Quantcast
Channel: Tony Greenstein's Blog
Viewing all 2415 articles
Browse latest View live

The Times Retracts Allegations of anti-Semitism

$
0
0
Times April 14th 2016
Nearly two weeks ago (April 2nd) The Telegraph and The Times printed stories which implied that I had been suspended for anti-Semitism from the Labour Party and that those allegations had some merit.

The information had been leaked by the Compliance Unit of the Labour Party to papers which are not normally known to support Labour, thus demonstrating that some staff working for the Labour Party prefer to feed the Tory press as part of their campaign to remove Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership.

Because, make no mistake about it, my suspension is not on account of what I have done but as a means of getting rid of the current leadership.  From what I have heard so far there are at least 50 such suspensions, all of left-wingers, around the country.  In one constituency, Rushcliffe 10 people have been suspended because they entered a 'closed' meeting.  If the Right makes an allegation John Stolliday and his witch-hunting unit suspends them.

After contacting The Times and letting it be known that m'learned friends were more than eager to have a quiet chat in the Royal Courts of Justice the Times decided that discretion was the better part of valour!



'Like the boy who cried wolf' Morning Star April 14 2016

$
0
0
TONY GREENSTEIN puts the record straight on his suspension from the Labour Party for alleged anti-Semitism

In last  Thursday's Morning Star, my article (below) appeared in the Labour Movement daily, the Morning Star.  It has been a good week.  At the Brighton & Hove Momentum meeting on Monday evening, a meeting of some 30 people supported an emergency motion calling on the Labour Party to lift my suspension and immediately release all information to me concerning why I was suspended.  There was just one vote against.

The resolution included the following points:

• An urgent review of Labour Party internal disciplinary procedures that can result in members being suspended for weeks and months while being subjected
to interrogation, without representation, about unspecified allegations by anonymous complainants;

• The immediate lifting of the suspension of Mr Greenstein, pending the outcome of a full and fair investigation in accordance with the principles of natural justice.


On Saturday, at a meeting of over 100 members of the District Labour Party (which represents all 3 constituencies of Brighton Pavilion, Brighton Kemptown and Hove) the meeting approved by a large majority a motion calling on the Labour Party to lift my suspension.  Because of objections from the Regional Organiser, Harry Gregson, the motion was anonymised.  

Harry Fitch and other right-wingers, including the local Tory/New Labour MP Peter Kyle opposed the resolution.  Kyle it was who claimed that the reason why he has refused to appear on the doctors' picket line was because of an instruction from Jeremy Corbyn.  He failed to explain how John McDonnell had managed to make an appearance.  Kyle also refused to support Carolyn Lucas''The Reinstatement of NHS Bill' because, as he freely admits, he supports private sector involvement in creaming off revenue from the NHS.

It's not for nothing that some people joked that when he won the Hove seat last May from the Tories, the more right-wing candidate had won!  Unfortunately Brighton has an entrenched right-wing control of the District Party though on Saturday the meeting consisted of a left majority.  The task of Momentum in the months ahead is to ensure that more of the new members of the constituencies (over 3,000 new members) get to attend and vote for the new leadership of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbot.

Tony Greenstein








EXCLUSIVE - Lifting the Lid on the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism

$
0
0

The Bogus Charity that Campaigns Against Corbyn, Muslims and Palestinians 

Campaign Against Anti-semitism's first rally - Demonstrators covered with Israeli flag

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism's racist and Islamaphobic infographic
The so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism has just published a racist attack on British  Muslims as its latest stunt to shock people.  Why?

Miriam Shaviv referred in the Jewish Chronicle of 8 January 2016 to the 'widespread dissatisfaction with the visibility of the Board during Operation Protective Edge in 2014 leading to the formation of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism'.   Protective Edge was the name given to the attack by Israel on the Palestinians in Gaza, during which over 2,200 Palestinians were killed, including 551 children.
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism's page on a neo-Nazi demonstration puts more emphasis on Israel and anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism than on the Nazis who they allegedly opposed
In Britain there was a march of 150,000 people against Israel’s blitzkrieg.  Public opinion overwhelmingly supported the Palestinians.  The Board of Deputies of British Jews was accused by Zionist zealots of doing nothing.  For some time there had been a dispute between the more respectable, bourgeois elements in the Zionist firmament and the activists, as represented by one Jonathan Hoffman. Hoffman had originally been elected as Co-vice-chair of the Zionist Federation but he was eventually removed from his position when he began criticising mega capitalist and Chair of the Jewish  Leadership Council, Micky Davis.  Davis had sold up his mining company Xtrata just before it set out on the road to bankruptcy.  Davis didn’t take kindly to the upstart Hoffman criticising him for comments he made that were mildly critical of Israel.  Out went Hoffman with his tail between his legs.
CAA campaigns to confuse - ties in Boycott of Israel with anti-Semitism - Luke Akehurst of Progress and Labour First, a non-Jew who works for Zionist group makes the same nonsense allegations
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism was born of frustration at the inability of the Board to mount even its normal demonstrations in favour of the mass murder of Palestinians.  Its demonstrations had been getting smaller and smaller and the last one, in Trafalgar Square at the time of Cast Lead, had been disrupted first by a Jewdas hoax and then a heckler.  Despite being billed as a ‘peace’ demonstration, the heckler was roughed up by the crowd.  The Police estimated that it was only 4,000 strong, a far cry from the 25,000 it had mobilised in previous years.  British Jews were becoming more and more unwilling to come out on the streets in favour of genocide in Palestine.

Anti-Semitism


The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism was thus born from a desire to support Israel right or wrong, not a desire to combat anti-Semitism.  Its purpose was primarily to confuse people as to the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and to portray anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic.  As the CAA said in its  Annual Anti-Semitism Barometer 2015 Full Reportit was formed to tackle anti-Semitism of ‘both a classical ethno-religious nature and also a political nature related to Israel’.

As part of this process CAA has cynically used fear of anti-Semitism as a device to both instill fear into and mobilise British Jews, by suggesting that demonstrations against Israeli genocide and destruction were anti-Semitic and directed at British Jews as Jews. 
Jewish Chronicle leader when CAS was first formed
The CAA accepts that ‘in July 2014, when fighting between Israel and Hamas peaked, the Metropolitan Police Service recorded its worst ever month for hate crime in London, 95% of which was antisemitic hate crime directly related to fighting between Israel and Hamas.’ [Annual Antisemitism Barometer Published] https://antisemitism.uk/annual-antisemitism-barometer-published/

When Israel attacks the Palestinian population of Gaza, there is a knock-on effect in terms of attacks on Jews in Britain.  This is not surprising.  There is a direct correlation between Israel’s attacks on the Palestinians of Gaza and anti-Semitism in Britain.  The Israeli state calls itself a Jewish state, its actions are claimed on behalf of all Jews and a few people react badly by seeing that Jewish people are responsible for the carnage in Palestine.  The obvious conclusion is for Israel not  to claim that it is acting on behalf of Jews in the diaspora. 

This is not however a conclusion that the CAS draws.  It has an entirely, different agenda, viz. to demonise the Palestinian solidarity groups and the BDS campaign by alleging anti-Semitism.  The CAS tries to redefine anti-Semitism.  It claimsthat ‘The globally-recognised EUMC definition of antisemitism clearly states that it is antisemitic to make “mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.” 

The only problem with this is that the EUMC definition of anti-Semitism is not globally-recognised.   Indeed the European Union Monitoring Committee definition was only ever a ‘working definition’ and is recognised by no one, least of all the EUMC’s successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency, which has erased it from its website. Blanca Tapia of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency was quoted, in The Times of Israel as saying that the FRA had never viewed the document as a valid definition.’ Agency officials said the document had been pulled offline “together with other non-official documents.EU drops its ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism 

This is not just a matter of ignorance, because the CAA lobbied the US special envoy on anti-Semitism to pressurise Europe to readopt the EUMC!   In an article,  'CampaignAgainst Antisemitism Meets United States Antisemitism Envoy’we are told that on 29th January 2015, ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism Chairman Gideon Falter met with the United States’ Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, Ira Forman, The CAA asked the United States for help on four fronts.’  One of these fronts was ‘Pressuring the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency to formally adopt the “working definition” of antisemitism developed by the now-defunct EU Monitoring Centre on Xenophobia and Racism which has been adopted by the United States government.’  It is but one example of CAA’s political dishonesty.

Elsewhere CAA defines anti-Semitism in such a way as to mirror and distort the MacPherson definition of anti-Semitism.

Antisemitism is known as “the oldest hatred” and some aspects of antisemitism are only obvious to those who know something of Jewish history. In addition, antisemitism is the only form of racism that can be disguised as hatred for a state, Israel.’    

Only those who know something of Jewish history, i.e. the CAA and fellow Zionists, can know what anti-Semitism is.  CAA treats history as a fixed body of knowledge which only the politically approved of have access to.  Anti-Zionist Jews of course don’t fit into this category as they might reject the statement that ‘anti-Semitism is the only form of racism that can be disguised as hatred for a state, Israel.’  The problem is that both the South African whites and the Ulster Protestants made the same claim.  

What CAA and the Zionists are effectively saying is that there is no objective definition of anti-Semitism and therefore it depends on your political perspective.  A strange form of racism.

The Use of  Opinion Polls - A racist campaign against Muslims
CAA Chair Gideon Falter tries to defend misleading opinion poll suggesting most Jews want to leave Britain - which dovetails nicely with Zionist agenda
The so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism has managed to generate headlines and publicity through the skewed use of opinion polls.  In its 2015 Report it claimed, on the basis of false and distorted statistics, that an opinion poll showed that almost half (45%) of British adults believe at least one of the antisemitic statements shown to them to be true’. It asked questions such as ‘“Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.”  This is deemed anti-Semitism.  But it is a loaded question. 
Designed to stampede Jews to Israel

Zionists do use the Holocaust as a weapon in their propaganda war.  They also talk about it in a way that is seen to be politically manipulative and it is not surprising that many people perceive this as such.  Is it anti-Semitic?  Apparently 1 in 5 people believed that “Jews' loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people.”  Now where can they have got this idea?  Let me see.  How many times have I been called a Jewish ‘traitor’ for not supporting Israel?  If I had a pound for each occasion I’d be rich by now.  These opinion polls are testing the effectiveness of Zionist propaganda which says that Jews are loyal to Israel.

The CAA also conducted a thoroughly unscientific poll of British Jews in order to find ‘proof’ for the Zionist wish that ‘anti-Semitism’  was that bad that most Jews were thinking about leaving Britain for Israel.  It found that:

·         58% of Jews believed that they had no future in Europe.
·         More than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism now echoes the 1930s
·         1 in 4 British Jews has considered leaving the country in the past two years because of rising antisemitism. 
·         45% of Jews questioned feel their family is threatened by Islamist extremism.
·         77% of Jews questioned have witnessed antisemitism disguised as a political comment about Israel.
·         84% of Jews consider boycotts of businesses selling Israeli products to be intimidation and 82% say that media bias against Israel fuels persecution of Jews in Britain.

To say that these were loaded questions would be putting it mildly.  They were ideas put in the heads of people in order to gain an answer.  No attempt was made to put countervailing opinions to the audience.  For example it would have been equally possible to put a question such as ‘Is it legitimate to boycott settlement goods in order to pressurise Israel into a political settlement.’

Contrast this with a rigorously controlled, academic survey of the British Jewish community carried out by the Department of Sociology of City University (November 2015).  This found that nearly a quarter, 24%, of British Jews supported sanctions to bring about a peace settlement.  Indeed there is what it calls a ‘sizeable minority’ supporting sanctions (34%-41%) among the young, the highly qualified academically, and those who are not affiliated to a synagogue; with much lower support (i.e. strong opposition) among older respondents, non-graduates and members of Orthodox synagogues11 (11% - 18% support).

The City University survey found that more than twice as many people (26%) saw improving the position of Israel’s Arabs as important compared to 11% who saw combatting the boycott of Israel as their main priority.   Indeed 61% saw pursuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians as important and 46% saw halting the expansion of the settlements as important compared to only 32% who saw fighting attempts to undermine Israel’s legitimacy as a priority. 

Indeed an equal amount of Jews supported negotiations with Hamas as opposed it.  (42%)  It would seem that British Jews are far less hawkish than their community leaders.
Contrary to all the Zionist propaganda British Jews are becoming less Zionist - especially young Jews

And despite the hasbara one gets from Zionist leaders, 53% of Jews believed Israel was an occupying power in the West Bank compared to 29% who disagreed.  A whopping 68% agreed with the statement that they felt a sense of despair everytime Israel expanded its settlements as opposed to 18% who disagreed.  Even more amazingly whilst 59% identify as a Zionist nearly a third, 31% didn’t see themselves as a Zionist. 

In response to the question about the role of Israel in their Jewish identity, then 27% say either no role or some role, compared to 19% five years ago, and 73% say Israel has an important or central role compared to 82% five years ago.  Clearly Israel is losing its centrality in Jewish identity, especially amongst the young and those who are not affiliated to a synagogue.  None of this however is touched on in the propaganda surveys of the CAA.
Jewish Chronicle report contradicts CAA and shows nearly 9/10 British Jews have no intention of leaving Britain

Even the Jewish Chronicle in its next edition poured cold water on these ‘findings’ with its own Survation poll.  Some 88% of British Jews in this poll stated that they had no intention of emigrating.  Jewish Chronicle 14.1.15. JC poll reveals 88 per cent of British Jews have not considered leaving UK 

In short the CAA poll was junk but it had served to attract the headlines and make Jewish people feel more nervous about their position in this country, which is always a Zionist aim.  Zionism is nothing if it isn’t based around the idea of getting Jews to feel insecure in their own country in order that they consider emigrating to Israel.
The Jewish Establishment Turns on CAA over its Distorted Poll that said most Jews are thinking of leaving Britain
Letter from 33 Jewish people opposing abuse of anti-Semitism

The CAA had an agenda and conducted an opinion poll with the intention of getting people to say what CAA wanted to hear.  As the letter from 33 Jewish people in the Guardian 22.1.15. made clear The only meaningful response to antisemitism is openness.

The Institute of Jewish Policy Research article ‘Researching antisemitism’ [14 Jan 2015]  was damning in its criticisms of the CAA’s findings concerning Jewish attitudes.  It said:

‘unfortunately, the organisation’s survey about antisemitism is littered with flaws,… its work may even be rather irresponsible.’  It was ‘based on an open web survey that had very limited capacity to assess whether respondents were in any way representative of the British Jewish population. So the percentages quoted are of survey respondents, not of Jews in the UK. The findings might be representative of the Jewish community in some way, but it is at least equally likely that they are not. Unfortunately, due to quite basic methodological flaws and weaknesses, there is absolutely no way the researchers or any readers of the report can really know.

Because of this, the IJPR stated that the claim in the report that “more than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism now echoes the 1930s” verges into irresponsible territory – it is an incendiary finding, and there is simply no way to ascertain whether or not it is accurate.’  It conclusions were damning:  ‘Professional social researchers build credible surveys and analyse the data with an open mind; the CAA survey falls short both in terms of its methodology and its analysis.’  Ouch!

Regarding the Yougov survey into the attitudes of British people, which the CAS tried to spin the JPR said this:

‘A far more accurate and honest read of the YouGov data would highlight the fact that between 75% and 90% of people in Britain either do not hold antisemitic views or have no particular view of Jews either way, and only about 4% to 5% of people can be characterised as clearly antisemitic when looking at individual measures of antisemitism.’

Somewhat different to the CAA claim that nearly half of British people were anti-Semitic.

Islamaphobia
The CAS's racist attack on Muslims - particular target for this Islamaphobic Zionist outfit
The CAA’s latest attack on British Muslims has plumbed new depths.  The CAA has gone to town on a Channel 4 survey of Muslim attitudes in Britain C4 survey anddocumentary reveals What British Muslims Really Think  The poll is highly dubious [see What do Muslims really think? This skewed poll certainly won’t tell us Miqdaad Versi
The CST was none too pleased when the so-called Campaign Against anti-Semitism promised to set up a hot line to report anti-Semitic incidents.  When rumbled the CAS  blamed the BBC
Even the ultra-Zionist Community Security Trust has raised doubts about the validity of the poll.  In an unusually sophisticated article (at least for the CST) What antisemites really think they wrote:
Dave Rich refusing to say  whether he endorses CAA's racist pamphlet
‘This latest poll showed something else that is interesting, and is not specific to Muslims: that people who believe antisemitic things about Jews rarely think of themselves as antisemitic….

All unpleasant stuff. Put it together and you have somewhere around a third of British Muslims who believe conspiratorial ideas about Jews that are drawn directly from classical antisemitism, and (on the surface at least) have little to do with anger over the Israel/Palestine conflict.

What is perhaps curious, though, is that this is not reflected in a more basic question that was asked in the same poll about how favourable or unfavourable Muslims feel towards Jewish people as a religious group. When this was asked, Muslims averaged out as having favourable feelings towards Jews: on a sliding scale from 0-100, where 0 is the least favourable and 100 the most, British Muslims scored 57.1 in their feelings towards Jews.

This was lower than they scored in their feelings towards Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and people of no religion, but still, there is a gap between how the Muslim respondents in the poll feel towards Jews, and what they believe about them.’
The Jewish Chronicle expresses the Establishment view that the CAS 'has tried to use this communal success as an opportunity both to discredit those efforts by the existing communal bodies and to give itself entirely false credit for the ban (on fascists).' Difficult to disagree, albeit for different reasons
Now of course the CST has genuine reasons to dislike the CAS.  For one they are trespassing on their territory.  The CST considers itself the professionals when it comes to anti-Semitism.  The CAS are loud-mouthed propagandists.  The Jewish Establishment whilst not openly criticising them do not like their brashness.  In a perceptive analysis Tony Lerman told of how ‘the key Jewish establishment organizations--the Community Security Trust, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies--are, behind the scenes, furious that the CAA have snatched control of the communal narrative on antisemitism from them.’ [email 18.1.15.]
CST has 2 references to EDL, neither of which in fact mention EDL
The CAA however has a clear agenda, which is to demonise Muslims in this country.  It is an agenda that Netanyahu and Israeli propaganda faithfully follow and this is one of the reasons that the EDL and British National Party so love Israel. The CAA has endeavoured to draw every ounce of racism from the survey, as has Channel 4.

Apparently 35% of Muslims think Jews have too much power in Britain compared to just 9% of non-Muslim British people.  Even if this is true, and that is a big if, where do British Muslims get such a view?  Perhaps it’s a reflection of the powerlessness of their own community and a reaction to the attacks on Muslims by Zionist groups such as the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.

Strangely enough the spin that the CAA put on anti-Semitism in its survey of British attitudes generally Annual Anti-Semitism Barometer Report for 2015 was that 45% of Britons agreed with one or more anti-Semitic statement put before them.   In 2015 it was alleging that 45% of British people were anti-Semitic.  The CAA has a vested interest in talking up anti-Semitism and thus frightening its donors into coughing up the cash.
CAA's racist coverage of anti-Muslim poll by Channel 4
The CAA analysis of the Channel 4 poll is that Muslims are more anti-Semitic than ordinary Britons.  But some of the figures don’t correlate.  For example in the 2015 Report 17% of British people believe that Jews have too much power in the media but this drops to 10% in the Channel 4 programme.  A drop of 41% in a year is simply not credible. These polls are the equivalent of sticking ones finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing.

Opinion polls tell you what you want to hear, especially when you ask loaded questions.  For example the Channel 4 programme says that 42% of British Muslims think that Jewish people are more loyal to Israel than Britain, compared to 24% of all Britons.  But even the latter figure represents one-quarter of the country.  Where on earth would people get such an opinion? 

Here’s a clue.  Could it be from the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu?   If Netanyahu speaks for all Jews presumably all Jews owe the Israeli state their loyalty?  Hence why such large numbers believe that Jews have a dual loyalty, which of course is an anti-Semitic idea.  What is the evidence?

In a speech to a rally of French Jews after the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket killing of 4 French Jews, Netanyahu said he spokenot just as the prime minister of Israel but as a representative of the entire Jewish people.”    Jerusalem Post 16.2.15. see also Ha’aretz 12.2.15.  Netanyahu Speaks for All Jews Whether They Like It or Not which quotes him as saying:

“I went to Paris not just as the prime minister of Israel but as a representative of the entire Jewish people.”  This is a prime example of Zionist anti-Semitism because of course Jews outside Israel owe the Israeli state no loyalty whatsoever.

The figure for this same question in 2015 was 20% for British people, which would suggest that the amount of anti-Semitism among British people has increased by 20% in a year.  It would seem that everyone is getting more anti-Semitic! 

Another comparable question was whether Jews thought they were better than other people.  In 2015 some 17% thought this was true, but in the Channel 4 poll this drops to 11% compared to 30% of Muslims.  Has there really been a drop of 35% in British people thinking that Jews think of themselves as better than others?  So on some questions the British are becoming more anti-Semitic and on others less! 

What is most shocking is the production by CAA of a racist infographic entitled ‘Profile of a British Muslim Anti-Semitism’ which is as vicious a stereotype as anything to be found in Julius Streicher’s Nazi paper, Der Sturmer.  It is nothing less than a racist exercise in racial profiling that is similar to the way Jews were portrayed by the Nazis.  All this under the guise of an opinion poll.  The reality is that it’s not Muslims who are racist but Zionist Jews and groups like the so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.

From the CAA there pours the most vile anti-Muslim bigotry.  If the graphic was entitled ‘Profile of British Jewish Islamaphobia and coupled typical anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew it would be condemned as an example of vile anti-Semitism. Strangely enough no one has done an opinion poll of Jewish attitudes to Muslims.  It might be most revealing!

The use of opinion polls to portray British people as anti-Semitic did not originate with the CAS.  According to Jennifer Lipman, in the Jewish Chronicle of April 17, 2012 Third of Britons: Dislike of Jews 'understandable' because of Israelno less than 35% of British people believe dislike of Jews is understandable given the actions of Israel.  More than a fifth of those polled claimed that Jews "try to take advantage of having been victims during the Nazi era". 

