peaceful crowd, of whom at least 400 died, to  Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ where not one single ‘victim’ was identified, was obscene. But it was no more obscene than Nazia Parveen’s articlein the Guardian: ‘Chris Williamson: 'no place' in Labour for MP embroiled in antisemitism row’.

Lapsley, a member of the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement, was quoted as saying that 'There is no place for Chris Williamson in my Labour party’ despite the article pointing out that while he was leader of Derby Council ‘Williamson was instrumental in setting up Holocaust Memorial Day events in the city, and he also rescinded the medieval proscription of Jews living in Derby.’

MI5’s asset at the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland, joined in: ‘Labour doesn’t have zero tolerance of antisemitism if Chris Williamson is an MP.’ In one continuous litany of lies Freedland, knowing that his assertions on Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ lacked merit, began his contribution with a sarcastic

‘Credit to Chris Williamson for originality. Not many have suggested that Labour’s chief problem with antisemitism within its ranks is that it has been too apologetic to the Jewish community, that it has shown an excess of concern and contrition.’

Freedland quoted that well-known anti-racist Tom Watson ‘who wasted no time in branding Williamson’s apology “long-winded” and “not good enough”, adding that if it were up to him, he’d have removed the whip from Williamson already.

This is the same Tom Watson whose reactionto the decision of the High Court to remove racist MP Phil Woolas from the House of Commons, after having fought an election designedto ‘make the white folks angry’ was that ‘I’ve lost sleep thinking about poor old Phil Woolas and his leaflets.’ And if anyone is under any doubt that this was a one-off, Watson was the campaign manager in the by election in 2004 in Birmingham Hodshrove when Labour issueda leaflet with the slogan ‘Labour is on your side, the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers.'

Garratt documents the onslaught of the media, especially the Guardian. On 9 July 2019 I coordinated a letter from over 100 Jewish people to the Guardian protesting Williamson’s suspension. The letter was printed. Immediately the Board of Deputies and Hope not Hate protested because two of the signatories, although individual members of the Jewish Labour Movement and HnH were not writing on their behalf. The letter was ‘disappeared’ by the Guardian from the Internet. But even in the age of the Internet you can’t ‘disappear’ the printed word!

Owen Jones played a particularly disgusting role in the attack on Williamson. He was the Guardian’s faux left columnist who, lacking all arguments, resorted to insults describing Chris as ‘king of the cranks’ for having something Jones lacks – principles. Jones joined the clamour against Corbyn writing that Jeremy Corbyn says he’s staying. That’s not good enough a month before the 2017 General Election.

Garratt says that Jones had a ‘blind spot’ on the question of Labour anti-Semitism. I disagree. It is part and parcel of his noxious identity politics which promotes the most powerful and reactionary identities, Zionist Jews against their victims, Palestinians. (p. 114)

Every racist and reactionary, inside and outside the Labour Party, was clamouring for the expulsion of Chris Williamson.

Chris’s second offence was to book the House of Commons to show Jackie Walker’s film Witchhuntwhich is a sustained polemic against the anti-Semitism narrative.

The Witchhunt was due to be shown by Jewish Voices for Labour at the 2018 Labour Party conference. However this was prevented because of a bomb threat. Instead of calling out this political terrorism by the Zionists Jennie Formby did their work for them.

Instead of defending the democratic right of an MP to organise the showing of a film that offended the Zionists or simply defending the right of free speech, Formby sent an email to Williamson demanding that he cancel the showing of the film ‘with a heavy hint that if he didn’t, she would suspended him’

The Witchhunt was a film produced by Jon Pullman, himself Jewish. It offered a different perspective to that of the Board of Deputies, the Daily Mail, Jonathan Freedland and John Mann. It would have been easy for Formby to defend the right to show the film as a basic democratic right. Instead Formby, acting on behalf of Corbyn and the Leader of Opposition Office, became the emissary of Apartheid Israel and its apologists.  In Israel they administratively detain dissidents. In Britain they rely on ‘socialists’ to do their dirty work. (pp. 61-62)

In this one incident we see exactly where the Corbyn Project went wrong. Instead of defending their supporters against the attacks of Zionists and Israel apologists, Formby went out of her way to appease them.  And a fat lot of good it did because when the 2019 General Election came they wheeled out the Chief Rabbi, the Board of Deputies and all the rest of the Zionist cabal to damn Corbyn as the worst thing since Adolf Hitler.

It is regrettable that Chris initially apologised and even more regrettable that once he was suspended he didn’t rebook the film, however he was under immense pressure.

In Appendix 5 there is reprinted a copy of the questions sent by the witchhunters to Chris. There were 4 questions about the film:

i.                   Did you book a room in Parliament for 4^th March 2019 to screen a film entitled ‘Witch Hunt’?

ii.                Please explain your understanding of the film

iii.             Please explain why you booked a room in Parliament to screen this film.

iv.             Do you have anything else you think the Party should know about this screening.

If I had been sent these questions my answers would have been short and to the point. I would have asked Formby and the witchhunters why they had a problem with the screening of a film? What did they fear? Do they not believe any longer in democratic debate? Is the Labour Party a replica of the Israeli state? Did they never consider that the Zionists had something to hide?

The shrill and raucous Ruth Smeeth MP, who lost Stoke on Trent North at the 2019 General Election, whined that ‘Giving these people and Jackie Walker a platform at the home of British democracy is a complete and utter disgrace.’ (p.62)

Smeeth, who was previously Director of Public Affairs and Campaigns at the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) in November 2005 became CEO of Index on Censorship in June 2020 after having lost her seat at the General Election. IoC should be called Index for Censorship. The fact that Formby and Corbyn backed up Smeeth, an utterly reactionary MP, who was an informerfor the US Embassy demonstrates the cowardice and lack of any political perspective of these spineless reformists.