Nearly 23 per cent supported the view that Jews "in general do not care about anything or anyone but their own kind".  More than two out of five Britons asked agreed that Israel was "conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians", and nearly 36 per cent said that considering Israel's policy, they could "understand why people do not like Jews".  One thing is crystal clear – it is the actions of Israel which is causing anti-Semitic attitudes and the attempts of the Board of Deputies to associate British Jews with Israel’s actions is a direct cause of anti-Semitic attitudes.

Arab/Palestinian Anti-Semitism

The CAA sends out most days an Anti-Semitism Report and it covers any incidence of perceived anti-Semitism in the Arab world.  E.g. on the 24th January it covered a story Egyptian sex therapist declares that Jews “have had the highest rate of sexual perversions in history” and tells us that on 16th January, Egyptian Al-Hayat TV broadcast an interview with, Heba Kotb, a consultant on Islamic medicine and marital life. Kobt claimed that “strict rules” in Judaism create a “psychological imbalance” and that Jews “have had the highest rate of sexual perversions in history.” It source is the Zionist fabrication unit, MEMRI.
an eye for all anti-semitism bar Zionist anti-Semitism
Nothing escapes the eagle eye of CAA.  For example another report on the 25thJanuary told of the Youth branch of the Swiss Socialist Democrat party publishes antisemitic cartoon.  The CAA focused on reports of an antisemitic cartoon published by the Young Socialists of Switzerland, which it alleged was a ‘stereotypical Shylock character’.  Nothing, not even a cartoon, especially if it can be associated with the Left, will escape the CAA’s notice.  Well not quite.

However there is one country in the world where racism is not reported.  No guessing which country – Israel of course.   Of course there are no reports of anti-Arab hatred or racism in Israel because Israel is by definition, a country where there is no racism according to the CAA.  ‘Death to the Arabs’ marches simply don’t happen.  Beating up Arabs in Jerusalem by Lehava don’t happen.  The lynching of an Eritrean refugee in Beersheva or the deportation of African asylum seekers into the tender care of Isis don’t happen.  Jewish racism is taboo for the CAA.  
Netanyahu's former adviser Bushinsky called the US Ambassador 'a little Jew boy' - the CAS expressed no disagreement with this vile anti-Semitic slur 
Ah I hear you say, but CAA only deals with anti-Semitism.  True, but in that case you might think that even the CAA would have reported Aviv Bushinsky, an ex-aide to Netanyahu, who responded to mild criticisms by the US Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro who criticised Israel’s two sets of legal systems in the Occupied Territories with a pithy little comment.  Bushinsky described Shapiro as ‘a little Jew boy’.  Former Netanyahu aide lambasts US ambassador in heated spat 

It is difficult to think of a more derogatory or anti-Semitic phrase than ‘Jew boy’ yet our intrepid so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which can spot anti-Semitism in a Swiss cartoon or in an Egyptian doctor was strangely unable to detect anti-Semitism when it came to Israel.   Likewise neo-Nazis in the ‘Jewish state’ are off limits. 
 I felt certain CAA would wish to publicise highly anti-Semitic tweet sent to me - apparently not!
Asking why an anti-Semitic tweet sent by a Zionist, wishing I'd been murdered with my family in the holocaust, was not covered in the 'Everday anti-Semitism' posting
You might think that an anti-Semitic tweet, which was sent to me on 11th April which expressed the wish that I and my family had perished in an extermination camp would qualify as anti-Semitism.  But no.  I sent this to the so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism on 14th April and yet nothing appeared in their daily reports.  Clearly anti-Semitism from a Zionist does not count as anti-Semitism.


 ‘the CAA was set up last summer, not to fight antisemitism but to counter rising criticism of Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza. Its first big success was bullying the Tricycle Theatre into withdrawing its objection to Israeli embassy funding of the UK Jewish Film Festival. The CAA and the home secretary conflate anti-Israeli and antisemitic views,… Accusing critics of Israel and Zionism of antisemitism merely devalues the currency, while claiming the right for Jews to censor what others say about Israel is hardly the way to combat prejudice against them…. we see far greater racist threats to other minorities in this country, in particular the beleaguered Muslim community.’

The CAA goes out of its way to ‘prove’ that Palestinians are anti-Semitic in a continuation of a theme that Benjamin Netanyahu pioneered with his claim that a reluctant Hitler was pushed into carrying out the holocaust by the Palestinian Grand Mufti Haj al-amin Husseini.  [see Netanyahu: 'Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time. He wanted to expel the Jews'Netanyahu blames Jerusalem mufti for Holocaust, is accused of ‘absolving Hitler’, Times of Israel, 21.10.15.  

For example in a post on the Paris massacre, CAA claims that ‘the official Palestinian line’ is that Israel carried out the Paris attacks.  We are not told who in the PA has blamed Israel or indeed what is the name of the ‘official Palestinian Authority daily.

The CAA never misses an opportunity to attack the Palestinians whilst steadfastly ignoring all instances of Israeli racism.  Segregation of maternity wards in Israel, segregation of dormitories in Israeli Universities?  Forget it.  That is not anti-Semitism.  But right on cue after the Paris terrorist attack CAA was mirroring Israeli propaganda.  In its story


Official Palestinian line on Paris terrorist attacks: Israel was behind it

CAS quote the racist Zionist & Israeli government front organisation Palestinian Media Watch at face value
The CAA quoted the Zionist Propaganda Outfit,  Palestinian Media Watch(which is a front for the Israeli government’s Ministry of Information) uncritically: ‘Using classic antisemitic conspiracy theories, the Palestinian Authority has blamed Israel for the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday.’
A crude attempt by CAS to link Palestinians with ISIS terror attack in Paris
They might be right and they might be wrong but this has nothing to do with ‘classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories’.  Apparently the official Facebook page of the Fatah party (the party of Mahmoud Abbas warned:  As a people who suffer daily aggressions by Israel we understand the suffering of the injured and the families of those who were killed in a cold blood…It is time to end the brutal Israeli occupation which breeds violence in the entire world.’
Quite why this is ‘anti-Semitic’ is difficult to understand.  But ‘These two extracts are only two of an avalanche of accusation from official Palestinian channels over the weekend.’ Source: Palestinian Media Watchhttp://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=16247
CAA vehemently attack all other Zionist organisations because they work with 'Hope not Hate' who have received money from UNISON which supports BDS - guilt by association McCarthy style since HnH has no position on BDS
The Islamaphobic CAA attack Hope not Hate's Counter Jihad Pamphlet - 
Such is the CAA’s Islamaphobia and bigotry against Muslims they even attack the well respected ‘Hope not Hate’ anti-fascist group.  Hope not Hate have, as far as I’m aware, avoided all comment on the Middle East (in contrast to the pro-Zionist Searchlight magazine under Gerry Gable).  Hope not Hate took the lead in trying to persuade the Bradford left-wing festival Raise Your Banners uninvite the anti-Semitic Gilad Atzmon from playing, yet in an article Hope Not Hate condemns those who fight Islamist extremism  18th December 2015  CAS attack HnH for its report on “The Counter-Jihad Movement: Anti-Muslim hatred from the margins to the mainstream”.  
racist Islamaphobe Melanie Phillips is Campaign Against Anti-semitism's poster girl

It said that ‘A report by the left-wing anti-racism campaigning organisation Hope Not Hate has caused consternation for listing prominent critics of Islamic extremism and decrying them as anti-Muslim.’  Apparently ‘some of those included in the report are not “anti-Muslim” at all, but are in fact simply critics of Islamic extremism. For example, Melanie Phillips’.   The Daily Mail’s Mel P as she used to be known in her punk days, had ‘apparently been listed due to her continued calls for a firmer stance against Islamists.’  Well that’s one way of describing the most bigoted columnist that even the Daily Mail can find.   Someone who described Independent Jewish Voices, when it was set up in 2007 as ‘Jews for Genocide’. 

The Guardian’s Ed Husein described how Phillips said that President Barack Obama "adopts the agenda of the Islamists"and is "firmly in the Islamists' camp".  She also addressed the following remarks to him the previous December [The personal jihad of Melanie Phillips], after he suggested that Palestinians had been victims of much injustice.  Her comments on Palestine are off the wall, which is why the CAA loves her so much:

"To repeat for the nth time: Israel was never the Palestinians''homeland'. It was never taken from them 'by force'. On the contrary, they tried to take the Jews' homeland from them by force – and are still trying. It was the Jews alone for whom historically 'Palestine' was ever their national homeland."

The CAA fails to appreciate that the main ‘extremists’ in this country are those who whitewash Israel’s war crimes under the cover of false allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’.  But then it’s difficult to point the finger at oneself.

Jeremy Corbyn and the Left

The CAA has gone to town over Jeremy Corbyn. Before he was elected as leader, on the 17th August 2015, CAA complained [Critics of Jeremy Corbyn dismissed as “extreme Zionists”, Labour Party to “investigate”] that critics of Jeremy Corbyn‘are being smeared as extremists who are trying to stifle criticism of Israel. Mainstream Jewry’s concerns are neither “extreme” nor anything to do with Israel. As we have written before, we are concerned both by Corbyn’s associations and his many supporters’ apparent indifference to them.’ 

There followed a tedious list of lies.  For example it describes Corbyn as a friend of Hamas and Hezbollah both of whom have apparently called for a ‘worldwide genocide of Jews’

It is a lie that either Hamas or Hezbollah are committed to a world wide genocide against Jews.  Both organisations have always welcomed Jews who are not Zionists to talk and meet with.  They are Islamic organisations and politically, like all religious parties, are backward.  They may well give lip-service to anti-Semitic documents without in the least understanding them.  Arab organisations sometimes do quote from West European anti-Semitic documents such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  It is regrettable but it is cocking a snook - like a mouse taunting a cat.  There is a massive power imbalance between Hamas in particular and Israel.  It is the relationship of the weak to the strong. 


The remarks of holocaust survivors re the Nazis was not politically correct either.  They too blamed the Germans rather than the Nazis but such remarks were understandable in the circumstances.

What Hamas and Hezbollah do is to rhetorically imitate anti-Semitic organisations without understanding them.  Both organisations have met with Jewish people like Norman Finkelstein and Jews, for example Amira Hass of Ha’aretz have lived in Gaza.  It is understandable that when the Israeli army comes to kill people, and they do it in the name of ‘the Jews’ that people see ‘the Jews’ as their enemy.  

What is more pertinent is that Israel virtually created Hamas as a counter-weight to Palestinian secular organisations.  See How Israel Helped to Spawn Hama, Wall Street Journal, 24.1.09. 

A Charity?

The main anti-Semites for CAA aren't the BNP/National Front/EDL but anti-racist MPs Jeremy Corbyn and Gerald Kaufman
14 references to Corbyn on CAS website 
The so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism is a Zionist political organisation which has nothing to do with charitable endeavours.  It almost completely ignores fascist anti-Semitism and holocaust denial organisations and concentrates its attention on people like on Gerald Kaufman, the Jewish MP and Father of the House of Commons and Jeremy Corbyn, whose record on anti-racism is second to none.
The number of references to Gerald Kaufman on the CAS site
If you do a search on the CAA website you will find 14 references to Jeremy Corbyn and 12 references to Gerald Kaufman and nothing at all on anti-Semitic holocaust denial organisations the British National Party & English Defence League.  Fascist anti-Semitism is of no concern to CAA because fascist organisations are mostly pro-Israel.
The only reference to the BNP on CAS site is to an 'ex BNP thug'
Despite the CAA being an overtly political organisation, formed to combat anti-Zionism, the Charity Commission nonetheless decided to register the organisation.  Now it is possible that they failed to stop a fraudulent application for charity status or equally likely under William Shawcross, the far-Right Chair of the Charity Commission and a former director of the cold war Henry Jackson Society, and an Islamaphobe, that they  decided that a Zionist organisation was perfectly acceptable.  

The Charity Commission have also registered as a charity the ethnic cleansers of the Jewish National Fund, despite them openly admitting they that they buy and maintain land only for the use of Jews, i.e. they are a thoroughly racist organisation.  If it were honest the so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism should be renamed the Campaign Against Palestinian Rights.

Tony Greenstein 

99% People's Assembly Festival Ousting Austerity

$
0
0

A weekend of demonstration and debate


First session with James Meredith and John Weeks

Last weekend began with a demonstration of about 150,000 against austerity that rallied in Trafalgar Square.  I took the opportunity to dine in Jeremy Corbyn’s favourite Jewish deli Gaby’s in Trafalgar Square.  It was an immense celebration of joy and determination that there was another way.

A group of us went up on the train from Brighton.   In the evening there was a variety of different musicians and acts at Brighton’s Synergy centre in West Street.

The main event was on the Sunday, a day of debate and discussion from mid-day to early evening.  There was an afternoon of speakers, debate and films that debunked the various myths and explored alternative solutions to capitalism’s endemic problems. The event focused on themes such as housing, health, climate change, local cuts and national/international economics. 
At about 11.30 we were also greeted with a picket by the Brighton Against Benefit Cuts/Aufheben group.  BABC is a small group which has grown smaller since it was founded 6 years ago.

The day was introduced by Attila the Stockbroker ~ a poet/musician who is a well known fixture at demonstrations.

The first session was 'Economics of austerity and the alternatives' with John Weeks, an economics professor at SOAS who exposed the myths of mainstream economics & James Meadway, a radical economist, formerly at the Treasury and an advisor to John McDonnell.
The next session was 'London, the money laundering capital of the world' with Nick Kochana financial and political journalist exposing financial crime and terrorist financing.  Other sessions included 'Solutions to Austerity and Bitcoin' with Dominic Frisby ~ performer, comedian, financial commentator and author and 'Murder by austerity' with Kerry Anne Mendoza ~ Editor-in-Chief of The Canary

Other sessions included 'Meet the Renegades from the makers of the Four Horsemen' with Ross Ashcroft ~ Film maker, Director and Host of the Renegade Economist; 'Free Market Global Warming' with Hannah Barker and Jonathan Neale; Hannah Barker ~ Brighton Climate Action Network, expert on climate change and its origins and Jonathan Neale ~ Author of "Stop Gobal Warming - Change the World" and Editor, "One Million Climate Jobs" Report 

The penultimate session was 'Defending the 99% Alternatives and action' with Andy Richards ~ President of Brighton Hove and District Trades Union Council.  When many people entered the Synergy Centre there was a pointless picket outside by the misnamed Brighton Benefit Campaign.  See 
Small picket at Synergy Centre by Brighton Benefits Campaign
Film Lounge was curated by Dr Lee Salte, a film maker, lecturer at Sussex university and staunch critic of austerity.  Food was provided by the Real Junk Food Projects.

I estimated that nearly a hundred people attended during the day.  It is also good to have a debate amongst radicals and socialists about the way ahead.  Some of the sessions were too short, for example  the opening session by John Weeks and James Meredith.  How to tackled austerity within capitalism.  Is it possible?  What are the pitfalls that Corbyn and McDonnell are likely to face?  Is it simply trying to manage capitalism rather than overthrow it?  These and other questions kept recurring in one form or another.

Student debate
It was noticeable that the traditional left groups, the SWP and Socialist Party didn’t seem to send their people to the event.  The Greens were also thin on the ground.  Brighton’s anarchist were also largely absent though there was an interesting debate between 4 university students representing the different political traditions from social democratic, anarchist, Trotskyite and accelarationist (the latter I’d never heard of before!).  

In the session on trade unions the question of Workfare, the issue raised by the BBC picket was raised.  Those responsible for running the Synergy centre explained the position and made it clear that no one was compelled to work there, quite the contrary, those who were working at the Centre wanted to be there.  As Andy Richards said, the question of compulsion was the main issue.  Were people being forced to work because of the threat of sanctions or were they happy to be there.  It was clear that the latter was the case.  If BBC were serious, and only one person spoke up for their position, they would have come to the conference rather than boycotting it.


Tony Greenstein 

Brighton Benefits Campaign/Aufheben – Picket People's Assembly Conference on Austerity

$
0
0

The Stupidity of what’s left of the Unemployed Centre/Case Central (!) in Hollingdean

Leaflet from those currently running what was the Unemployed Centre in Hollingdean
For many of us on the Left in Brighton last weekend was a focus of activity.  On Saturday during the day there was a march of 150,000 against austerity in London.  In the evening, at the Synergy Centre there was a variety of entertainment.

 On Sunday there was a day full of debate and discussion amongst people on the Left about how we take the battle against austerity and for change forward.  (see 99% People's Assembly Festival Ousting Austerity).
Magazine at the core of Bright Benefits Campaign
At about 11.30 we were also treated to a picket by Brighton Benefits Campaign/Aufheben.  BBC is a small group which has grown smaller since it was founded 6 years ago.  One of the reasons for its failure to grow, at a time when benefits have been slashed and there have been popular movements  against for example the Bedroom Tax has been its extreme sectarianism.  A number of members who disagreed with the tiny sect, Aufheben, which controls BBC have been forced out by the 2 leading members, Giuseppa Salamone and Felton Shorthall.
Giuseppina's flattery is at odds with Aufheben's leaflet about a Trotskyist/Leninist dictatorship!
I publicly disagreed (not at a conference as their leaflet says but a skype session) with the Aufheben  line that claimants are a potentially revolutionary class by stating that on the contrary claimants have a politically backward consciousness, are susceptible to racism and scapegoatism and incapable of forming their own independent organisations.  Felton Shorthall expressed his disagreement with me by shouting in my face, a party trick he has repeated with a number of other people.  Although the motion to expel me was defeated I resigned anyway.  Subsequently at least 4 people have been forced out of what was already a tiny group hence why the annual sanctions day protest consists of the same handful of people.
What helped lead to the financial crisis was the refusal to remove the fundraiser who was on permanent holiday - John Drury, a more sane member of Aufheben accepted need to dismiss her but this was blocked by Giuseppina - who now calls the worker a 'whistleblower'
This year they decided on another activity, picketing a conference on austerity.  The reason?  Because the centre in which the conference was held uses people on workfare.  Instead of coming into the meeting and putting their position, they chose to picket for ½ hour before wandering off into oblivion. 
Giuseppina first fell out with welfare rights worker Shanti and welfare rights volunteer Sue Graham and....
The question of workfare was discussed at the last but one section on trades unions, led by Andy Richards, Chairperson of the local UNISON Local Government branch.  As a founder of Brighton Unemployed Centre I made the point that the Synergy Centre was not Poundland or some capitalist exploiter, where people are maximising the profits of a corporation and stacking shelves.  Although we disagree with workfare, because it uses claimants who would otherwise be sanctioned if they didn’t agree to work, the key question was whether those who were so employed at Synergy were indeed voluntary.  We needed an assurance that those who were on the scheme at Synergy were there voluntarily and further that if they didn’t wish to work at Synergy they would be returned to the contractor without being in jeopardy of being sanctioned.  We were assured by those who run the Synergy Centre, which is a non-profit making collective and indeed those who work there, without exception, that they want to be there as opposed to being forced to be there.  Further that they should not be out of pocket.  With the exception of one person who was a member of BABC, all the other contributors agreed with the position that I put.
In her paranoia Giuseppina, who is now running Centre, accuses former worker Sharon Halsall of theft

It was first 'lies, lies, lies' that we offered Pina & co. the lease and the company BUC Ltd, then it was a factoid and 'bad memory' - after we had shown a journalist the email we had sent - strange that!
The political direction of BABC consists of members of a weird, anarcho/stalinist group, Aufheben.  Their main claim to fame is what is known as the Aufhebengate affair involving Dr John Drury a lecturer at Sussex University, who is a social science researcher on crowd control issues, which inevitably touches on the question of policing.  I have a lot of sympathy for John but I’ve never been party to this debate.  Aufheben members took over the running of the Unemployed Centre in Hollingdean after I was forced to resign as a full-time trustee because of falling ill with Hepatitis C and liver disease.  Despite being extremely ill and expecting to die, I was put under extreme pressure, bullied and on one occasion nearly attacked by Shorthall but for the intervention of another management committee member.  I was expected to agree to the liquidation of a fund that was known as the Building Fund. 
I have written a comprehensive article in Brighton & Hove Independent explaining the background of the crisis.  Essentially the 2 Centre charities, which had £70,000 in funds when I left, rapidly ran out of money because of a combination of financial maladministration by Giusepina Salamone, thefts of money and toys coupled with the inability of the fundraiser, Aufheben supporter, Robbie Bryan, to raise any money.  Salamone and friends expected that a Building Fund fund agreed on throughout the Centre's existence by the volunteers, by the  Trades Council and unions as well as trustees of the Centre, would be used for running costs instead.  When the trustees of the Fund refused to agree to this and insisted that the Building Fund was for buying a new building we were subject to virulent abuse. 
Salamone criticised me for clamping down on the thefts she tolerated!
Excluding 'external' bodies i.e trade unions from management of Centre - same happened at BUC Families Project
The Building Fund was constituted into a formal legal trust with 5 trustees in early 2014 in order to ensure that the money within it, approximately £1/2m would be legally protected from Aufheben’s supporters and to maximise returns and preserve the value of the capital.  Subsequently a small additional trust, The Trust for Unpopular Causes, has been set up in order to provide grant aid to campaigning groups in the community.
Document obtained by Local Government Ombudsman showed New Labour Council acted, with Charity Commission, to remove Tony Greenstein & political trustees - the same clearly happened with Giuseppina and Felton
The split in the Unemployed Centre has been between those who believe unemployment is a political issue and those who believe it is a charitable issue.  In many ways this mirrors a similar dispute at Brighton Unemployed Centre Families Project in 1996/7.  It was out of that dispute that the Hollingdean Centre was formed.  At BUC Families Project, the local Council in the form of New Labour’s Steve Bassam secretly planned to remove the political elements at the unemployed centre who had been involved in things like the poll tax campaign and impose those who saw unemployment as a solely charitable issue.  This information only came to light later via a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.  Indeed many of the allegations, that we refused to hand over money for the Centre’s political wing to the charitable wing, have reoccurred too.
'I suspect Shanti' well we all did but the story has changed now!
From 1999-2012 the Centre was in the forefront of political campaigning and we don’t mean by this the desultory pickets of BBC.  When we first opened the Centre we were met with open hostility by the 3 New Labour councillors led by the wife of the then Labour MP for Pavilion, Jeane Lepper.  As Chair of the Planning Committee she worked to deny us planning permission.  For 13 years none of the councillors set foot in the centre.  As soon as I resigned as trustee Lepper was buttering up Giuseppina & co.
Jeane Lepper did her best to deny us planning permission at the Centre
How touching - New Labour's Lepper supporting the new anarchist centre in Hollingdean
Almost soon as the Centre began in Hollingdean, the refuse workers occupied the Hollingdean depot to enable the removal of the private contractor SITA.  They won and the Centre’s volunteers were integrally involved in picketting and we moved our computer equipment into the site so that the workers could produce propaganda.  We likewise provided support for the campaign against a directly elected Mayor in 2003 and later, when a Labour Council tried to transfer all council housings to a private company (an ALMO) we helped fund the Brighton Housing campaign set up to defeat the Council in a referendum.  In this we were successful.  Labour was defeated in both referendum by about 65-35.
There surely must be some mistake?!!  Brighton unwaged is Giuseppina Salamone!
Today what is left of the unemployed centre is incapable of supporting anything because it is controlled by a freak political group with no roots or base anywhere.
Robbie Bryan justifying why the Charity Commission allows a nakedly racist and apartheid organisation, the JNF to register as a charity
Ironically our great communists, Felton Shorthall and Giuseppina Salamone, have sought the aid of the Charity Commission and the Police.  Unfortunately for them the Charity Commission has refrained from a repeat of its failed intervention 20 years ago when it froze the funds of Brighton Unemployed Centre Ltd until we brought legal pressure to bear.  The Charity Commission’s main role is to police left-wing charities and harass Muslim charities.  It is led by arch right-winger and former Director of the cold-war Henry Jackson Society William Shawcross.  The CC presides over and defends the activities of Zionist charities like the Jewish National Fund which provides funds for land in Israel which is for the exclusive use of Jewish settlers.
happier days
They justify this by saying I reported someone who had siphoned thousands of pounds from the One Fund For All fund that the TUC had helped set up into his personal bank account.  I did indeed make a complaint to the Police.  But inviting the Police into what is a political dispute is entirely different.  The money has not been stolen but it has been put beyond the reach of Aufheben.  It is also the case that a local woman who had painted a penis on my car was reported, not by me, to the Police.  What she was doing was marking me out as a paedophile (I had refused to let her use my computer!) and that was a threat to my physical safety. 
The trials and tribulations of those who deal with the State - Police and Charity Commission - of course when no crime has been committed it's all a bit difficult

Their justification for trying to involve the Charity Commission is that I once referred another charity, the Deans Youth Project to the CC.  This is true, but what they omit to say that it was in the context of a whistleblowing case where a worker, Carolyn Simmons, had been framed by her employer and dismissed on a bogus charge of overpaying herself, i.e. theft because she had reported fraud and corruption in the charity.  Her employers even made a complaint to the Police, who also ignored it.  When I took the case to an Employment tribunal we won a 3 day hearing of unfair dismissal because of a Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing) and obtained substantial compensation.  Of course I reported this charity to the Charity Commission because it had victimised a worker who had tried to expose corruption.  It had nothing to do with asking a government body to intervene in a political dispute. 3 Tory councillors were our witnesses, not just Mary Mears as Aufheben allege!  The respondents also had a Tory Councillor, Dee Simson who sacked the claimants and gave false evidence. 
Letter calling Tony Greenstein 4 interview re malicious complaint from Giuseppina & friends - Robbie Bryabn even repeats the same lies below!
'Poisonous' Pip Tindall and Robbie Bryan justifying grassing me up to social security - Bryan considers himself an expert on my disability!

What the Aufheben leaflet doesn’t mention is that in early March I received an ‘invitation’ to attend an interview with the DWP.  I assumed it was a routine interview but when I attended I was informed that a malicious and anonymous complaint had been made against me.  It was clear from what I was told that the complaint could only have come from those at the Unemployed Centre and Aufheben who ran the Centre.  I was asked if I was a director Brighton Unemployed Centre Ltd and I was happy to accept that I was.  It is a non-trading company limited without guarantee.  I receive no remuneration for being a director.  There was also an allegation I was not disabled, but that would be news to my two consultants.  On the website of the Unemployed Centre’s third charity, Case Central, there is an allegation to this effect from Robbie Bryan, which confirms that he or those around him were responsible for making the complaint.  Making malicious complaints or grassing people up demonstrates the total lack of any political integrity or ethics of those involved in what is left of the old Centre.
First Giuseppina suspected one person and then another
A short detour into the politics of Aufheben.  They are an eclectic mixture of anarchist and Stalinist politics.  I once asked Giuseppina why she and Felton never went on anti-fascist mobilisations in Brighton and she told me that she described herself as a follower of the founder of the Italian Communist Party Amadeo Bordiga that fascism was just another variant of capitalism and shouldn’t be opposed separately.  This probably explains Bordiga’s essay Auschwitz, or the Great Alibi which is the nearest to a left justification of the Holocaust.  It isn’t anti-Semitism but the ejection of the Jews from the productive process which explains Auschwitz and Treblinka.  As Mitchell Abidor says in the introduction to the essay, Der Sturmer” meant nothing. Kristallnacht meant nothing. All we had was capitalism looking for a way out of a crisis.’  It was economic reductionism taken to absurdity.  Bordiga alleged that the SS ‘believed in Western ideals!

Unfortunately there was nothing to investigate

Having been one of the founders of the unemployed centre in 1981, I bridled at the lies and caricatures that Salamone & Shorthall used to justify their turning what was a democratically run radical centre into a personal fiefdom.  Black people and migrants say that there is a racist atmosphere now in the place from white volunteers.  Felton Shorthall was recently banned from the Hollingdean Food Project for attacking a vulnerable woman refugee.  The woman concerned was (wrongly) suspected of having informed me about the disaster of a refugee outing at Lulworth Cove.  The children’s outings have been exploited to provide the funds to run the centre and there were complaints about how a refugee outing was run last October.
Text that described the refugee outing in Dorset - most of the funds for which had been diverted to Centre running costs
Robbie Bryan - 'I am not one of these anarchist squatters who is happy living on a sofa, I am actually a proud bloke who wants to pay his way in life' - how touching
An utterly dishonest leaflet ‘A Leninist Nightmare’ which makes out that Aufheben is an anarchist group was produced.  It attacks the Socialist Party, despite Giuseppina having previously tried and failed to win its members’ support.  If it were true that a Trotskyist dictatorship at the Centre had been established in the past 15 years one wonders why Giuseppina had never complained of this before.  As the images here of the graphics here show, she was singing an entirely different tune in emails to me! 
Robbie Bryan refers 'hippy anarchists who will sit about all day pretending to be poor and intimidating real poor and vulnerable people'
Despite making sympathetic noises to anarchists about Leninists and Trotskyists, despite their attachment to Bordiga, the unguarded comments of Robbie Bryan show what the real view of anarchists is.  One of contempt.  Robbie Bryan refers to a new unemployed centre, which the Building Fund was established to purchase as likely to ‘attract lifestyle hippy anarchists who will sit about all day pretending to be poor and intimidating real poor and vulnerable people.’  Elsewhere Bryan informed me that he wasn’t ‘one of these anarchist squatters who is happy living on a sofa.  I am actually a proud bloke who wants to pay his way in life’!!


The Brighton & Hove Unwaged Advice & Rights Centre charity was used to fund BBC
It seems that Aufheben or Case Central as they now call themselves have nothing better to do with their time than picketing a day of debate and discussion about things like austerity and unemployment.


Tony Greenstein 

THIS IS Israel – Call to Kill All Arabs at Tel Aviv Rally in Support for Killer Soldier

$
0
0

Kill Them All - Kill All Arabs
 They may like Gays in Tel Aviv but in a city which is 95% Jewish they certainly don’t like Arabs.  In the South of Tel Aviv, where African refugees are concentrated, there is systematic racism and violence by the Jewish population. 
On Tuesday a rally of thousands gathered to give support to a soldier Elor Azarya, who had deliberately executed a severely injured Palestinian because ‘he deserved to die’ for having allegedly attacked Israeli soldiers with a knife.
Those in the West who sing the Zionist narrative and pretend that Israel is ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ bear as much responsibility as those who gathered in Tel Aviv and participated in the beating of a Jewish Israeli journalist suspected of being a human rights worker.

“Death to the Arabs” rally draws thousands in Tel Aviv

Ali Abunimah 19 April 2016

In Tel Aviv’s Yitzhak Rabin Square on Tuesday evening, thousands of Israelis rallied in support of Elor Azarya, the soldier filmed executing a gravely wounded Palestinian last month.
Rally-goers shouted anti-Arab slogans and attacked persons perceived as being leftists or journalists.
Hours earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a call for leniency for the soldier.
Few thousand people at the rally. Organizers keep telling crowd they aren't angry at the government or army. pic.twitter.com/kEcFGsiYM1

— Judah Ari Gross (@JudahAriGross) April 19, 2016
NOW: In Tel Aviv to cover rally for Israeli soldier who executed Palestinian & got beaten by mob & detained by cops. pic.twitter.com/XI5cwyZXQY
— David Sheen (@davidsheen) April 19, 2016
Signs at Rabin Square in support of Sgt. Azaria (Photo: Motti Kimchi)
Times of Israel reporter Judah Ari Gross tweetedthat an activist from B’Tselem, the human rights group that released the video of Azarya shooting and killing Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif, had to be escorted out of Rabin Square by police in order to “protect his life.”

Thousands of people here. So much for "liberal" Tel Aviv. This is fascist Israel. pic.twitter.com/quAOx3t8Jd
— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) April 19, 2016
Police escorting a Btselem activist away from the rally in Kikar Rabin. pic.twitter.com/PiyrHfih3Z
— Judah Ari Gross (@JudahAriGross) April 19, 2016
Charlie and Oshra Azaria (on the right) and daughter Etti (in red on the left) at the rally (Photo: Dana Kopel)
Journalist attacked
Reporter David Sheen, a contributor to The Electronic Intifada, was set upon by a mob and then ordered to leave the area by police after he was accused of association with B’Tselem.

After being beaten by Tel Aviv mob rallying to support killer Israeli soldier, cops gave me ultimatum: A night in jail or go home immediately
— David Sheen (@davidsheen) April 19, 2016

Thanks to those who reached out after I was attacked by a mob in "liberal" Tel Aviv tonight. My phone battery's about to die, but I'll live.
— David Sheen (@davidsheen) April 19, 2016
Elor's mother and sister speaking (Photo: Motti Kimchi)
Sheen told The Electronic Intifada he arrived at Rabin Square before the rally began but as several hundred people had already gathered. Some asked him to film them with their signs supporting Azarya.

At that point, Sheen said, a man began asking him why he was filming. Other members of the crowd quickly began joining in, shouting at Sheen, “Are you B’Tselem? Go to Gaza!”

Sheen said he tried to remain calm and exit the square but the increasingly agitated mob followed him and began to surround and kick him.

He was then grabbed by a police officer and extracted. Sheen said police took his camera equipment and questioned him. After he told them he was a journalist, they said he either had to leave immediately or face a night in jail. Sheen said he chose to leave and that police returned his equipment.
About 2,000 came to show their support (Photo: Motti Kimchi)
The police were effectively acting accomplices to the mob, Sheen observed, ensuring the removal of journalists who could document what occurred.

Sheen said that the assault was frightening, “because I knew that everyone else at that rally was of the same mindset and there wasn’t anyone who was going to step in, so it very easily could have gotten much worse and there wouldn’t have been anybody to fish me out.

He said he had been threatened at other recent rallies he has covered, but had not experienced that level of violence.

“It doesn’t surprise me that people in Israel harbor hatred towards journalists,”Sheen said.

“They don’t see the soldier’s actions as a problem,” he added. “They see the problem as exposure to world media that puts pressure on their government to withdraw support from that soldier.”

“But it still caught me by surprise how quickly people were whipped up into a frothing at the mouth mob,” he said.

Chants from the crowd heard by Sheen included “Kill the leftists” and “Elor Azarya is a hero, bring back our boy!”

A video of the mob assault on Sheen was posted on Facebook by a user who accuses him of being a B’Tselem videographer intent on “provoking” the rally-goers. Sheen is not affiliated with the human rights group.

Members of the mob can be heard shouting “son of a whore” and other insults.
“Kill them all”

Another independent reporter, Dan Cohen, tweetedthat many in the crowd chanted “Death to Arabs,” a frequently heardrallying cry at anti-Palestinian demonstrations.

Crowd chants "Elor the hero" and "death to Arabs." This seems more like a celebration of murder than anything pic.twitter.com/2QHDpIT0LJ
— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) April 19, 2016

Ahmed Tibi, a Palestinian lawmaker in Israel’s parliament, posted an image of a sign displayed at the rally reading “Kill them all.”

Message of the new Israeli justice & equality: "kill them all" in tel aviv rally supporting a murderer soldier pic.twitter.com/t9CqN777ya
— Ahmad Tibi (@Ahmad_tibi) April 19, 2016

The rally was organizedby Sharon Gal, an Israeli journalist and former lawmaker, and was addressed by Azarya’s parents.

Several Israeli pop icons were also scheduled to entertain the rally-goers, including singers Moshik Afia, Maor Edri and Amos Elgali, as well as rapper Subliminal, the Israeli website Ynetreported.
But two performers, Eyal Golan and David D’Or, withdrew at the last minute in the wake of public outrage that their appearance could be seen as an attack on the Israeli army, which has faced heavy criticism for taking any measures at all against Azarya.

“I would have liked to come to perform at the assembly in the name of art, and personally as a performer and as a human being,” Golan stated. “However, I’m sorry to say that there are those who will use this as a political spectacle.”

“I wanted to show my sympathy to the family of the soldier,” D’Or said, “not to say anything against the IDF [Israeli army] or the IDF chief of staff, God forbid.”

Leniency

Last month, an opinion poll found that 57 percent of the Israeli public saw nothing wrong with Azarya’s actions and 32 percent supported it outright. Just five percent saw shooting an injured, incapacitated person as murder.

That support comes from the highest echelons of Israel’s government. In a statement to media hours before the rally, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded leniency for Azarya.

“As the father of a soldier and as Prime Minister, I would like to reiterate: the IDF backs its soldiers,” Netanyahu said.

“In my familiarity with the military justice system, I am convinced that the court will consider all circumstances regarding the incident. Our soldiers are not murderers. They act against murderers and I hope that a way will be found to balance between the action and the overall context of the event,” the prime minister added.

Netanyahu’s attempt to prejudge the outcome of any trial appears to be an effort to ride the wave of popularity Azarya is enjoying that was vividly – and violently – on display at the Tel Aviv rally.
Previously, B’Tselem has condemned similar statements by top Israeli officials as sending messages that “empty the official restrictions on use of force, and particularly on live fire, of real meaning.”

Cover-up

Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif and Ramzi al-Qasrawi, both 21, were shot dead after they allegedly tried to attack Israeli occupation soldiers in the West Bank city of Hebron on 24 March.

The killing of al-Sharif was caught on video which shows the youth on the ground, incapacitated, as Azarya points a rifle at him from close range and fires directly at his head.

The Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, which investigatedthe incident, called the killings war crimes and noted the complicity of Israeli medical workers and others in the vicinity who did nothing to assist the injured al-Sharif before he was extrajudicially executed.

Al-Haq dismissed the arrest of Azarya as part of a public relations effort, noting that no one was detained in the shooting of al-Qasrawi, whose killing was not filmed.

“The occupation authorities’ detention of the accused soldier is a cover-up of the crime, to show the occupier state as law abiding and holding violators accountable,” Al-Haq stated.

“The arrest of one soldier and not the other suggests that what the other soldier had done was not a crime because it was not captured on camera,” the group added.

Israel at first announced Azarya would be charged with murder, but following a surge of public support, the charges were downgraded to manslaughter.

Apartheid in Israel – a creation of Labour Zionism not Likud

$
0
0
A demonstration in Sheikh Jarrah, Feb. 2011. Reuters
A good article that appeared in Ha’aretz a few years ago on the development of Apartheid in Israel.  I have only one disagreement.  Apartheid didn’t start in 1967 with the conquest of the Territories (W Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights) but in 1948 with the expulsion of ¾ million Palestinian refugees and the massacre of hundreds if not thousands.

It began with the military rule that lasted 18 years until 1966.  It began with the Histadrut, Israel’s ‘trade union’ and also its second largest employer, which didn’t even admit Arabs as members until 1959.  It began with the reservation of 93% of Israel’s land for the sole use of Jews.  In short all the instruments of Apartheid had long been laid.  The golden age of Zionism is a myth.  The Agricultural Settlement Law of 1 August 1967, described by the Minister who introduced it as intended to remove the ‘cancer’ of Arabs sub-leasing and working on Jewish National Fund lands, some 93% of the land in Israel.  

Knesset member Uri Avnery stated: “This law is going to expel Arab cultivators from the land that was formerly theirs and was handed over to the Jews.”

Jewish land, labour and produce (i.e. the boycott of Arab labour, produce and removal of Arabs from ‘Jewish land) was the product of Labour Zionism not Revisionism/Likud.

Tony Greenstein


Israeli racism, whose natural 'hothouse' is the colonialist project in the territories, has long since spilled over into Israeli society and has been legitimized in the series of laws recently passed in the Knesset.

Daniel Blatman Apr 04, 2011

It has been 60 years since the apartheid state was established in South Africa. In March 1951, a few years after the racist National Party came to power, racial segregation was anchored in law. As was common in other countries that adopted racist laws in the 20th century, those in South Africa were accompanied by "laundered" explanations.

Hitler declared after the Nuremberg Race Laws were passed in 1935 that they would create a suitable basis for a separate but worthy existence for Jews in Germany alongside German society. The race laws in South Africa established that people of different colors cannot exist when mixed with each other - only in separate, protected spaces.

The tsunami of racist laws passed by the Knesset in recent months is also being explained by reasoned and worthy arguments: the right of small communities to preserve their own character (the Acceptance Committees Law ); the state's right to prevent hostile use of the funds it allocates to education and culture (the Nakba Law ); and the right to deny citizenship to persons convicted of espionage or treason (the Citizenship Law ). But I believe that as in other historical instances, the aim of this legislation is the gradual establishment of an apartheid state in Israel, and the future separation on a racial basis of Jews and non-Jews.

An apartheid state is not created in the blink of an eye. What was created in Germany in 1935 was the outcome of a long and sometimes violent debate, which had been ongoing since the middle of the 19th century, about the place of Jews in modern Germany and Europe. Indeed, the desire to isolate and distance the Jews from society - legally and socially - was part of the belief system of anti-Semites in Europe for decades before Hitler came into power.

In this respect the Nazi regime, along with other regimes that passed racial separation laws (among them those in Romania, Hungary, Italy and Vichy France in 1940 ), only anchored in legislation a reality that had already been enthusiastically received by the populace. Of course, when such laws were enacted, the regimes involved did not support or imagine that at the end of the road, a "final solution" was waiting in its Nazi format. However, once the seeds were sown, no one was able to figure out what fruit they would bear.

The historical background of the Israeli apartheid state-in-the-making that is emerging before our eyes should be sought in 1967. It is part of a process that has been going on for about 44 years: What started as rule over another people has gradually ripened - especially since the latter part of the 1970s - into a colonialism that is nurturing a regime of oppression and discrimination with regard to the Palestinian population. It is robbing that population of its land and of its basic civil rights, and is encouraging a minority group (the settlers ) to develop a crude, violent attitude toward the Arabs in the territories. This was exactly the reality that, after many years, led to the establishment of the apartheid state in South Africa.

In her book "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt draws a sharp picture of the process of the development of the society of racial segregation in South Africa, from the start of the Dutch Boer colonialist settlement there. Assumption of racial superiority - the subordination of the black population - was the only way the "whites" could adjust to life in the midst of that race. The nurturance of feelings of racial supremacy, to which were added the belief in cultural superiority and the justification for economic exploitation - these are what, in a decades-long process, gave rise to the need to anchor this situation in proper legislation.

Thus, the dehumanization of the blacks, who at the start of the colonization period were perceived as no more than enhanced work animals, led to the establishment of a regime of racial separation 60 years ago in South Africa, which for decades left tens of millions of black people mired in a situation of harsh poverty, exploitation and atrophy.

It is not hard to identify this sort of worldview developing - with respect to Arabs - among widening circles of settlers in the territories and among their supporters within the (pre-Six Day War ) Green Line. It also has quite a number of supporters in the Knesset, even if they will not admit this outright.
Israeli racism, whose natural "hothouse" is the colonialist project in the territories, has long since spilled over into Israeli society and has been legitimized in the series of laws recently passed in the Knesset. Only people who avoid looking at the broad historical context of such a process are still able to believe it is possible to stop the emergence of an Israeli apartheid state without getting rid of the colonialist-racist grip on the territories.


Prof. Blatman is a Holocaust researcher and head of the Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

National Union of Students Elects Malia Bouattia, a Black Woman and Moslem Refugee as its President

$
0
0


Zionist students and the right-wing press screams abuse as students vote to defy them
An inspiring hustings speech from NUS’s new President Malia Bouattia.  As Ben White shows below the lies about Malia supporting Isis, ‘terrorism’ etc. are just more drivel from those who hate to see anyone challenging this lousy capitalist political system we live in.

Students from Oxford University and the Zionist Union of Jewish Students squealed and howled at the defiance of the racist right-wing.  How dare she support Palestinian resistance, when she should be supporting British arms sales to that beacon of modernity, the Saudi Arabian regime.
The right-wing press is besides itself
The paper that supported Adolf Hitler, our old friend the Daily ‘Hate’ Mail was particularly anguished at the thought that someone who was herself a victim of racism and terrorism should be elected to become President of NUS.

Well done Malia and let’s look forward to your re-election.

Tony Greenstein

Five Facts about new NUS President @MaliaBouattia …




'I have opposed anti-Semitism all my life'

$
0
0
The Brighton & Hove Independent, the largest circulation newspaper in Brighton & Hove, published an article from me today on the Alice in Wonderland witch-hunt that I have been subjected to in the Labour Party at the behest of Ian McNicol and other staff members whose loyalty is to ex-leader and war criminal Tony Blair.


An Open Letter to Jon Lansman of Momentum on Zionism in the Labour Party

$
0
0
Stop the Appeasement of the supporters of Israeli Apartheid

Jon Lansman and Chair of Momentum
Dear Jon,

Earlier this week I had a long conversation with you.  You also posted a message (below) to a PSC activist, Terry Gallogly from York PSC.

As you know I have been suspended by the Compliance Unit of the Labour Party since March 18th.  I have received no information as to why I have been suspended yet this very same information was leaked to The Daily Telegraph which together with The Times printed articles that stated I was suspended as part of the clampdown on anti-Semitism in the Party.  Both newspapers, under threat of legal action, have now withdrawn those accusations, yet I am still suspended.

You are Chair of Momentum, which was set up to defend the newly elected leadership of Corbyn and McDonnell..  I would like to ask why you and Momentum nationally haven’t raised both my case and that of other people on the Left who have been suspended as a result of allegations made by the Right?  I accept what you have said about Corbyn not having control of the Labour Party bureaucracy, but that is even more reason why you should be speaking out.

When it became obvious last summer that Jeremy Corbyn was likely to become leader of the Labour Party, both the Tory and Liberal press, in particular Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, began a campaign aimed at painting Jeremy as an anti-Semite and someone who kept company with holocaust deniers.  This campaign was spearheaded by the Zionist movement and Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle in particular,

When Jeremy was elected as leader, there was a change in tactics by our opponents.  Starting with the veteran Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, there was a concerted attempt to paint the Labour Party as ‘riddled’ with anti-Semitism.  The fact that there was no evidence to support such an argument was no barrier to it becoming a truism.  As Goebbels remarked‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.’  

There is little doubt that despite trawling through thousands of tweets, FB postings etc. the Zionist movement and the Tory Press came up with one person who tweeted that Jews have ‘big noses’.  It must have seemed like manna from heaven when the leader of a tiny Trotskyist sect of less than 10 people, Gerry Downing, appeared on the scene with an updated version of the Jewish Question.  That was basically it.

It is clear that there are major differences between us in terms of how you see, or don’t see, the role of the Zionist movement, in particular

You see the Right’s ‘concern’ over anti-Semitism as genuine rather than a pretext in its battle against the Left.  I see Labour Friends of Israel, Progress and the Jewish Labour Movement’s use of anti-Semitism as a cynical weapon deployed against the Corbyn leadership of Labour Party.  If you are correct, then John Mann MP, the Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on anti-Semitism, is genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism.  Yet it is clear that his concern is with opposing support for the Palestinians and BDS.  The employment tribunal which heard his evidence in the Fraser v University College Union case held that:
Tony Benn & Jon Lansman, TUC Congress 1981
Mr Mann led for them and the more conciliatory tone of Dr MacShane gave way to a somewhat hostile display in which Mr Mann made no bones about his view that the union was operating in an anti-Semitic way …  He did not explain what the anti-Semitic behaviour was supposed to have consisted of besides referring to the boycott debate and characterising any boycott of Israel or Israeli institutions as itself anti-Semitic.’ Para. 84.

‘We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to anti-Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.’ Para. 148.

What you are attempting to do is to reconcile the irreconcilable.  Support for Zionism is incompatible with support for the Palestinian’s right of return and the achievement of a State in Palestine/Israel based on its citizens.  Israel as presently constituted is a state of Jews throughout the world rather than all its citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish. That is why there is no Israeli nationality.

Far from being the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ Israel could not survive without the threat of war.  Its history consists of manufacturing crises and wars in order to engender a permanent state of emergency.  This enables Israel to continue to apply the 1947 British Emergency Defence Regulations which enable administrative detention for up to six months, which can be renewed indefinitely, torture, the censorship of the press and an attitude to civil liberties, in particular for the Palestinian minority, which belongs in a police state.  Israel is no different from its erstwhile cousin, with whom it had the closest of military and economic relations, the Apartheid State of South Africa.

Another feature of Israel which its defenders seem to omit is the growth of fascist gangs and movements in Israel who parade under the slogan of ‘death to the Arabs’.  As I am sure you are aware, this was the slogan of the far-Right in Europe in the pre-war period, except ‘Jews’ were substituted for ‘Arab’.  At the Tel-Aviv demonstration in support of a soldier Elor Azraya who was filmed killing in cold blood an injured Palestinian lying on the ground, there was a banner ‘Kill them All’ with one demonstrator parading with the SS slogan ‘My honor is my loyalty’.  This is the Israel that LFI and JLM uncritically defend.

In your comments below you make a great play of what Zionism means and you believe it is wrong to use it as a term of abuse.  Zionism at its most basic was the movement set up in 1897 with the goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine.  It undertook this in alliance, in 1917, with British imperialism and it established a settler colonial movement in Palestine.  Settler colonialism has always been, without exception, the most virulently racist of colonial movements.

The cardinal features of the pre-state period were the Labour Zionist policies of Jewish labour, Jewish produce and Jewish land.  What this meant was best explained by the Managing Director of Solel Boneh, the Histadrut owned building company David HaCohen,:

I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my Trade Union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they should not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there... to pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash Arab eggs they, had bought... to buy dozens of dunums from an Arab is permitted but to sell God forbid one Jewish dunum to an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild the incarnation of capitalism  as a socialist and to name him the 'benefactor' - to do all that was not easy. And despite the fact that we did it- maybe we had no choice - I wasn't happy about it.” [David Hirst, The Gun & the Olive Branch, p.63]

Nor does this belong to the past.  Even today Israel evicts Israeli Palestinians from the land to make way for Jewish towns, as it is currently doing in the Negev.  The Bedouin village of Arakabh has been evicted 96 times.

Of course there are British Jews who support Zionism without realising its consequences.  There are some who believe that a Zionism which treats Palestinians and Jews equally is possible.  There were also white South Africans who genuinely believed that Apartheid, separate development, did not imply inferior treatment.  Did not the judges in Plessy v Fergusson in 1896 argue that segregation on the basis of separate but equal treatment was possible?  It was not until Brown v Board of Education in 1954 that this pernicious racist myth was finally laid to rest.

In Israel segregation is alive and well.  Virtually all schools are segregated, maternity wards and even student accommodation is segregated, employment is segregated, most towns and villages are separate with Arabs barred from living in ‘Jewish’ towns.   Arab towns are denied planning permission as a norm, such that not one new Arab town has been constructed since 1948 despite the population having increased 10 fold.  Half of all Arab villages are ‘unrecognised’ i.e. liable to instant demolition.  ID cards differentiate between Jew and Arab, as do car number plates.  In the checkpoints in the Occupied Territories there are different gates for Jewish settlers and Palestinians but then there are also two systems of law in operation.  Even the road system is divided between Jewish and non-Jewish.

What is outrageous is that the British section of the Israeli Labour Party, a party which is racist to the core is allowed affiliation to the Labour Party.  Only this week Yitzhak Herzog, leader of the ILP said that Israel's Labor party shouldn't give off the constant impression that they are "Arab lovers." 

The Jewish Labour Movement together with Labour Friends of Israel is the emanation of the Israeli state inside the Labour Party.  Its attitude to the new leadership was best summed up by Rebecca Simon Vice-Chair of LFI who said of Corbyn:  ‘no one wants to vote for a leader they think is rubbish.  And he is rubbish – never mind about the Israel stuff, he is just not a credible opposition.’ JC 30.12.15.

The purpose of LFI and JLM is to justify the actions of the Israeli state, whomsoever is in power.  The ILP has never condemned the occupation.  As former leader, Shelly Yacimovich  declared:  “I reject the definition of the IDF as an occupation army,” [Ha’aretz 16.4.16.] JusticeAccording to Israel’s Nationalist-demagogue Spokeswoman Ha’aretz described how ‘She doesn’t give a damn about the Palestinians’ rights. They’re nothing to her. …. This is justice according to Yacimovich – for Jews only. Her justice is “Zionist,” as she calls it. Her morality isn’t universal. Calling her a social democrat is a disgrace to social democracy. Her disgraceful take on the Palestinians has nothing to do with socialist or democratic tradition. She’s a nationalist-socialist leader.’  
The idea that JLM or LFI are going to ‘build bridges’ with the Jewish community is absurd.  The majority of Jews today vote for the Right because since the 1950’s Jews have move up the ladder socio-economically.  Physically they have moved from the East End of London to Hendon, Golders Green etc.  This is well documented in Geoffrey Alderman’s The Jewish Community in British Politics, Clarendon Press, 1980. 

There is little evidence that Israel in fact plays any but a minor role in how Jewish people vote.  Indeed according to a comprehensive poll by academics at City University, nearly a third of Jews, 31% don't even define or see themselves as Zionist.  That is a higher percentage than vote today for Labour for socio-economic reasons.  See 
You speak of the two-state solution.  Neither Likud or the Zionist Union (Labour Party/Hatnuah) support a two state solution.  Neither do the majority of Palestinians.  The extent and degree of settlement has now made that solution unattainable.  There is one state now in the area of the former British Mandate.  In that area the majority of Palestinians, over 4 million, live under military occupation and have no democratic rights whatsoever.  This is an apartheid state in all but name.  Talk of 2 States serves one purpose only – to legitimise the continued denial of democratic rights to Palestinians because that would mean the end of a Jewish supremacist state.

As you continue to try and appease JLM and LFI, so the accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ continue.  There is only one way to defeat our accusers and that is to make it clear that when Zionists talk of ‘anti-Semitism’ they are speaking a different language from us.  Anti-Semitism means hatred, violence, discrimination against Jews etc..  It is reprehensible and must be fought.  When the Tories and the Zionist JLM and LFI, to say nothing of the Guardian’s Freedland speak of anti-Semitism they mean BDS and opposition to Israel’s Apartheid.  They even have a word for it, the ‘new anti-Semitism’.

Until you recognise this the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign will go on.  Eric Pickles, Chris Grayling and co. will have a field day.  No amount of statements by Jeremy Corbyn that he opposes anti-Semitism will have the slightest effect because he and they are talking a different language.   What is needed is a clear statement by the Labour leadership that they oppose anti-Semitism but they also oppose conflating anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and support for the Palestinians.  

You believe that there is a problem with equating Zionism with racism.  This is not shared by far-Right Islamaphobic groups such as the BNP/EDL or racists like Gert Wilders, Marine Le Pen or indeed the neo-Nazi Freedom Party in Austria under Strache, all of whom admire the Israeli state. 
The JLM is moving an amendment to Labour Party’s rules to include ‘anti-Semitism’ in the list of disciplinary offences.  They are also using Islamaphobia as a cover for their amendment.  They make it clear, in their supporting arguments, that their definition of anti-Semitism includes opposition to Zionism which they say is part of Jewish national identity.  As a Jewish anti-Zionist I dispute this.  I hope that both you and Momentum are going to take a clear line in opposition to this amendment.  
For the defenders of apartheid in Israel to move an amendment concerning racism in the British Labour Party is a sick joke.  If they are that concerned about racism, maybe they can have a word in the ear of Yitzhak Herzog and tell him that being a lover of Arabs might not be a bad thing.
Yours fraternally,

Tony Greenstein

Jon Lansman to Terry Gallogly
"I don’t agree with your suggestion that the entire right of the party are in cahoots with this though there certainly are some on the right who may be. In my discussions with the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel about this, I find that they are actually (i) very keen to build bridges between Labour (including Jeremy) and the Jewish community and (ii) agree with my point (2) above.................................

I do think that there is a problem of antisemitism in the party that goes beyond the small number of appalling examples such as that of Gerry Downing who was rightly suspended from the Labour Party in my view and should be permanently expelled. This includes the failure to take charges of antisemitism sufficiently seriously and poor choice of language such as conflating words like “Jew”, “Israeli”, and “Zionist”.I think there is a particular problem with the word “Zionist” which is used by some as if it were a term of abuse. This is guaranteed, understandably in my view, to be regarded as antisemitic by many Jews and should never be used in that way. Many people treat Zionist as if it means "supportive of the policies of the Israeli government in relation to the occupation and to Palestinians". It is that understanding of the word which leads to the equations Zionism = Imperialism and Zionism = Racism. Both of those equations are as offensive and wrong as is the equation Anti-Zionism = Antisemitism. The reason is that to most British Jews, Zionism simply means “support for the existence of Israel as a Jewish state” alongside a Palestinian state which is of course the policy of the Labour Party, PSC and Fatah and the Palestine administration etc. Most British Jews (unlike Israeli Jews) believe in equality of rights for Palestinians within Israel and in a two-state solution. A number of self described Zionists in Britain and even  few in Israel are strong supporters of Palestinian rights and I have personally demonstrated alongside such people against house demolitions in East Jerusalem and against the Wall with Palestinian villagers whose villages and land are divided by it.

Much of the antisemitism that exists on the Left is probably unconscious. Lack of intent, however, is not an excuse for antisemitism just as it is not in the case of institutional racism of any variety.

Defending Jeremy in my view means the Left taking a hard line against antisemitism in the Labour party. I know it is a long time since 1190 but I am sure that the Left in York would feel a particular responsibility to make a stand against antisemitism given its bloody history in their/your city."


Jon

A Wasted Opportunity - PSC's Guardian Advert

$
0
0

Why Israel is an Apartheid State -           the Arguments That Weren't Made





This Saturday April 23, Palestine Solidarity Campaign placed an advert in the Guardian.  It must have cost about £10,000.

At a time when there is an unprecedented attack on Palestine solidarity work in this country, this statement was a wasted opportunity.  The main theme, Palestine is being built out of existence, was that it a Palestinian state is becoming more difficult to achieve.  Anyone with eyes and ears should recognise that the 2 state solution is no longer achievable, assuming it ever was.  Zionism recorgnises the sovereignty of only one group of people, Jewish settlers.
What the statement should have said and led on was a firm rebuttal of the media frenzy in the past few months.  A clear and firm statement such as Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism’Supporting Palestinian rights is not anti-Semitic’.

Possibly a reference could have been made to the fact that the most racist and indeed anti-Semitic elements internationally, from the BNP to Marine Le Pen to Gert Wilders etc. etc. are the strongest supporters of Zionism.
Brighton & Hove PSC leaflet
Instead of reproducing 3 statements from Israeli ministers affirming their refusal to allow a Palestinian state, PSC could have done worse than take a leaf out of the leaflet from Brighton & Hove PSC ‘meet the Israeli Government’ which reproduced statements from various Israeli Government Ministers such as the Deputy Defence Minister, Eli Dahan, who compared higher Jewish souls, including those of homosexuals, to those of non-Jews.

It could have made the obvious point that since Israel refuses a separate Palestinian state then the refusal to grant Palestinians in the Occupied Territories the most basic of civil or political rights means Israel is an apartheid society.

It could have referred to Israeli racism in terms of ‘death to the Arabs’ marches, the banning of the Northern Islamic Movement even whilst the fascist Lehava group, whose leader Benzi Gopstein justifies the burning down of mosques and churches remains illegal.

The advert could have made some more sophisticated arguments such as calling anti-Zionism anti-Semitism is in itself anti-Semitic as it assumes all Jews are Zionists.  It could even have pointed to the fact that it was Jews who were historically the first opponents of Zionism.  They could even have quoted someone like Theodor Herzl on how the anti-Semitic countries would be the Zionists’ best allies and friends.

It could have pointed to the hypocrisy of people like Eric Pickles, Chair of the Conservative Friends of Israel, who defend the Conservatives’ good friend Michal Kaminski and an inveterate anti-Semite in the European Conservative and Reform group. 

Instead the statement was bland an innocuous.  So bland that, I am told, even Jews for Justice for Palestinians refused to sign it.

Tony Greenstein


April 22, 2016
This Saturday an advert will appear in the Guardian reaffirming our right – indeed our duty – to boycott Israel. The advert is based on the below statement:

Israel, judged by its actions, isn’t interested in peace. By erecting more and more settlements on Palestinian land, it is in the process of building Palestine out of existence.

It is not only our right to boycott those who aid and abet this occupation and, now, colonisation of Palestine – it is our duty.

Next year it will be 50 years since the occupation of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. 10 years since the siege of Gaza began, with 75,000 still displaced from their homes since the Israeli bombardment of Gaza in 2014.

This year, to 18th April, 63 people have been killed, 59 of these people are Palestinians killed by Israeli forces. Over 1,600 Palestinians have been injured[i].

The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights make it the duty of states to uphold human rights. The British Government says principles of human rights should apply the world over and calls on businesses, trade unions and civil society to help them. Yet, they have continually failed to act over Israel’s violation of Palestinian human rights.

Instead, in recent months the British Government and its Ministers have unleashed a series of attacks on supporters of Palestine who advocate Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israeli institutions and companies complicit with breaches of Palestinian human rights. These attacks have been accompanied by systematic efforts to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel by branding it extremist, divisive, and antisemitic.

Human rights are indivisible and global. It is not racist to criticise a state because of its laws and actions, it is not racist to campaign for those laws and actions to be changed.

It is antisemitic to promote hatred or discrimination of Jewish people because of their religion or ethnicity. As an anti-racist organisation, we abhor racism directed at any group – we challenge it wherever it is found.

The government’s attempt to promote fear and intimidation of legitimate protest and to smear human rights defenders will only assist the real racists.

We support the Palestinian-led call for a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign which uses effective-yet-peaceful means to pressure Israel to end the occupation and ensure Palestinians have the rights we take for granted. It is civil society holding countries and companies accountable for their actions.

Boycott is the tool human rights defenders have used throughout history. It is a non-violent, global and traditional form of protest used to oppose oppression.It is not racist to refuse to buy, decline to invest in or stop supplying goods, arms or services to companies and institutions that are knowingly supporting breaches of human rights and international law.

Rather than attack those defending human rights, the British Government should be challenging Israel for its actions that breach international law.

Trying to suppress the right to protest will not undermine the campaign for Palestinian human rights – it will strengthen it.

We proudly continue in the tradition of civil and human rights activists before us. If it was good enough for Gandhi, Luther King Jr, and Mandela; boycott is good enough for us.

PSC is part of a growing global movement in support of Palestine, proudly refusing to do business with Israel’s occupation, colonisation, and discrimination.



Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu[ii]
“We are all against a Palestinian state; there is no question about it”
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior Silvan Shalom [iii]
“I will do everything in my power to make sure they [Palestinians] never get a state”
Israeli Minister of Education Naftali Bennett[iv]



Jewish Community Defies Zionists to Support Malia Bouattia

$
0
0

Anti-racist Jews for Justice Speak Out in Support of Malia

In the past week, the Tory press, New Labour and various racist Zionists, especially the Union of Jewish Students, have been foaming at the mouth attacking the radical new President of the National Union of Students, Malia Bouattia.  Malia, who is the first Black woman President of NUS is in reality the first Black President as well.  As someone who was a student union officer and member of NUS's Polytechnics Committee when Trevor Phillips was President, I can honestly say that Phillips, although Black on the outside was White all through.  What used to be known as a milk chocolate.  He even threatened never to join the Labour Party when the National Organisation of Labour Students, under Tommy Shepherd (now an SNP MP!) voted to support No Platform for Fascists.  Trevor Phillips was all in favour of fascists organising on campus.

Phillips it was who fronted the recent Islamaphobic Channel 4 programme on Muslim attitudes to Jews.  He probably never thought to ask why there was no survey of Jewish attitudes to Muslims.  An Uncle Tom.

The attacks on Malia come from a small minority of Zionist activists.  They rely on the right-wing media to trumpet their groundless claims.  They claim Jews and Zionists are one and the same yet they also hold that to blame Jews for the actions of Zionism is anti-Semitic.  Try working that one out!

Tony Greenstein


I digress though.  In the Guardian there are letters from Mike Cushman on behalf of Jews for  Boycotting Israeli Goods, Tony Greenstein on behalf of Jews for Jeremy and a list of anti-Zionist and anti-racist Jews who have signed a joint letter in The Independent supporting Malia and welcoming her.  Of course the young Zionist racists of  the Union of Jewish Students, who imagine that they are oppressed by anti-Semitism because people object to the treatment of Palestinians, have led the attack on Malia and Black students in NUS.

These white racists should be treated with the contempt they deserve.  Jewish students are NOT oppressed.  They suffer no economic discrimination, quite the contrary, they are members of a community that is anything but economically deprived.  They suffer no racism and at worst a form of prejudice.  Most anti-Semitism, if it can be described as that, comes from comments directed at Jews as a result of the association of Jews with Israel's actions.  And who associates Jews with Israel?  The Zionists and organisations like the Board of Deputies of British Jews which organise rallies in support of Israel's bombardment of Gaza.

Naz Shah - More False Allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ – British Jews are NOT oppressed

$
0
0
This is a Bogus Campaign Worthy of Stalin’s Purges

Naz Shah's original tweet - there is nothing anti-Semitic about what was a joke message at the time of Israel's genocidal attack on Gaza.  
Naz Shah has been hung out to dry today.  She has confessed, recanted and repented.  Her shame is absolute.  She has had the Labour Party whip withdrawn and people like the rapidly moving rightwards airhead, Owen Jones, was in the vanguard of the witch hunt calling for her suspension John McDonnell was right to swiftly force Naz Shah's resignation -but now the party has to suspend her.  All we need is the scaffold and then she could literally be hung out to dry.
Owen Jones - runs with the foxes and hunts with the hounds - supports Palestinians and supports Zionists - a typical rightward moving Labour left-winger except he's begun moving at an exceptionally young age
Indeed Naz Shah has confessed to her comments being anti-Semitic.  Isn’t that enough proof?  No.  The defendants in the Stalin purge trials also confessed to being Trotsky’s agents and more.  It is perfectly possible to create a psychological atmosphere such that people will confess to all manner of things, even though they are not guilty.  Police interrogators have, throughout the years, been quite skilled in obtaining false confessions without the need to beat people up or torture them.

So let me say it here – there is nothing anti-Semitic in what Naz Shah has said.  She made what was quite a flippant humorous joke in the midst of something that was anything but funny – the merciless use of American planes, white phosphorous and the most modern missiles and rocket technology against a people who had nothing except pea crackers to fire back with (the ‘rockets’ that Israel used as a pretext for the bombardment and invasion).   Let us not forget that 2,200 people were murdered in Gaza including 551 'terrorist' children.
Corbyn and McDonnell, by refusing to stand up to bogus allegations of 'anti-Semitism' are paving the way for their own overthrow by Progress and the Right of the party
The people of Gaza were and are being subject to a merciless blockade by Israel in which the number of calories per person is calculated by Israel before food is allowed in.  There is a previous precedent for this.  Under the rule of Governor General Hans Frank in the Nazi occupied Polish General-Gouvernment, the number of calories allowed into the Warsaw ghetto was also calculated. Admittedly the Israelis do allow enough calories so people don’t quite starve, though it weakens the sick and elderly so people do die, and a thousand Palestinians have died at the Erez junction because Israel won’t allow them into Israel for hospital treatment.  Because 95% of Gaza’s water is unfit to drink and Israel has bombed its water treatment plant, there is widespread illness and death in Gaza.  But none of the hypocrites, prime amongst them the despicable Owen Jones, have raised their voices about the real racism in this affair.

Not one of the hypocrites on the Labour Right who have condemned the ‘anti-Semitism’ of Naz Shah condemned Israel’s bombing of Gaza or have campaigned for the lifting of the siege.  That is the issue not the bogus issue of anti-Semitism.

Racism isn’t prejudice.  It is about the exercise of power.  Jews didn’t suffer because of peoples’ opinions in Europe but because of what was done to them.  Britain’s Jews are not oppressed, economically or racially.  On the contrary British Jews live in a golden age.  There is no state racism directed at Jews, as opposed to Muslims and Black people. British Jewry is an extremely prosperous and privileged community.  Anti-Semitic?  Well if you think that is anti-Semitic then presumably William Rubinstein, former President of the Jewish Historical Society and himself a Zionist is also anti-Semitic! 

In ‘The Left, the Right and the Jews’.  Rubinstein speaks of ‘the rise of Western Jewry to unparalleled affluence and high status’ which‘has led to the near-disappearance of a Jewish proletariat of any size; indeed, the Jews may become the first ethnic group in history without a working-class of any  size.’ [W.D. Rubinstein, ‘The Left, the Right and the Jews’, p.51, Croom Helm, London 1982]  The idea that Jews today are cowering in a corner fearful of a brick coming through the window or afraid to go down the road because the people in that road are likely to stone you or beat you up is an illusion. 

My father, who was at the Battle of Cable Street in October 1936, when the British Union of Fascists under Sir Oswald Moseley were prevented from marching through London’s East End by over a hundred thousand workers, Jewish and non-Jewish.  He told me that there were streets like Ridley Road that no Jew went down for fear of his life.
The joint advert of the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Chronicle before the pivotal defeat of Sir Oswald Moseley's British Union of Fascists in 1936
Catholic Irish dockers rallied to the Jews and the anti-fascist cause.  The Board of Deputies of  British Jews and the Zionists of the time called on British Jews to stay indoors and not come out, to ignore the fascists.  Jews in their thousands ignored the Board and the Jewish Peoples Committee, which was involved in organising the anti-fascist mobilisation, invaded the Board's offices.  William Fishman, a local Jewish historian, described how, at the Battle of Cable Street in October 1936

“We were all side by side. I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that for as long as I live, how working-class people could stand together to oppose the evil of racism.” [East LondonAdvertiser 4.10.06]. 

The anti-Semitism talked about today is nothing more than an attempt to defend Israel.  It has nothing to do with actual anti-Semitism.  Zionists (no it’s not a term of abuse it means those who defend the State of Israel – they do after all have a World Zionist Organisation) find it difficult to defend incarceration and torture of children as young as 12 (if they are Palestinian).  Jewish children of course can’t be locked up unless they are at least 14 and they have social workers and parents accompanying them unlike Palestinian children who are kept in solitary confinement, beaten and worse.  It is difficult defending a system where 93% of Israeli land is reserved wholly for Jewish use.  It is much better to cry ‘anti-Semitism’ and attack the messenger rather than the message.

What is happening is that the millions of pounds that the Israeli government has devoted to propaganda is being spent now to destabilise Jeremy Corbyn and the new Labour leadership.  They are hunting down every tweet, email etc. in order to create an atmosphere of permanent instability.  I know because tweets I have issued have been taken totally out of context to suggest I am anti-Semitic.  If someone calls me a ‘self-hater’anti-Semite’etc. I will accuse them of being ‘zio scum’ or whatever. Anti-Semitic?  Get a life.

I recommend an excellent article that has just been published Jeremy Corbyn hasn’t got an ‘antisemitism problem’.His opponents do.  27 April 2016

Jamie Werner gives as an example Khadim Hussain, a Labour councillor and former Lord Mayor of Bradford who in a Facebook post shared a photo referring to ‘6 million Zionists’, rather than six million Jews, having been killed by Hitler. Is this anti-Semitic?  No.  Of course he was wrong.  We actually don’t know how many Jews died.  Raul Hilberg, the most authoritative holocaust scholar, estimated 5.1 million.  Most of those who died weren’t Zionist.  

The point that Khadim Hussain made was valid.  Why is the holocaust of Jews given such prominence in schools' syllabus and in its own holocaust memorial day when the genocide of 10 million Africans in the Belgian Congo isn't even mentioned.  There are just 2 books on this appalling catastrophe.  Why do you have to go to specialist history books to read that 30+ million Bengalis died  of starvation from the 1880's to 1947 because of British free trade policies which meant that food was exported when people were dying.  This is not anti-Semitic.  It is a valid question and the reason is because the holocaust is a propaganda weapon used by the West to sanitise itself.   To paint itself in righteous colours as it commits its own genocide and massacres.

The Zionist movement in Palestine and elsewhere collaborated with the Nazis or covered up their crimes [see Ben Hecht’s Perfidyon the Kasztner trial in Israel or Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators or indeed Shabtai Beit Zvi’s ‘Post-Ugandan Zionism On Trial - A Study of the Factors that Caused the Mistakes Made by the ZionistMovement during the Holocaust’ which is a copious, 2 volume book by a right-wing Israeli Zionist about the actual record of the Jewish Agency – the Zionist government in the making in Palestine during the holocaust and how they and the Zionist press denied that the holocaust was taking place and how they obstructed rescue to any destination that wasn’t Palestine].

What was Khadim Hussain’s mistake?  He used the term ‘Zionist’ instead of ‘Jew’.  Is that anti-Semitic?  Well if it is then most Zionists are anti-Semitic.  This is the ritual incantation of Zionism that anti-Semitism equals anti-Zionism e.g. Emanuele Ottolenghi’s Comment article ‘Anti-Zionismis anti-semitism’ in the Guardian 

So it is an understandable mistake made by Naz Shah and many other people who are fooled by the Zionists into believing that being Jewish and a Zionist is one and the same thing.  After all even people like Jonathan Freedland, who should know better, Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem argued recently, that ‘A recent survey found that 93% of British Jews said Israel formed some part of their identity’ thus implying that anti-Zionism, which obviously challenges this identity, is anti-Semitic.  

Jonathan Freedland omitted to mention that 31% of British Jews no longer classify themselves as Zionists and 59%, down from 71% five years ago, see themselves as Zionists.

In fact it was quite dishonest of Freedland to cite this statistic when he failed to cite, from the same survey, The Attitudes of British Jews Towards Israel by the Department of Sociology School of Arts and Social Sciences City University London the finding that ‘The percentage of respondents who call themselves ‘Zionists’ appears to have declined – 59% compared with 72% in the 2010 JPR survey. This apparently rapid change in the use of the term merits further examination.’   Indeed the very same survey found that 31% of Jews don’t consider themselves as Zionists even.  Yet these findings are glossed over by Freedland in favour of a fatuous 93% finding that Israel is some part of Jewish identity.  

Perhaps if some African Muslims see Female Genital Mutilation as part of their religious identity it will be racist to oppose the practice?  It used to be part of Hindu religious practice to burn widows on the pyre of their husbands (suttee).  Perhaps its racist to oppose the burning alive of women?

What is though utterly regrettable and even cowardly is that socialists who ought to know better are either going along with this or keeping silent.  Their silence is not helping Jeremy Corbyn they are helping the Right in their ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign.
Jon Lansman, Chair of Momentum is holding secret talks with the Jewish Labour Movement, British branch of the Israeli Labour Party, and Labour Friends of Israel in the naive hope that they will be supportive of Corbyn
I had a long conversation and then an increasingly acerbic email exchange with Jon Lansman, who is the Chair of Momentum, the organisation which is supposed to be defending Corbyn and McDonnell’s leadership.  So disorganised is Momentum nationally that the Progress Right has a large lead in the number of delegates so far elected to the Labour Party conference.  It is making the running whereas Momentum has nothing to say about this ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign.

In our email exchanges (see below) Lansman argues that I’ve never claimed there’s a sudden rise in antisemitism within the Labour Party, it’s always been there at least in a latent form, but it has been exposed by a pro-Tory campaign and we cannot ignore it or deny its existence.’  But has the existence of ‘anti-Semitism’ been exposed by the Tory and Zionist campaign or is it bogus?  Has it always been there?  Or is it a few remarks by a few unconnected individuals or is there a systemic problem? 
Historically anti-Semitism has always been a problem in the Tory Party not the Labour Party.  Leon Brittan suffered from this during the Westland Affair which led to his resignation.  As Jonathan Aitken wrote"Soon after a poisonous meeting of Tory backbenchers at the 1922 Committee he fell on his sword. It was a combination of a witch hunt and a search for a scapegoat – tainted by an undercurrent of anti-Semitism.’   There has always been a golf club form of anti-Semitism in the Tory Party.  In the early part of the 20thcentury it was Tory MPs like William Evans Gordon who formed the anti-Semitic British Brothers League dedicated to halting the immigration of Jewish refugees from anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe. 
William Stanley Shaw, President of the anti-Semitic proto-fascist British Brothers' League wrote to the Jewish Chronicle of 8.11.1901. that 'I am a firm believer in the Zionist movement, which the British Brothers' League will do much incidentally to foster.' Shaw was not alone.  Numerous anti-Semites did their best to foster the Zionist movement, mainly by kicking Jews out of the countries they were living in.
This however was a form of anti-Semitism which was entirely acceptable to the Zionists because the Zionists, like the Tory anti-Semites, didn’t want to seen the immigration of poor Jewish refugees from Russia.  As Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first President and the President of the Zionist Organisation for most of the 1920’s and 1930’s wrote:
‘‘our people were rather hard on him. The Aliens Bill in England and the movement which grew around it were natural phenomenon which might have been foreseen... Sir William Evans-Gordon had no particular anti-Jewish prejudices... He acted as he thought, according to his best lights and in the most kindly way, in the interests of his country…. he was sincerely ready to encourage any settlement of Jews almost anywhere in the British Empire, but he failed to see why the ghettos of London or Leeds or Whitechapel should be made into a branch of the ghettos of Warsaw and Pinsk.' [Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, pp. 90-91, Schocken, 1966].
Support for the fascists was widespread in the British press - this article appeared in the pro-fascist Daily Mirror (a side of the Mirror which has been kept very quiet)
Arthur J Balfour when Prime Minister introduced the Aliens Act in 1905 aimed at preventing Jewish immigration.  He was quite blunt about it, he didn’t like Jews very much.  In 1917 the same Balfour lent his name to the Balfour Declaration which promised Palestine to the Zionists.  He was an ardent Zionist and an anti-Semite.  That is as true today as it was a century ago.  That is why this campaign about ‘anti-Semitism’ is so hypocritical.  It has absolutely nothing to do with actual anti-Semitism.
In the 1970's and 1980's there were very close links between Tory right-wingers and the Monday Club - people like Harvey Proctor and Alan Clarke.  Clarke had cocktail sticks made with a swastika on them at a party.
Nor is this Tory anti-Semitism a matter of past history. There was and is the hitch-up in the European parliament between the Tories and the European Conservatives and Reform group, which contained anti-Semites such as Michal Kaminski as its Chairman.  Kaminski opposed a national Polish apology for the Jedwabne massacre in 1941 when Polish anti-Semites burnt up to 900 Jews alive in a barn.  Yet not only did people like Eric Pickles, the Chairman of Conservatives Friends of Israel defend Kaminski but so did Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle.  [see Jewish Community Defies Zionists to Support Malia Bouattia- Anti-racist Jews for Justice Speak Out in Support ofMalia]
Even David Miliband, the New Labour former Foreign Secretary condemned the anti-Semitism of the Tories in terms that Corbyn and McDonnell are too frightened or ignorant to raise today.  Truly the performance of Corbyn and McDonnell in bowing down to the witch hunters is a disgrace.  The whip should be withdrawn, not from Naz Shah but from John Mann MP and Wes Streeting for bringing the Labour Party into disrepute by making wild and general accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’.

In 2009, when the Tories broke from their previous partners in the European parliament and aligned with a bunch of rabid rightwingers, fascists and in the case of Michal Kaminski, an ex-Nazi, the Telegraph reported that the Tories

demanded that the Foreign Secretary withdraw an “indecent” accusation that Eric Pickles, the Conservative Party Chairman, had defended members of the Nazi SS.’

‘In his speech, Mr Miliband rounded on the Tories for aligning with the European Conservatives and Reformists grouping, saying that one ally, from Latvia, took part in annual services to commemorate the SS.’

‘He went on to accuse Mr Pickles of defending the Latvian SS on the grounds that they were “only following orders” – the excuse used by many Nazis to excuse their actions following the Second World War.’

‘The Foreign Secretary also claimed that Michael Kaminski, a Polish MEP who is a member of the group, had been labeled an anti-Semite by a senior rabbi.’

The Telegraph described how Miliband

‘his voice shaking with emotion’ told delegates to Labour’s conference how “Eric Pickles, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, explained without a hint of shame that we should not condemn one of their new allies, the ‘For Fatherland and Freedom’ party, who every year celebrate the Latvian Waffen SS with a march past of SS veterans, because they were only following orders.  It makes me sick. And you know what makes me sicker? No one in the Tory party batted an eyelid.”

David Miliband speech triggersanti-Semitism row - The Conservatives have accused David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, of “disgraceful smears” after his speech to Labour Party conferenceresulted in an anti-Semitism row. 

To this very day the Tory Party is in alliance with these people yet neither Corbyn nor McDonnell nor Lansman even utters one single word in response.  These aren’t individuals who are confused by the Zionists into using ‘Jew’ for ‘Zionist’ but cold, calculating politicians who in Miliband’s phrase, don’t bat an eyelid at linking up with anti-Semites and fascists. 

And it’s not just Lansman who is frit.  When Malia Bouattia was attacked for anti-Semitism by the same Zionists and their echo chambers I sent a letter to the Guardian condemning these attacks on NUS’s first Black woman President and anti-Zionist.  I sent it in the name of the group that had been originally set up to defend Jeremy Corbyn in the summer of 2015 against accusations of anti-Semitism before he became leader of the Labour Party, Jews4Jeremy.

Those who currently control the Facebook page of J4J disagree with doing anything at the moment to fight back against the Zionists current anti-Semitism witchhunt.  Despite my efforts, the only thing they did was to gather names of 52 Jewish members of the Labour Party to send to the NEC opposing my suspension.  Apart from that I have been unable to persuade them to pursue either the question of my suspension or take up broader questions. 

Because they are not elected by anyone I decided that I had as much right as anyone to send a letter to the Guardian, in the name of J4J, opposing the attack on Malia Bouattia.  The moderators objected and secured a minor retraction by the Guardian.  This matters not a jot but the fact that over 300 Jewish members of the Labour Party or registered supporters have put their names to a group which is now doing nothing is a cause for some concern.  In their letter to me David Rosenburg, Julia Bard and Ian Saville stated that:

‘Your action is damaging both to us, as Jews for Jeremy, and potentially to Jeremy himself, and to the Labour Party.

We can't have a situation where individuals are posting without the admins knowing about it and authorising it, let alone writing negative comments about the Labour Party in the name of JfJ.

Quite how a letter which didn’t even mention the Labour Party, yet alone attack it, is ‘potentially damaging to Jeremy himself’ defies logic.  It was a defence of the new NUS President against anti-Semitism, but so scared are they of their own shadow, that even a hint of criticism, even implied, of the Labour Party, causes them to lose sleep.  Meanwhile whilst they cower in the corner the Zionists and their propagandists in the mass media are on the rampage

However a group of Jews and also non-Jews have got together to form a group, to counter the Zionist campaign over ‘anti-Semitism’.  The joint letter to The Independent was the first sign of our efforts.

There is however much more to do.  Progress is proposing an 8 point plan to combat ‘anti-Semitism’ i.e. support for the Palestinians and anti-Zionism. 8 steps Labour needs to take to tackle antisemitism in its ranks

The Jewish Labour Movement, formerly Poalei Zion, which is the overseas branch of the racist Israeli Labour Party, whose leader Isaac Hertzog recently proclaimed that their problem was that they were seen as an ‘Arab lover’ party [Herzog: Labor Party Must Stop Giving Israelis the Feeling It Always LovesArabs, is pushing an amendment to the Rules of the Labour Party which would make ‘anti-Semitism’ an expellable offence but in the process redefine what ‘anti-Semitism’ was.  Using Zionism as a term of ‘abuse’ would be anti-Semitic.  Zionism is defined as part of ‘Jewish national identity’ by JLM so it is clear.  Anti-Semitism is anti-Zionism and this will now be an expellable offence if JLM have its way.

Tony Greenstein

Letter to and from moderators of Jews4Jeremy to Tony Greenstein 26.4.16.

Dear David,
Dear comrades

I entirely disagree with what you say and believe your advocacy of doing nothing is playing into the hands of the right.

Your silence whilst Malia is being attacked is shameful.  Malia is the first Black woman President nus and u r staying silent while the racist Zionists and tabloids savage her.  all to protect Jon landsman negotiations with Labour Friends of Israel and the Jewish Labour Movement.

What is taking place with my suspension is not a neutral process but a witch hunt where I don't even get to see the evidence against me

Fraternally

Tony Greenstein

Further to my previous response to your letter. 
You say 'We had made it clear to you that, having written to the Labour Party about your case and obtained dozens of signatures, JfJ was not making further public comment on the issue until the Party had had time to consider our letter along with all the other evidence and submissions they had received. That remains our position.'
Who is the 'we'?  Where and when was this decision made?  Was it democratically decided by those who are members of the J4J FB page?  And for that matter when were the administrators elected because I don't remember an election?  That is the context in which a press release was issued.
The fact is that there is no democratic decision making.  When I posted stuff on Malia on J4J there was a good reception from those who commented.  Obviously I don't have access now so I can't be specific but it is a fact that the group has not responded to or taken any initiative bar sending the 52 signatures to the NEC, the names of whom I have not been sent despite previous promises.
No decision was ever made not to make further public comment until the Party, you mean the Compliance Unit which is at the centre of the witchhunt in the Party, has had time to consider.  If this had ever been put to me or on the list then I would have kicked up a fuss.  This do nothing strategy means in essence that the Left, or part of the Left, is sitting back whilst the Right is busy organising.
All the indications are that the Progress right is doing much better than the Left in the LP and that the left slate for the NEC is in real difficulty.  Momentum having taken over as the main organisation of the Left has developed no strategy or consistent work in terms of overcoming a very determined campaign by the Right.
This campaign as you know has been spearheaded by Zionist groups, inside and outside the LP.  The form this has taken has been bogus accusations of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately Jon Lansman, who as Julia pointed out, is a member of the JSG is also Chair of Momentum.  Not only is he holding talks with LFI/JLM but he is on record as saying there is an anti-Semitism problem in the LP thus giving credence to the campaign being mounted by the Right.  Further he believes it is a problem to call Zionists Zionists because it is somehow abusive.
This strategy, if one can call it that, is problematic to say the least.  It means the Momentum Left has virtually conceded everything to the Right.  Quite why Jon is negotiating at all with LFI/JLM is a mystery.  What can he possibly hope to get out of it?  A chicken would have more chance of negotiating a non-aggression pact with a fox than Jon has with what are agents of the Israeli state.
This is the context in which I put J4J name on my letter to the Guardian.  It was quite deliberate because yes I do want J4J to take up the issue rather than duck it as it has all others since Jeremy was elected.  I would be more impressed if either you, Julia or Ian had any substantive differences with the letter I submitted.  If so I have yet to hear them.
The 'strategy' that is outlined below will lead to the inevitable removal of Corbyn before the next election or his evisceration.
Fraternally,

Tony Greenstein

On 26 Apr 2016 12:28, "David Rosenberg"<
davidrosenberg58@googlemail.com> wrote:

Dear Tony,

We have reluctantly had to block you from the Jews for Jeremy page after you put out a press release in the name of “Jews 4 Jeremy” regarding your exclusion from the Labour Party.
We had made it clear to you that, having written to the Labour Party about your case and obtained dozens of signatures, JfJ was not making further public comment on the issue until the Party had had time to consider our letter along with all the other evidence and submissions they had received. That remains our position.

Your action is damaging both to us, as Jews for Jeremy, and potentially to Jeremy himself, and to the Labour Party.

We can't have a situation where individuals are posting without the admins knowing about it and authorising it, let alone writing negative comments about the Labour Party in the name of JfJ.
This was compounded by your signing your letter this morning in the Guardian as “Tony Greenstein, Jews for Jeremy” without reference to the admins, or to the agreed remit of the group as expressed in its basic statement.

In the future please write letters and make statements in your own name and don’t make false claims to be a representative of Jews for Jeremy.

David Rosenberg, Julia Bard, Ian Saville (admins of Jews for Jeremy)

Correspondence between Tony Greenstein & Jon Lansman
Tony Greenstein
Jon
I will respond to your various points together.  For those I am copying this to, the paras in black, red, purple and now green!
Your talks with Labour Friends of Israel and Jewish Labour Movement are an exercise in utter futility and political humiliation.  I doubt they will persuade a single solitary Jewish voter to vote Labour.  JLM and Labour Friends of Israel are not separate from the attacks on the Labour Party as 'anti-Semitic' they are the representation of that campaign, together with figures like MPs Wes Streeting and John Mann inside the party.
JLM formerly Poalei Zion represent nothing today in the Jewish community.  There was a time, in the 1950's when they had 1700 members and 16 branches.  Those days have gone.  There was a time when most of the left of the Labour Party - Ian Mikado, Jo Richardson even Tony Benn and Eric Heffer were in LFI.  The latter 2 left LFI after the Lebanese invasion in 1982 and never returned.  These are wholly far-right Labour organisations.  To believe that Jeremy Newmark, who gave false evidence in the Fraser v UCU  tribunal, is at odds with the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies is an exercise in wishful thinking.  There is nothing I've heard or read which bears out that assumption.  Their differences are, at best, tactical.
Yes British Jews are substantially more progressive on matters to do with Israel than the various Zionist claques.  But that doesn't mean they will vote Labour because their class identity is with the Tories and other bourgeois parties.  That is a fact.  As I clearly failed to get you to understand, the shift in Jewish political allegiances happened in the 1960's and 1970's.  Today the Jewish community votes overwhelmingly for right-wing parties because that is in their perceived economic interest.
A layer of secular Jewry - academics and professionals - will vote Labour but they will often be those most immune to the blandishments of the Zionists and the Board anyway. That is why your talks will have and can have no positive outcome. 
What you seem unable to grasp is that JLM is the overseas branch of the racist Israeli Labour Party.  A party whose leader protests that his party are 'Arab lovers' when everyone knows that it was the party of the Nakba.
The current 'Labour is riddled by anti-Semitism' campaign did not begin with Ed Miliband.  It began with the leadership campaign of Jeremy Corbyn when allegations of associating with  holocaust deniers took shape.  It took a detour via Gerald Kaufman's comments and has now become part of the media's received wisdom.  At no time have JLM or LFI dissociated themselves from this campaign.  Quite the contrary, their friends like John Mann have been in the forefront of the campaign.
As Rebecca Simon Vice-Chair of LFI said of Corbyn:  ‘no one wants to vote for a leader they think is rubbish.  And he is rubbish – never mind about the Israel stuff, he is just not a credible opposition.’ Jewish Chronicle 30.12.15.  What part of that do you not understand?
You say it is an 'insult' to say that you are willing to sacrifice the Palestinians on the altar of Zionism.  I'm happy to accept your remonstrance but in that case perhaps you can tell me what is the purpose of your talks with JLM/LFI?  There is only one thing that they want and that is a Labour Party that does not support Boycott or a campaign against Israeli apartheid.  Your only achievement could be a sacrifice of principles.
I do not believe that LFI/JLM are genuinely concerned with anti-Semitism.  If they were concerned they wouldn't be doing their best to conflate Zionism with being Jewish.   How else can one explain the supporting wording for their amendment
'it is not acceptable to use Zionism as a term of abuse'
  Why insert this if their concern is solely anti-Semitism?

I would expect Momentum's Chair not to be holding secret talks with LFI/JLM but articulating a strategy for rebutting the narrative of the Right.  Appeasement is not a strategy designed for success.
I particular object to your statement that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party 'has been exposed by a pro-Tory campaign and we cannot ignore it or deny its existence.'  The Labour Party and the socialist left is remarkably free of the anti-Semitism that attaches to the left.  What you fail to understand is that those who are loudest in their criticism of 'Labour Party anti-Semitism' are silent when it comes to the very real anti-Semitism of the Tories allies in Europe and indeed inside the Tory Party itself. 
As we can see from the campaign against the new NUS President Malia, the real problem is racism against Muslims.  Unfortunately in the forefront of this campaign is the Israeli state and its supporters in this country, JLM and LFI included.

As regards the name Jews4Jeremy, I am not responsible for the assumptions of others.
Tony Greenstein

 On 24 April 2016 at 17:09, Jon Lansman <jonlansman@me.com> wrote:

Jon Lansman
Tony:

I understand your press release was issued under the heading Jews4Jeremy. I’m disappointed. I do not have the time to answer any further correspondence from you so please don’t bother to contact me further. You isolate yourself and are your own worst enemy, I’m afraid, which really is no help to the Palestinian cause.

Jon Lansman
It’s not about the use of the name “Jews for Jeremy”, it’s about the association with Jeremy which you imply, wrongly, in an uncomradely manner and without permission.
Tony Greenstein
I have not suggested an association with Jeremy nor could anyone reasonably assume that from what I wrote

JL
Whether you think you have or not, others will make the association, that should be obvious to you, you are not stupid, and therefore you are responsible for that

JL
I’ve never claimed there’s a sudden rise in antisemitism within the Labour Party, it’s always been there at least in a latent form, but it has been exposed by a pro-Tory campaign and we cannot ignore it or deny its existence.
TG
If there's been no sudden rise in anti-Semitism in the LP why the campaign now?  I don't accept it's always been there.  What's been there is a confusion between Israel/Zionism and being Jewish.  What's been 'exposed' is a solitary tween by Vicky Kirby about 'big noses' a lunatic Trotskyist with theories of a Jewish Question and.... oh a former Bradford mayor who, surprise, surprise, confuses Zionists with Jews.  I wonder where he got that one?

JL
The campaign has not just started now. It started under Ed Miliband who sadly made almost no improvement in the party’s policy towards the Palestinians. I do not understand why you think the Labour Party should be immune from genuine antisemitism which exists in British civil society - albeit at a lower level than in most of the last century and than in other European countries.

JL
I agree that we need to expose the Tories’ antisemitic links but not whilst simultaneously alienating Jewish support for doing so including from some self-described Zionists which you appear incapable of detecting, perhaps because I talk to them and you do not.
TG
This paragraph makes no sense.  The election of someone who has previously been associated with Palestine solidarity is bound to alienate Zionist sympathy.  In Geoffrey Alderman's Jewish Community in British Politics, he describes how in the 2nd election of 1974 the no. of Jewish voters in Hendon North who supported the Tory MP John Gorst rose from 59 to 68% whilst the national swing was against the Tories.  Nothing you say or do, even if you were to declare full support for Netanyahu's settlement programme would have the slightest difference.  You flatter yourself if you think you will make any difference.  The Jewish community long ago moved to the Right. It did so at the time of Thatcher if not before.  Israel makes no difference.
On the contrary secular Jewry which is not hung up about Israel is more likely to be alienated by your association with the Israeli Labour Party, because that is who JLM is.

JL
The Labour Party (including the JLM actually) are actively opposed by the current leadership of the BoD and the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle because they are seen as insufficiently uncritical in their support of Israeli government action. Actually most British Jews are critical of Israeli government policy including on settlements and the rights of Palestinians/“Arab Israelis” and are clearly very significantly to the Left of Israeli Jews, as a Jewish “Zionists” compared with Israeli “Zionists”.

I know perfectly well that I won’t have any impact on the perpetrators of this campaign. I do believe that we can, without sacrificing any of the principles that I hold (which are essentially the same as Jeremy who, like me, supports two states and targeting economic pressure on the occupation rather than Israel within pre-1967 borders), win back the support of a large section of British Jews including many who regard themselves a Zionists.

TG
What you are saying is that you are willing to sacrifice the Palestinians on the altar of Zionism. 

JL
This is just an insult, as you must surely know

TG
When people raised the question of Tory support for fascists like Michal Kaminiski and Robert Zile in 2009, Vivian Wineman of the Board of Deputies wrote to David Cameron.    Wineman’s timid and innocuous letter to Cameron caused a rift with the Jewish Leadership Council, an organisation of the Zionist bourgeoisie in Britain. One JLC member described colleagues as “livid” at the timing of the letter. Another was “incandescent."  [Leaders split over David Cameron's Euro allies8.10.09., 

FANCY THAT! Whilst most Jews were boycotting Nazi Germany the Zionists traded with it!

$
0
0
Over 60% of capital investment in the Zionist economy in Palestine between 1933 and 1939 came from Nazi Germany
I know it’s an uncomfortable fact and telling the truth these days is ‘anti-Semitic’ but the fact remains that when most Jews were boycotting Nazi Germany the Zionists were trading with them.  60% of capital investment in the Yishuv (the Zionist section of Palestine’s economy) came from Nazi Germany.

Jewish Labour leaders called the Zionists scab agents for Hitler and quite rightly so.  Here is an image from David Rosenthall’s article Chaim Arlosoroff65 Years After his Assassination, Jewish Frontier, May-June 1998, p. 28, New York http://tinyurl.com/jjwa823

When the Zionist movement chose between the Jews and the Jewish State

$
0
0
Ben Gurion - It is Better to Save Half Germany's Children in Palestine than all of them in England

The Zionists are going spare over Livingstone's comments but he is essentially right.  The Nazis did favour the Zionists over and above all other Jews.  There is no dispute about this.

What is worse the Zionists actively sought to block the emigration of Jews to any country but Palestine.  They opposed the kinder transport of Germany and Austria's Jewish children to London because they wanted them to go to Palestine or not at all.

They did this repeatedly.  I post a quote below which appears in the official biography of Ben Gurion, 'The Burning Ground 1886-1948 by Shabtai Teveth.  The image below is from an article by Yad Vashem historian Yoav Gelber "Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry  (1939-42),"  Yad Vashem Studies, vol.XII, p.199.

As far as I know Gelber and Teveth are both dedicated Zionists.  Ben-Gurion's family chose Teveth as the biographer.  The chapter in which the quote appears (p.855) is entitled 'Disaster Means Strength' In other words the Jewish disaster of the holocaust meant the Zionist project was strengthened.



How Labour Was Destabilised by the Israel Lobby and Progress Right

$
0
0

This is an excellent analysis from Electronic Intifada's Asa Winstanley that confirms all my suspicions that this crisis of 'anti-Semitism' in the Labour Party has been deliberately created.  It has been created partly by the media, inc. The Guardian but without doubt co-ordinated between the Right of the Party and the Zionist lobby as represented by the so-called Jewish Labour Movement and the Israeli PR Group BICOM.

I have no doubts that the hand of Israel's Embassy and its personnel are involved in destabilishing Britain's second major party.  The prospect of the Palestine supporter Jeremy Corbyn being elected as leader of the Labour Party triggered a dirty tricks operation worthy of any CIA effort to destabilise a South American country.

It has been aided by a compliant media and  talking heads such as BBCs Andrew Neil, Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland and other paid propagandists.

Thousands of pounds have been spent on researchers going through hundreds of thousands of emails, tweets, FB posts etc. in order to dig up some dirt and if necessary manufacture some dirt.

This article reveals how Alex Chalmers, the co-Chair at Oxford University Labour Club was an ex-intern at BICOM and a dirty tricks agent on behalf of the Zionists.  His allegations of anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club were totally without any supporting evidence and at least one student was framed.

It reveals how Vicky Kirby was set up and the comments about Jews having 'big noses' was a quote from a comedy called 'The Infidels'.  She has since received death threats.  Someone who is wholly innocent was set up by the despicable creatures who have framed Ken Livingstone today.

PLEASE SHARE THIS AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE - DON'T LIKE IT, SHARE IT


Former London mayor and long-time Palestinian rights campaigner Ken Livingstone is the latest victim of the UK Labour Party’s witch hunt over alleged anti-Semitism. TLA WENN Photos
Last year, socialist stalwart Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership of the UK’s Labour Party by a landslide.

Since then, there has been a steady flow of claims by Israel’s supporters that Corbyn has not done enough to combat anti-Semitism.

This has only accelerated in the lead-up to a major test for Corbyn, the UK local elections on 5 May.
Even as this story was in preparation, two more victims were claimed in the war against his leadership.

Lawmaker Naz Shah and the former mayor of London, long-time Palestine campaigner Ken Livingstone, were also suspended from the party – within hours of being accused of anti-Semitism.
But an investigation by The Electronic Intifada has found that some of the most prominent stories about anti-Semitism in the party are falsified.

The Electronic Intifada can reveal that a key player in Labour’s “anti-Semitism crisis” covered up his involvement in the Israel lobby.

Most Labour members so accused are in reality being attacked for expressing opinions in favor of Palestinian human rights and particularly for supporting the boycott of Israel.

Labour activists, many of them Jews, have told The Electronic Intifada that false accusations of anti-Semitismare being used as a weapon against Corbyn by the party’s right-wing.

Corbyn has been active in the Palestine solidarity movement for more than three decades. In an interview with The Electronic Intifada last year, he endorsed key elements of the Palestinian call for a boycott of Israel. For example, he urged an end to weapons trading with Israel.

His election represented a radical shift in Labour, a popular revolt at the grassroots membership level.
Although Labour’s membership has grown since Corbyn’s victory, he has been under constant attack from right-leaning politicians within the party. In an attempt to weaken his position, some of his critics have manufactured a “crisis” about alleged anti-Semitism.

Attacks on Corbyn have escalated in the lead-up to next week’s local elections. Poor results would be seized upon by his enemies within the party.

Witch hunt

Charley Allan, a Jewish member of the party, and a Morning Star columnist, has described the current atmosphere in the press and Labour Party as a “witch hunt.”

It has reached such an absurd volume that any usage of the word “Zionist” is deemed to be anti-Semitic – although tellingly not when used by self-described Zionists.
Where real instances of anti-Jewish bigotry have come to light, the leadership and party machine have taken robust action.

According to The Spectator, the party’s general secretary Iain McNicol told a recent meeting of Labour lawmakers that everyone who had been reported for anti-Semitism had either been suspended or excluded.

Corbyn has responded to the media storm by repeatedly condemning anti-Semitism and sayingthat anyone making an anti-Semitic remark is “auto-excluded from the party.”

John McDonnell, the shadow finance minister and a long-standing Corbyn ally, told The Independent that any party member found by an investigation to be expressing anti-Semitic views should be expelled for life. “If people express these views, full stop they’re out,” McDonnell said.

Smears

Smears of anti-Semitism against Corbyn started even before he was elected.

During his leadership campaign in the summer of 2015, the establishment media worked itself into a frenzy of anti-Corbyn hysteria, led more than any other paper by the liberal Guardian.

One of the recurring themes in this campaign was Corbyn’s long-standing support for Palestinian human rights.

Because of this, attempts were made to say outright, or to imply, that Corbyn was a secret anti-Semite, or that he associated with, or tolerated “notorious” anti-Semites.

Although these hit jobs gained some traction, they were soon debunked, and ultimately seemed to have little impact on the leadership election.

This dishonest theme is now being revisited. In February, the slow drip of anti-Semitism scare stories burst into a flood.

Oxford

An “anti-Semitism scandal” erupted in the Oxford University Labour Club – an association of student supporters of the party.

Alex Chalmers posing with right wing Labour MP Caroline Flint in a photo taken from his Facebook. A failed candidate for deputy leader, Flint is a leading voice in Progress, a right-wing Labour faction.
In a public Facebook posting Alex Chalmers, the co-chair of the club, resigned his position over what he claimed was anti-Semitic behavior in “a large proportion” of the student Labour club “and the student left in Oxford more generally.”
But as evidence he cited the club’s decision, in a majority vote, to endorse Oxford’s Israeli Apartheid Week, an annual awareness-raising exercise by student groups which support Palestinian rights.
This connection was clearly designed to smear Palestine solidarity activists as anti-Semites – a standard tactic of the Israel lobby.

In fact, the similarity was no coincidence.

The Electronic Intifada can reveal for the first time evidence that Chalmers himself has been part of the UK’s Israel lobby.

Chalmers has worked for BICOM, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre.
Fundedby the billionaire Poju Zabludowicz, BICOM is a leading pro-Israel group in London.
Chalmers once listed an internship with BICOM on his LinkedIn profile, although the page was deletedsome time in February.

But even were this key fact not known, Chalmers’ accusations were not credible.

No one specific was named in his Facebook posting. He claimed that shortening the word Zionist to “Zio” and expressing support for the Palestinian political party and resistance organization Hamas were enough to prove anti-Semitism.

Chalmers did not reply to an emailed request for comment. He set his Twitter profile to private the day after the email was sent by The Electronic Intifada.

One of his tweets from 2014 sought to smear The Electronic Intifada with “Islamism.”


Chalmers has also been accused of disseminating a false allegation that a left-wing Labour student at Oxford had organized people into a group to follow a Jewish student around campus calling her a “filthy Zionist,” and that he had been disciplined as a result.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the accused student said that he had reason to believe Chalmers may have been behind the dissemination of this smear.

Paul Di Felice, the current acting principal of the Oxford college in question, confirmed to The Electronic Intifada the authenticity of a statement from its late principal denying all the allegations. “I have found no evidence of any allegations being made to the college about” the student “involving anti-Semitism, or indeed anything else, during his time at the college,” the statement read.
The Electronic Intifada put all this to Alex Chalmers in an email, but he failed to reply.

Dirty tricks

The Oxford University Labour Club responded with a statement saying it was “horrified” at the accusations and would fully cooperate with an investigation launched by the party organization Labour Students.

It did not take long, however, for someone to leak names to the right-wing press.

Citing an anonymous “source at the club,” The Telegraph named two left-wingers at Oxford who were supposedly “being investigated over alleged anti-Semitism at Oxford University.”

Again, there were no further details. Chalmers’ dubious and obviously politicized accusations were raised in general terms.

One of the two, James Elliot, was a vocal advocate at Oxford University of BDS, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel, and was photographed in the Telegraph article sitting next to Corbyn.

But in an email to a Daily Mail journalist, seen by The Electronic Intifada, Chalmers privately admitted that Elliott wasn’t involved. “I haven’t heard any allegations relating to him,” Chalmers wrote.

Both activists named by The Telegraph are part of Momentum, the grouping founded by Labour left-wingers in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s election victory to support his leadership.

The Electronic Intifada has seen evidence of a whispering campaign against the activists at Oxford. A dossier of allegations against the student Labour club is said to have been filed with the union’s Jewish society.

That society has posted a summary of the dossier on Facebook.

Asked in an email if he had been behind the dossier or the press leaks, Chalmers did not reply.

Hit pieces

Alex Chalmers’ Facebook post resigning from the Oxford University Labour Club was seized on by anti-Corbyn forces aiming to influence key internal elections to the Labour Party’s youth wing, in which the Momentum pair were both candidates.

On 19 February, the Guardian reported that Momentum candidates had swept the board in Young Labour’s elections, conducted by online ballot.

The Telegraph published its highly dubious hit piece four days later.

At the Young Labour conference the following weekend, several other positions remained to be elected. Elliot stood for the youth representative on Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC).
After the smear campaign against him, Momentum candidate Elliot lost to right-wing Labour First candidate Jasmin Beckett – by only a tenth of a percentage point.

But Beckett was caught carrying out a dirty tricks campaign against Elliot.

As a result, a formal complaint has been submitted calling for her to be disqualified from the NEC.
The smear campaign drew on right-wing media insinuations against the Momentum pair at Oxford.
Beckett did not reply to an emailed request for comment.

“Go hard”

As first revealed by Morning Star, Beckett urged supporters to “get a few people tweeting” allegations against Elliot.

But because such negative campaigning is against Labour rules, Beckett cautioned supporters to distance themselves from her. She asked her supporters to remove “twibbons” – promotional badges for her election campaign – from their social media accounts before making allegations against Elliot.
One supporter, Josh Woolas – son of former Labour MP Phil Woolas – cautioned it “needs to look like a genuine complaint about racism and not a smear campaign!”

In a Facebook group chat titled #TeamJB (viewable in full on the Labour blog Left Futures, edited by the chair of Momentum), Beckett encouraged other young Labour members to share unsubstantiated hit pieces on Elliot from right-wing media.

She asked “do you actually want an anti-Semite as NEC rep?” She suggested her friends “get a few people tweeting saying ‘shocked my union GMB are supporting James Elliot who is anti-Semitic’ or something.”

“Let’s just get it out there,” agreed Labour activist Tom Jennings. “We’ve got a huge opportunity … thus shaving off votes for him at [the Young Labour] conference.”

Investigation

The complaint against Beckett was subsequently rolled into another investigation into Chalmers’ allegations of anti-Semitism at Oxford, one ultimately taken over by Janet Royall, the Labour leader in the House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of the UK parliament.

Labour Students conducted a hasty investigation into the Oxford allegations. But, Labour activists told The Electronic Intifada, it was so obviously botched that it was not credible.

That investigation was led by Michael Rubin, Labour Students’ national chairperson – who happened to be the boyfriend of one of Beckett’s allies, Rachel Holland. Holland was part of Beckett’s dirty tricks campaign, expressing support for it in the #TeamJB group chat.

Elliot told The Electronic Intifada he could not comment until the Royall investigation is concluded.
That seems unlikely to happen until after the crucial local elections at the earliest, and probably not until the summer, the BBC says, when Beckett is due to take her seat on the NEC.

The witch hunt expanded.

“Fresh row”

In March, Huffington Posttalked up a “fresh row over Labour anti-Semitism.”

The website referred to how union official Jennie Formby had allegedly pointed out at a meeting of Labour’s NEC that Royall once took part in a sponsored trip to the Middle East organized by Labour Friends of Israel, a pressure group within the party.

Formby has successfully pushed at the NEC to have private security firm G4S banned from Labour conferences, due to its supply of equipment to Israeli prisons that practice torture against Palestinians.

The Jewish Chronicle claimed Unison’s Jennie Formby was “to be moved from her role partly as a result of her anti-Israel activism.” It cited no evidence.

The paper claimed the move represented a demotion by the union, the UK’s largest.

But the report was instantly denied by Formby and her union.

Formby said she never questioned Royall’s ability to conduct the investigation.

In fact, Formby said, she was appointed to the new job long before Chalmers made his allegations on Facebook.

@stephenkb JF applied for the post 5 months ago. It is a promotion. She will remain on the NEC. Please check facts.
— Unite the union (@unitetheunion) March 11, 2016

The Jewish Chronicleswiftly edited the online text and headline of the article to water down its claims (a copy of the original can still be found online).
But the narrativewas alreadyout there.

Tony Greenstein

In March, the witch hunt reached Tony Greenstein, a Jewish anti-Zionist well known in Palestine solidarity circles.

Despite supporting other left-wing parties in the past, Greenstein had joined the Labour Party after the election of Corbyn, hoping it would take a new, leftward direction.

But on 18 March he received a letter from the party’s Compliance Unit (also known as the Constitutional Unit) saying that his membership had been suspended pending an investigation into a possible breach of party rules.

“These allegations relate to comments you are alleged to have made,” wrote John Stolliday, head of the unit. Greenstein asked to see the allegations against him, but his request was denied.

Although the party refused to let Greenstein know what he was being accused of, further vague allegations were leaked to the right-wing press.

In April, The Telegraphpublished a story citing Greenstein’s admittance to the party as the “latest anti-Semitism scandal” to hit Labour.

Greenstein says he is considering legal action.

The Telegraph later added a “clarification” saying it wanted “to make clear that we had not intended to imply that Tony Greenstein is anti-Semitic.”

It would, however, be difficult to read the article as intending to do anything else.

Ironically, Greenstein has been at the forefront of moves to combat genuine cases of anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Palestine solidarity movement.

“I’m going to fight”

For years Greenstein has been perhaps the most vocal foe in the UK of Gilad Atzmon– an Israeli jazz musician based in London who claims to express solidarity with Palestinians, even while opposing the BDS movement and relentlessly attacking activists.

Four years ago, Atzmon was criticizedby prominent members of the Palestine movement over racism and anti-Semitism in his work.

Also in 2012, a Holocaust denier was expelled from the UK’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Greenstein has written that he is the person who had first reported the Holocaust denier to the PSC.

The Compliance Unit has also been behind the expulsion of many new Jeremy Corbyn voters accused of being “hard left” or “infiltrators.”

In February, John McDonnell, the shadow finance minister, called for the unit to be scrapped.

“I’m going to fight it of course,” Greenstein told The Electronic Intifada. He also accusedthe Compliance Unit itself of being behind the leaks – The Telegrapharticle cited “evidence compiled” by the unit.

Labour’s general secretary wrote to Greenstein denying this.

“Corbyn hasn’t got a grip on the [party] machine, that’s part of the problem,” said Greenstein.

Israel lobby

One of the people at the forefront of the witch hunt has been Jeremy Newmark, now the chairperson of the Jewish Labour Movement.

The JLM is affiliated to the UK Labour Party, the Israeli Labor Party and the World Zionist Organization– according to the UN, the latter pumps millions into building in the occupied West Bank through its settlement division.

Newmark has for years been active in the Israel lobby’s anti-Palestinian campaigns in the UK.
He was previously the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, an anti-Palestinian lobbying group behind numerous attacks on BDS.

During his tenure, the group invested huge efforts in an attempt to sue the University and College Union for “anti-Semitism” after some members proposed discussing the academic boycott of Israel.
Newmark was left with egg on his face, however, when in 2013 a tribunal judge ruled against the case on all counts.

The judge found it was “devoid of any merit” and “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.”

The judge criticized Newmark personally for a “disturbing” attempt to crush free speech in the union. 
He also found that that Newmark’s evidence to the tribunal was “preposterous” and “untrue.”

Given all this, media should treat Newmark’s claims about anti-Semitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party with caution.

Instead they’ve been buying it all.

In The Telegraph hit piece on Greenstein, Newmark claimed the affair was a sign of Corbyn being “impotent” over anti-Semitism.

He also told BBC Radio 4’s influential Today program this month that the party was not doing enough about anti-Semitism.

None of these journalists disclosed Newmark’s long-standing role in the Israel lobby, or his record of lying about anti-Semitism.

Right-wing Labour

There is a large crossover between right-wing, anti-Corbyn Labour and the pro-Israel lobby within the party.

Right-wing Labour MP Wes Streeting has participated in Israeli government efforts to cast Palestine solidarity as “evil.” (The Leadership Foundation/Flickr)
One example is Labour lawmaker Wes Streeting, also an Israel lobby stalwart.

Streeting appeared on the same radio segment as Newmark. The right-wing Labour MP claimed that “we’ve now got a problem” that people think the party is “apathetic to anti-Semitism.”

Streeting has a longhistory in Progress, a right-wing faction within the party that continues to support former prime minister Tony Blair.

One of Progress’ leading supporters has described the group asan unaccountable faction” dominated by the “secretive billionaire” Lord Sainsbury.

In 2009, when he was president of the National Union of Students, Streeting attended an anti-BDS working group in Jerusalem.

The visit was organized by the Israeli foreign ministry, which slandered the BDS movement as “evil.”
As an MP, Streeting has been consistently hostile to Corbyn.

Term of abuse

Streeting and Newmark are arguing for tougher action and changes to the party’s rules.

The head of Progress proposed rule changes in the Mirror which would put “a modern understanding of anti-Semitism” into the party. “It is not acceptable to use the term ‘Zionism’ as a term of abuse,” the article stated, arguing for people who did so to be expelled.

This proposal echoes efforts pushed by Israel lobby groups, including at the University of California, to legislate that opposition to Zionism – Israel’s state ideology – is itself a form of anti-Semitism.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Labour Party staffer told The Electronic Intifada that, even were the rule change to pass, such expulsions would still have to be approved by the NEC.

The staffer emphasized that for many within the party, concerns about incidences of anti-Semitism were genuine.

But the member of staff said that for the “non-Jewish Zionists” in groups like Progress, “anti-Semitism is just a tool” in “a field of battle” to “smash up Jeremy at all costs.”

“Whatever gets agreed will not be good enough” for them, the member of staff said.
Streeting did not reply to emails requesting comment.

Five cases

Labour is a mass membership organization, which now has more than 380,000 full members, according to party figures.

The staff member said that, amid all the politicized attacks in recent months, there had been about five actual cases of alleged anti-Semitism within the party.

A 2015 survey by Pew found that seven percent of the UK public held “unfavorable” views of Jews.  By contrast, about a fifth held negative views of Muslims and almost two-fifths viewed Roma people unfavorably.

There’s no evidence to suggest that such views are any more prevalent in the Labour Party – and the tiny number of anti-Semitism complaints suggests they may well be less so in a movement many of whose activists have been in the frontline of anti-racist struggles.

The staff member said that in the five or so cases that had come to its attention, the party had taken swift action to expel, or suspend the membership of those alleged to have made anti-Semitic comments.

One of the most prominent of these was Vicki Kirby, a Labour Party candidate in Woking who is alleged to have tweeted that Israel is “evil.”

She also reacted to Israel’s 2014 war on Gaza by tweeting in August: “Who is the Zionist God? I am starting to think it may be Hitler. #FreePalestine.”

That assault resulted in 2,251 dead Palestinians, including 1,462 civilians, 551 of whom were children, according to an independent inquiry commissioned by the UN.

Kirby’s comments led to her suspension from the Labour Party in 2014.

Speaking to the media for the first time, Kirby told The Electronic Intifada that her choice of words had been “awful” and “appalling.” It was “a reaction. I didn’t think it through. I’m not a born politician,” she said.

Later, still under the leadership of Corbyn’s predecessor, Kirby’s suspension from the party was lifted. But, after Corbyn became leader, somebody leaked a photo of Kirby posing with Corbyn to the party’s enemies in the media.

Doctored tweet

The hard-right gossip blogger known as Guido Fawkes, then proceeded to trawl through her entire Twitter backlog. He found a Tweet from 2011, a time when Kirby says she was not even in the Labour Party.

Guido Fawkes then doctored a screenshot of the tweet, making it appear as if she had tweeted “What do you know abt Jews? They’ve got big noses and support spurs lol.” The screenshot of the Tweet on Guido’s site has clearly been cropped.


But Kirby says this was one of a series of tweets of quotes from the 2010 comedy filmThe Infidel.
Kirby provided The Electronic Intifada with evidence – a portion of a spreadsheet of her Twitter archive– showing that the original tweet concluded with the hashtag #TheInfidel.

The writer of the film David Baddiel confirmed this on Twitter at the time, even tweeting this to a Guido Fawkes blogger.

@WikiGuido That first one: she's quoting a character from my movie The Infidel.
— David Baddiel (@Baddiel) March 14, 2016

The wider press then ran with the story and started to use Kirby as a stick to beat Corbyn.
Kirby says she has received “death threats” to her and “hate email” from around the world, including the wish that “your children get cancer and die.” She says she even had to take legal actions against a constant barrage of journalists door-stepping her and harassing her family.

Despite swift party action to suspend Kirby once again, the incident was still weaponized by the right.

“Jeremy Corbyn needs to answer some serious questions,” Streeting told the Mirror.

Stoking the flames
Writing in the Jewish Chronicle, Momentum founder Jon Lansman – a key Corbyn ally – said that “my Jewish identity and anti-Semitism are at the core of my left Labour politics and so I welcome an investigation into anti-Semitism at Oxford University.”

But Lansman cautioned that “within the Labour Party, some people have factional reasons for stoking the flames.”

He acknowledged that “racism, including anti-Semitism” had historically been part of the Labour movement. “It was not until the 1980s that the efforts to eradicate it became serious, and that was thanks in part to Ken Livingstone as leader of the Greater London Council,” Lansman added.
During that period, Livingstone, and what the right derided as the “looney left” in local government, became the prime targets of Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. But with her party unable to defeat Livingstone at the ballot box, she simply abolished London’s city-wide government altogether.

It wasn’t until the Blair years that the capital once again had a London-wide government and Livingstone was elected mayor. It would now seem that with his suspension, the Thatcherite campaign against Livingstone has resumed, but this time from within the Labour Party.
Ian Saville, who started the group Jews For Jeremy and then later joined the party, told The Electronic Intifada that “some in the Labour Party, who do not have an understanding of the complexities of the situation, take [the accusations of prejudice] at face value, and quite understandably wish to oppose anti-Semitism.”

He said that “unfortunately, this ‘opposition’ to anti-Semitism has support of Israel and Zionism bundled in with it, so it fulfills the double purpose of isolating the left and supporting Israel uncritically.”

Greenstein wrotethat “false allegations of anti-Semitism are akin to the boy who cried wolf. They immunize people against the real thing. As a Jewish anti-Zionist my main experience of anti-Semitism is from Zionists … I have even been told that it was a pity I didn’t die in Auschwitz.”

Back foot

In the Tony Blair years, the Labour Party took a major rightward shift.

Blair notoriously led the UK into a war of aggression against Iraq in 2003 – which even he later admitted was a major factor in the emergence of Islamic State.
Blair is also staunchly pro-Israel.

The 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon killed 1,191 Lebanese, “the overwhelming majority of them civilians” according to Amnesty International. But Blair stood strongly behind Israel in that war. He later admitted in his memoir this caused him political damage. “I suffered accordingly,” he wrote.
For career-minded, rising Labour MPs, joining Labour Friends of Israel was long seen as the place to be. That has been slowly changing.

Under Blair, Jeremy Corbyn was a backbench MP, and a gadfly of the big business and war-friendly clique that had captured Labour’s leadership. He voted against Blair’s party line hundreds of times.
The scale of Corbyn’s victory – almost 60 percent of 422,664 voters – last summer put the right on the back foot.

So now they are resorting to ever more desperate tactics, blaming alleged anti-Semitism in the party on Corbyn’s leadership.

Michael Levy, a Labour member of the House of Lords who was a key fundraiserfor the party during the Tony Blair years, is a strong supporter of Israel. He has made a number of media appearances in recent weeks denouncing Corbyn for supposedly not doing enough against anti-Semitism.

Left-wing Jewish activists say that anti-Semitism has become the “weapon of choice” against the left.
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a local Labour Party activist and founder of Jews For Boycotting Israeli Goods, told The Electronic Intifada that it has become a “really pernicious … pincer movement” by the Israel lobby and the Labour right.

“Maybe the’ve overstepped themselves” this time, she said, before cautioning that what happens would depend on how well activists fought back and educated people on the true nature of anti-Semitism and Zionism.

For the moment, the manufactured anti-Semitism crisis shows no sign of abating.

The same day Ken Livingstone was suspended from the party, BICOM appealed to the mob, posting a tweet with the words: “save your pitch fork for Corbyn.”

'Save your pitch fork for Corbyn'. 
Alan Johnson on Naz Shah, Labour and AntiSemitism in @Politics_co_ukhttps://t.co/ukcxOkNnGO
— BICOM (@BritainIsrael) April 28, 2016
It appears the witch hunt will not stop until it is either victorious or is defeated.

Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist and associate editor with The Electronic Intifada.

Britain’s Cointelpro – How the Israeli Embassy and Guido Fawkes destabilised the Labour Party

$
0
0
Ken Livingstone Must Be Reinstated & Corbyn Must Fight Back


Ken Livingstone - under suspension for speaking the truth


The coin that the Nazis struck in commemoration of the head of the Jewish desk at the Gestapo visit to Palestine courtesy of the Zionist labour movement
 The late Phil Agee revealed in his book Inside the Companyhow the CIA went around Latin America destabilising governments and parties it didn’t like.  In American domestic politics there was a similar programme aimed at dissident and radical organisations known as Cointelpro, a series of covert projects conducted by the FBI that infiltrated, surveilled and disrupted domestic political organizations.

For the past few months the Labour Party has been subject to a similar programme of destabilisation.  A programme in which the Zionist movement played and is still playing a major role.
Identity Politics have wrecked havoc with Jones' socialist politics - He supports the Palestinians and he supports their oppressors
From July 2015 onwards, when it became increasingly clear that Corbyn would win the leadership election, we had a campaign, initiated by the Daily MailEXCLUSIVE: Jeremy Corbyn's 'long-standing links' with notorious Holocaust denier and his 'anti-Semitic' organisation revealed and fronted by the Jewish Chronicle under Stephen Pollard, its far-right editor and member of the Henry Jackson Society, The key questions Jeremy Corbyn must answer  The aim of the campaign was to paint Corbyn as a ‘friend’ of ‘terrorists’ – Hamas and Hezbollah and an associate of holocaust deniers.
When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the campaign shifted to an attack on Gerald Kaufmann for having said at a meeting that it was ‘Jewish money’ that was responsible for the pro-Israel policy of the Conservative government.  Groups such as the misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, an overtly Zionist political organisation masquerading as a charity [see EXCLUSIVE - Lifting the Lid on the Campaign Against Anti-SemitismThe Bogus Charity that Campaigns Against Corbyn, Muslims and Palestinians waged a prolonged campaign against Kaufman as if he was the most notorious anti-Semite since  Adolf Eichmann.  
When I searched the Jewish Chronicle’s database for ‘Jewish money’ I turned up no less than 590 occurences of this phrase!  It is a phrase commonly used in the Jewish community.  As an example of Zionist hypocrisy, on May 1sta former prominent Jewish funder of the Labour Party, Michael Foster, was given nearly 10 minutes of airtime on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme to explain why Jewish people weren’t going to be funding the Labour Party whilst Corbyn was leader.  Of course ‘Jewish money’ is only anti-Semitic when used by opponents of the State of Israel. 

Jewish Chronicle columnist Geoffrey Alderman called for Kaufman’s excommunication from the Jewish community despite having used the very same term twice in the same article. A man who deserves banning Jewish Chronicle  Geoffrey Alderman and Gerald Kaufman –Jewish Chronicle Columnist’sExercise in Hypocrisy


Despite his outburst against Kaufman Alderman was remarkably tolerant in respect of David Whelan, the former owner of Wigan Athletic football club, who stated that ‘there is nothing like a Jew who sees money slipping through his fingers’ and when challenged by the Guardian responded that ‘I think they [Jews] are very shrewd people…. I think Jewish people do chase money more than everybody else.  I don’t think that’s offensive at all.’ To most people this would count as anti-Semitism.
Lansman  holds talks with racist Zionist groups and supports Livingstone's expulsion whilst remaining Chair of Momentum
Alderman’s take was thatIt was ‘a sad and miserable tale of political correctness taken to new depths of absurdity.’  This football fuss is a bit rich 5.12.14.    Despite ‘shrewd’ being used in the sense of canny or mean, i.e. a stereotypical comment about Jews and money, Alderman’s comment was ‘who reading this column could take umbrage at that?’  And as for Jews chasing money, Alderman believed that ‘as far as I’m aware no serious research has been done on this subject.  But it’s certainly true that the Jewish view of money differs considerably from that of Christianity.’  
Pollard himself was more than willing to excuse anti-Semites when they were pro-Israel.  Michal Kaminski, the Conservative’s new partner, in the European and Conservative Reform group in the European Parliament, was ‘the best friend of the Jews’ despite being anti-Semitic. [see Poland’s Kaminski isnot an anti-Semite: he’s a friend to Jews’:  and Weapon of Choice  
Ben Gurion - 'it is in our interest to use Hitler' as they 'turn a disaster (the Holocaust) into a productive force
The reason why Kaminski could not possibly be anti-Semitic, despite being a member of a former neo-Nazi party and opposing a Polish apology for Jedwabne, when up to 900 Jews were burnt alive in a barn, was that ‘Far from being an antisemite, Mr Kaminski is about as pro-Israel an MEP as exists.'  David Miliband's insult to Michal Kaminski is contemptibleJewish Chronicle 1.10.09., 

Other incidents of ‘anti-Semitism’

In February there began the new phase in the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign.  It centred on Oxford University Labour Club whose co-chairman Alex Chalmers resigned claiming that his fellow Labour Club members were anti-Semitic .  The occasion of this resignation was the decision of the Club to support Oxford’s Israel Apartheid Week.  Oxford University Labour Club co-chair, Alex Chalmers, resigns amid anti-Semitism row

Since then we have had the case of Vicky Kirby,  an ex-Bradford Mayor who tweeted that 6 million Zionists died in the holocaust when complaining that even greater acts of genocide didn’t receive the same attention as the Jewish genocide and now of course Ken Livingstone’s reference to Hitler’s support for the Zionist solution to German anti-Semitism.

In what is the first comprehensive investigation of these allegations of anti-Semitism by Electronic Intifada researcher and journalist Asa Winstanley it becomes clear that these allegations are not what they seem. How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’santi-Semitism crisis
Alex Chalmers was an intern with BICOM the Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre, which despite describing itself as an an independent research centre’  is an Israeli propaganda group. 

The case of Vicky Kirby which was one of the worst examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ presented turns out  to be a case of someone quite innocent fitted up.  Her ‘big noses’ comment was nothing more than quoting from a play  the 2010 comedy film The Infidel.  The information had been taken from the far-right Conservative web site Guido Fawkes which had cropped a screenshot of a tweet to make it appear that these were her own words.’  In other words the usual Tory dirty tricks.  The article 
analyses the role of New Labour MP and ex-NUS President Wes Streeting who attended a key anti-BDS Conference in Tel-Aviv.  Streeting, who le arnt the tricks of the trade in NUS, is almost certainly working with the Israeli embassy and no doubt has other intelligence links.

Ken Livingstone
On April 28th in an interview with BBC Radio London’s Vanessa Feltz Ken Livingstone, in the course of defending suspended MP Naz Shah from accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ remarked that:
Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.’Labour antisemitismrow: Ken Livingstone interview transcipts in full  These remarks can be best understood in the context of Hitler supporting the Zionist solution to German Jewry i.e. expulsion, though even this is not strictly accurate. Ken Livingstone says Labour should reinstate himbecause everything he said about Jewish people "was true" 
From the biography of David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister and Chairman of the Jewish Agency, by Shabtai Teveth - this is BG's reaction to Britain's Kindertransport plan to save 10,000 Jewish childen by bringing them to Britain in 1939 - saving half Germany's children in Palestine was better than saving all of them in England
There is no doubt that Ken made a number of minor mistakes.  Israel didn’t exist in 1933, the area was called Palestine, it was a British Mandate territory.  Secondly Hitler didn’t win any election in 1932, on the contrary his vote in the November election compared to July dropped by 2 million to 11.74 million (33.09%) compared to 13.,23 million (37.3%) for the KPD and SPD.  Hitler was put into power on January 30 1933 by reactionary political and military forces who sought the destruction of the German labour movement. Thirdly the final solution was not a product of Hitler’s madness. Even without Hitler the final solution would have taken place.  It was the product of war imperialism and the fanatical anti-Semitism of a section of the Nazi Party.  The final solution had a logic and momentum of its own.  When the expulsion of Jews was no longer an option after 1939 the countdown to the destruction of European Jewry had begun.  It began in June 1941 with Operation Barbarossa.
Ben Gurion's official biographer  Teveth concludes that for Ben Gurion and implicitly the whole Jewish Agency Executive, there was a very thin line separating him from seeing the Holocaust as a 'beneficial disaster' 
Livingstone’s comments weren’t the wisest thing to have made in the course of an ‘anti-Semitism’ witch hunt.  However  in essence they are correct.  The Nazi movement singled out the Zionist movement as their favourite Jews. 

For example on 28 January 1935 Heydrich, the ‘“real engineer of the final solution” [Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p.13.] issued a directive to the Bavarian Gestapo that ‘The activity of the Zionist-oriented youth organisations…. lies in the interests of the National Socialist state’s leadership…. (they) are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish (assimilationists).Lucy Dawidowicz, War Against the Jews, p.118,  citing Hans Mommsen, ‘Der nationalsozialistische Polizeistaat’ pp. 78-9.

The Zionists were allowed to organise, hold meetings, fly flags, have a newspapers whereas the ‘assimilationists’ were repressed.  The Zionists used their patronage by the Nazis to encroach on the position of the majority of the Jewish community demanding parity in the Reichsvertretung, the Jewish communal organisation in 1935.  Indeed they took over all the positions on the Reichsvereinigung, which was established in 1939 after Krystalnacht.

The Zionist policy was that Jews should flee to Palestine or nowhere.  Their twisted logic was that if other countries could solve the crisis of anti-Semitism in Germany and Europe then Palestine would be made redundant.  In any case anti-Semitism, being a disease, would simply spread to other countries.  Only Palestine could provide a long-term solution to anti-Semitism.  It was a racial concept of humanity.   The Zionists therefore lobbied the Gestapo not to allow Jews to emigrate to countries other than Palestine.  It was a consistent Zionist policy to oppose the emigration of Jewish refugees to countries other than Palestine such as Santo Domingo which had offered to take 100,000 refugees as a result of the Evian Conference.

In a memo to the Jewish Agency Executive after Krystalnacht, Ben-Gurion wrote:
if the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand, and aid for the national museum in Palestine on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail and our people's entire strength will be directed at aid for the refugees in the various countries. Zionism will vanish from the agenda and indeed not only world public opinion in England and America but also from Jewish public opinion. We are risking Zionism's very existence if we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem. [Y. Elam, Introduction to Zionist history, Tel Aviv 1972, pp.125-26. See also Ot, paper of youth cadre of Mapai, No.2, winter 1967 cited by Machover-Offenburg p. 58 and Brenner, p. 149. Memo of 17.12.38]
It is essential that socialists defend Livingstone.  The suspension of a National Executive member, a former MP and London Mayor and a figurehead of the Labour Left for the last 30 years marks a new stage in the witchhunt.  According to reports, Corbyn was extremely reluctant to suspend Ken but he was bullied into it.  After a staged confrontation with the boorish bully John Mann MP, Livingstone was suspended.  Popular opinion holds that it is Mann, not Livingstone, who should have been suspended.  Mann is Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on anti-Semitism which devotes its time to opposing BDS and support for Palestinians.

Tweets and comments made even before Naz Shah was an MP were dug up and she was dismissed as John McDonnell’s PPS.  Naz Shah suspended by Labour party amid antisemitism row  
One tweet, issued in the middle of Israel’s genocidal Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014, when 2,200 people in Gaza were murdered by Israel, including 551 children, was to joke that Israel should be relocated inside the United States as this would save the US the trouble and expense of maintaining the Israeli state and preserve Palestinian life.  She displayed a map showing Israel as the 51ststate of the USA.  It turns out that this was produced by Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish American academic and anti-Zionist who is the son of two holocaust survivors.  There was nothing anti-Semitic about this map.  It was a twitter type fantasy solution to the problem of Israel’s barbarism. 

To the humourless and vindictive squad of Progress MPs such as Mann and Streeting, Naz Shah was the next worst thing to Eva Braun and she was forced to resign her position.  She was suspended from the Labour Party and forced to make a humiliating apology like a prisoner in a Stalinist re-education camp.  When Vanessa Feltz asked me why she would confess to anti-Semitism if she wasn’t  guilty I explained that there have been many false confessions in history, such as the defendants in Stalin’s purge trials.  It’s not difficult to persuade someone that they are guilty if you apply enough psychological pressure and you see your career disappearing before you.

The media, the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland in particular have played a despicable role in the witch hunt.  see for exampleLabour and the left have an antisemitism problem  Freedland, a ‘liberal’ Zionist berates the left in particular for not accepting the Israeli state.  My plea to the left: treat Jews the same way you’d treat any other minority 


What if, he asked, Israel were the only Black state in the world.  Would we oppose it then.  Professor Kamel Hawwesh of Birmingham University answered yes, Palestinians would reject any coloniser, whatever their colour. A Palestinian view on the antisemitism row   Freedland demonstrates both his ignorance and his malevolence when he compares a Jewish Israel to a Christian Britain.  In Britain Christianity is an adornment.  It doesn’t entitle you to special privileges.  It doesn’t mean that your planning application in the Jewish town of Afula will be rejected because you are Palestinian.  Israel's Virulent Housing Bias Runs Deep — and It's Not Only Aimed at Arabs

The BBC has also lived up to its reputation.  It has afforded the Labour Right every opportunity to air their allegations whilst denying anti-Zionists a platform.  There has been an almost one-sided media barrage.  One of the only exceptions was the BBC Big Questions programme on Sunday May 1stat 10 am when there are relatively few viewers.  Moshe Machover, Daphne Baram and myself were widely considered, even by Zionists, to have trounced those who alleged that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are one and the same thing.  I also did an interview with Vanessa Feltz, BBC London’s Zionist interviewer where I refused to be diverted from explaining why Israel is an apartheid society, but these are very much the exception.

One of the most egregious examples of BBC bias was that of Andrew Neil’s Sunday Politics show on March 18th which gave MPs West Streeting and John Mann opportunity to wax at length about Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ problem.  Neil himself is a former Murdoch editor and Conservative Party research assistant.  James Schneider, a supporter of Corbyn was given just 25 seconds whereas Streeting had 45 seconds and Mann was allowed 6 minutes and 4 seconds. 

Andrew Neil, rather than subjecting his claims to cross-examination, urged Mann on to greater excesses.  Take for example this penetrating question:  ‘Why has it [anti-Semitism] come back?’  Note that Neil assumes the very thing he is asking. 

Corbyn has shown not only spinelessness throughout this affair but a culpable failure to understand what is at stake.  He has continuously rowed back from the positions he adopted in previous years.  Alongside MPs such as the late Joan Maynard he was a sponsor of the Labour Committee on Palestine and the Labour Movement Campaign on Palestine, both of which I chaired.  These organisations supported a democratic, secular state solution in Palestine.  We opposed a 2 state solution which at that time was supported by George Galloway’s Middle East Council!  George has now come round to our way of thinking!

If Livingstone is expelled from the Labour Party Corbyn will not last long as leader.  John McDonnell has taken an even worse position.  He backed off last September from his comments over Ireland.   Now he has added Palestine to his retreat from the Left.  Rather than sacking Naz Shah he should have backed her. Instead with his ‘out, out, out’ remarks about alleged anti-Semites he has encouraged those making false allegations to greater efforts.
Jon Lansman welcomed Livingstone's suspension and has effectively backed his expulsion
Momentum under Jon Lansman has been equally abysmal.  Lansman has held secret talks with Labour Friends of Israel and the so-called Jewish Labour Movement, the  British branch of the racist Israeli Labour Party in order to reach some form of agreement.  It’s like the chicken negotiating for a safe pass from a fox.  Lansman openly criticised Livingstone and supported his suspension.   

In Left Futures Why the Left must stop talking about ‘Zionism’ Lansman argues that we should drop all mention of Zionism.  The movement that founded the racist settler colonial state of Israel should not be mentioned even though the World Zionist Organisation is alive and kicking, funding the settlement of the Palestinian territories.  Netanyahu proclaims that in the name of Zionism he cannot admit refugees to Israel, because it would undermine the national identity of the Jewish state.  IsraelPM: illegal African immigrants threaten identity of Jewish state.  Binyamin Netanyahu reignites row over fate of thousands of African migrants in Israel Harriet Sharwood, The Guardian, 20.5.12.   Lansman argues that if we pretend there is no such thing as Zionism then all the cries about anti-Semitism will go away.  Such is the craven attitude of left social democrats when they come under any pressure.
The Sex Pistols wrote a song about Owen Jones - Pretty Vacant
Owen Jones, the Guardian’s token left commentator,  has demonstrated that he is both politically and intellectually a light weight.  For the last 3 years he has written an annual article deprecating ‘anti-Semitism’.  Two of them even begin with the same fatuous phrase ‘anti-Semitism is a menace.’  He is incapable of understanding that when Israel is killing Palestinians, Zionists cry ‘anti-Semitism’. 
Owen Jones scabs in the witchhunt against 'anti-Semites' and backs the Zionist 'concern' over 'anti-Semitism'
It is not necessary to defend everything that Ken Livingstone said in order to oppose his suspension.  Defending Livingstone goes hand in hand with opposing the new McCarthyist witch hunt.  Whereas Joe McCarthy was an anti-Semite, his disciples come in the guise of opponents of anti-Semitism.


Tony Greenstein 

EXCLUSIVE Naz Shah’s Map – Where did it come from?

$
0
0





Naz Shah MP for Bradford West has been publicly disgraced and humiliated.  She was forced to make a grovelling apology for her terrible anti-Semitism.  She is expected as Norman Finkelstein says below, to combat the ‘inner anti-Semitism’ in her because of a map that she displayed on her website/facebook page.

The subtext of her apology was that she had to promise never, ever again to upset the Israel lobby.
I have just one question.  Where did that map of the United States with Israel in it come from?  Assuredly some fascist site, perhaps the British National Party?  No they are pro-Israel.  How about Hungary’s Jobbik?  No they are too stupid. 

Ah yes, I’ve found it at last.  The site?  The Jewish Virtual Library, a recognised site for anyone wanting to know anything about Jewish people, Judaism etc.  A site which is part of the American-Israeli Cooperative Institute.  How anti-Semitic of them!


Norman G. Finkelstein talks Naz Shah MP, Ken Livingstone, and the Labour ‘antisemitism’ controversy.
Norman Finkelstein, (image: Youtube)
Norman Finkelstein is no stranger to controversy. The American Jewish scholar is one of the world’s leading experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the political legacy of the Nazi holocaust. Apart from his parents, every member of Finkelstein’s family, on both sides, was exterminated in the Nazi holocaust. His 2000 book The Holocaust Industry, which was serialised in the Guardian, became an international best-seller and touched off a firestorm of debate. But Finkelstein’s most recent political intervention came about by accident.

Last month, Naz Shah MP became one of the most high-profile cases to date in the ‘antisemitism’ scandal still shaking the Labour leadership. Shah was suspended from the Labour party for, among other things, reposting an image on Facebook that was alleged to be antisemitic. The image depicted a map of the United States with Israel superimposed, and suggested resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict by relocating Israel into the United States. It has been reported that Shah got the image from Finkelstein’s website. I spoke with Finkelstein about why he posted the image, and what he thinks of allegations that the Labour party has a ‘Jewish problem’.

Did you create the controversial image that Naz Shah reposted?

I’m not adept enough with computers to compose any image. But I did post the map on my website in 2014. An email correspondent must have sent it. It was, and still is, funny. Were it not for the current political context, nobody would have noticed Shah’s reposting of it either. Otherwise, you’d have to be humourless. These sorts of jokes are a commonplace in the U.S. So, we have this joke: Why doesn’t Israel become the 51st state? Answer: Because then, it would only have two senators. As crazy as the discourse on Israel is in America, at least we still have a sense of humour. It’s inconceivable that any politician in the U.S. would be crucified for posting such a map. 
Shah’s posting of that image has been presented as an endorsement by her of a ‘chilling “transportation” policy’, while John Mann MP has compared her to Eichmann.

Frankly, I find that obscene. It’s doubtful these Holocaust-mongers have a clue what the deportations were, or of the horrors that attended them. I remember my late mother describing her deportation. She was in the Warsaw Ghetto. The survivors of the Ghetto Uprising, about 30,000 Jews, were deported to Maijdanek concentration camp. They were herded into railroad cars. My mother was sitting in the railroad car next to a woman who had her child. And the woman – I know it will shock you – the woman suffocated her infant child to death in front of my mother. She suffocated her child, rather than take her to where they were going. That’s what it meant to be deported. To compare that to someone posting a light-hearted, innocuous cartoon making a little joke about how Israel is in thrall to the U.S., or vice versa…it’s sick. What are they doing? Don’t they have any respect for the dead? All these desiccated Labour apparatchiks, dragging the Nazi holocaust through the mud for the sake of their petty jostling for power and position. Have they no shame?

What about when people use Nazi analogies to criticise the policies of the State of Israel? Isn’t that also a political abuse of the Nazi holocaust?

It’s not a simple question. First, if you’re Jewish, the instinctive analogy to reach for, when it comes to hate or hunger, war or genocide, is the Nazi holocaust, because we see it as the ultimate horror. In my home growing up, whenever an incident involving racial discrimination or bigotry was in the news, my mother would compare it to her experience before or during the Nazi holocaust.

My mother had been enrolled in the Mathematics faculty of Warsaw University, I guess in 1937-38. Jews were forced to stand in a segregated section of the lecture hall, and the antisemites would physically attack them. (You might recall the scene in Julia, when Vanessa Redgrave loses her leg trying to defend Jews under assault in the university.) I remember once asking my mother, ‘How did you do in your studies?’ She replied, ‘What are you talking about? How could you study under those conditions?’. 

When she saw the segregation of African-Americans, whether at a lunch counter or in the school system, that was, for her, like the prologue to the Nazi holocaust. Whereas many Jews now say, Never compare (Elie Wiesel’s refrain, ‘It’s bad, but it’s not The Holocaust’), my mother’s credo was, Always compare. She gladly and generously made the imaginative leap to those who were suffering, wrapping and shielding them in the embrace of her own suffering.

For my mother, the Nazi holocaust was a chapter in the long history of the horror of war. It was not itself a war – she was emphatic that it was an extermination, not a war – but it was a unique chapter within the war. So for her, war was the ultimate horror. When she saw Vietnamese being bombed during the Vietnam War, it was the Nazi holocaust. It was the bombing, the death, the horror, the terror, that she herself had passed through. When she saw the distended bellies of starving children in Biafra, it was also the Nazi holocaust, because she remembered her own pangs of hunger in the Warsaw Ghetto.

If you’re Jewish, it’s just normal that the Nazi holocaust is a ubiquitous, instinctual touchstone. Some Jews say this or that horror is not the Nazi holocaust, others say it is. But the reference point of the Nazi holocaust is a constant.

What about when people who aren’t Jewish invoke the analogy?

Once the Nazi holocaust became the cultural referent, then, if you wanted to touch a nerve regarding Palestinian suffering, you had to make the analogy with the Nazis, because that was the only thing that resonated for Jews. If you compared the Palestinians to Native Americans, nobody would give a darn. In 1982, when I and a handful of other Jews took to the streets of New York to protest Israel’s invasion of Lebanon (up to 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were killed, overwhelmingly civilians), I held a sign saying, ‘This son of survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Auschwitz, Maijdenek will not be silent: Israeli Nazis – Stop the Holocaust in Lebanon!’. (After my mother died, I found a picture of me holding that sign in a drawer among her keepsakes). I remember, as the cars drove past, one of the guys protesting with me kept saying, ‘hold the sign higher!’ (And I kept replying, ‘easy for you to say!’).

If you invoked that analogy, it shook Jews, it jolted them enough, that at least you got their attention. I don’t think it’s necessary anymore, because Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians now have an integrity of their own. They no longer have to be juxtaposed to, or against, the Nazi holocaust. Today, the Nazi analogy is gratuitous and a distraction.
Is it antisemitic?

No, it’s just a weak historical analogy – but, if coming from a Jew, a generous moral one.

Last week, Ken Livingstone took to the airwaves to defend Naz Shah, but what he said wound up getting him suspended from the Labour party. His most incendiary remark contended that Hitler at one point supported Zionism. This was condemned as antisemitic, and Labour MP John Mann accused Livingstone of being a ‘Nazi apologist’. What do you make of these accusations?

Livingstone maybe wasn’t precise enough, and lacked nuance. But he does know something about that dark chapter in history. It has been speculated that Hitler’s thinking on how to solve the ‘Jewish Question’ (as it was called back then) evolved, as circumstances changed and new possibilities opened up. Hitler wasn’t wholly hostile to the Zionist project at the outset. That’s why so many German Jews managed to survive after Hitler came to power by emigrating to Palestine. But, then, Hitler came to fear that a Jewish state might strengthen the hand of ‘international Jewry’, so he suspended contact with the Zionists. Later, Hitler perhaps contemplated a ‘territorial solution’ for the Jews. The Nazis considered many ‘resettlement’ schemes – the Jews wouldn’t have physically survived most of them in the long run – before they embarked on an outright exterminatory process. Livingstone is more or less accurate about this – or, as accurate as might be expected from a politician speaking off the cuff.

He’s also accurate that a degree of ideological affinity existed between the Nazis and Zionists. On one critical question, which raged in the U.K. during the period when the Balfour Declaration (1917) was being cobbled together, antisemites and Zionists agreed: could a Jew be an Englishman? Ironically, in light of the current hysteria in the UK, the most vociferous and vehement opponents of the Balfour Declaration were not the Arabs, about whom almost nobody gave a darn, but the upper reaches of British Jewry.

Eminent British Jews published open letters to newspapers like the Times opposing British backing for a Jewish home in Palestine. They understood such a declaration – and Zionism – as implying that a Jew belonged to a distinct nation, and that the Jewish nation should have its own separate state, which they feared would effectively disqualify Jews from bona fide membership in the British nation. What distinguished the Zionists from the liberal Jewish aristocracy was their point of departure: as Theodor Herzl put it at the beginning of The Jewish State, ‘the Jewish question is no more a social than a religious one . . . It is a national question’. Whereas the Anglo-Jewish aristocracy insisted Judaism was merely a religion, the Zionists were emphatic that the Jews constituted a nation. And on this – back then, salient – point, the Zionists and Nazis agreed.

John Mann, when he accosted Livingstone in front of the cameras, asked rhetorically whether Livingstone had read Mein Kampf. If you do read Mein Kampf, which I suspect none of the interlocutors in this debate has done (I used to teach it, before the ‘Zionists’ drove me out of academia – joke!), you see that Hitler is emphatic that Jews are not a religion, but a nation. He says that the big Jewish lie is that they claim to be a religion; whereas in fact, he says, they’re a race (at that time, ‘race’ was used interchangeably with ‘nation’). And on page 56 of the standard English edition of Mein Kampf, he says that the only Jews honest enough to acknowledge this reality are the Zionists. Now, to be clear, Hitler didn’t just think that Jews were a distinct race. He also thought that they were a Satanic race, and ultimately, that they were a Satanic race that had to be exterminated. Still, on the first, not trivial, premise, he and the Zionists were in agreement.

As a practical matter, the Zionists and Nazis could therefore find a degree of common ground around the emigration/expulsion of Jews to Palestine. It was a paradox that, against the emphatic protestations of liberal Jews, including sections of the Anglo-Jewish establishment, antisemites and Zionists back then effectively shared the same slogan: Jews to Palestine. It was why, for example, the Nazis forbade German Jews to raise the swastika flag, but expressly permitted them to hoist the Zionist flag. It was as if to say, the Zionists are right: Jews can’t be Germans, they belong in Palestine. Hannah Arendt wrote scathingly about this in Eichmann in Jerusalem, which is one of the reasons she caught hell from the Jewish/Zionist establishment.

Even if there was a factual basis for Livingstone’s remarks, to bring the issue up at that moment – wasn’t he just baiting Jews?

I can understand his motivation, because I’m of roughly his generation. If he was ‘baiting’, it was a reflexive throwback to the factional polemics in the 1970s-80s. Israel marketed Zionists as the only Jews who had resisted the Nazis. The propaganda image projected back then was, the only resistance to the Nazis came from the Zionists, and the natural corollary was, the only force protecting Jews now is Israel. Every other Jew was either a coward, ‘going like sheep to slaughter’, or a collaborator. Those who dissented from Israeli policy back then, in order to undercut this Zionist propaganda, and to strike a nerve with them, would recall this unsavoury chapter in Zionism’s history. Some pamphlets and books appeared – such as Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (1983) – to document this ‘perfidious Zionist-Nazi collaboration’. Livingstone’s recent comments were born of the same reflex that motivated us back then. These certifiable creeps who went after Naz Shah got under his skin, and so he wanted to get under their skin. That’s how we used to fight this political battle: by dredging up those sordid chapters in Zionist history.

Livingstone based himself on Brenner’s book. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that perhaps Brenner’s book contains factual errors, it’s more of a party pamphlet than a scholarly tome, and it’s not exactly weighed down with copious documentation. Still, the fact of the matter is, when Brenner’s book was published, it garnered positive reviews in the respectable British press. The Times, whichis today leading the charge against Livingstone and the elected Labour leadership, back then published a review praising Brenner’s book as ‘crisp and carefully documented’. The reviewer, the eminent editorialist Edward Mortimer, observed that ‘Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler’s’. So, it’s a tribute to Ken Livingstone that at age 70 he remembered a book he read more than 30 years ago, that got a good review in the Times when it first appeared. If the Times is upset at Livingstone’s remarks, it has only itself to blame. I myself only read Brenner’s book after the Times review. 

Let’s zoom out a bit. You’ve written a great deal about how antisemitism accusations have been used to discredit and distract from criticism of Israel. Should we see the current campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Left more generally as the latest episode in that history?

These campaigns occur at regular intervals, correlating with Israel’s periodic massacres and consequent political isolation. If you search your nearest library catalogue for ‘new antisemitism’, you’ll come up with titles from the 1970s proclaiming a ‘new antisemitism’, titles from the 1980s proclaiming a ‘new antisemitism’, titles from the 1990s proclaiming a ‘new antisemitism’, and then a huge uptick, including from British writers, during the so-called Second Intifada from 2001. Let’s not forget, just last year there was a hysteria in the UK over antisemitism. A couple of ridiculous polls purported to find that nearly half of Britons held an antisemitic belief and that most British Jews feared for their future in the UK. Although these polls were dismissed by specialists, they triggered the usual media feeding frenzy, as the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independenthyperventilated about this ‘rampant’ ‘newantisemitism’. It was exposed as complete nonsense when, in April 2015, a reputable poll by Pew found that the level of antisemitism in the UK had remained stable, at an underwhelming seven percent.

This farce happened only last year. One would have imagined that its mongers would be hiding in shame, and that we would enjoy at least a brief respite from the theatrics. But lo and behold, in the blink of an eye, right in the wake of the Pew poll showing that antisemitism in the UK is marginal, the hysteria has started up all over again. The reality is, there is probably more prejudice in the UK against fat people than there is prejudice against Jews.

Ask yourself a simple, but serious, question. You go for a job interview. Which trait is most likely to work against you: if you’re ugly, if you’re fat, if you’re short, or if you’re Jewish? It’s perhaps a sad commentary on our society’s values, but the trait most likely to elicit a rejection letter is if you’re ugly. Then fat; then short. The factor least likely to work against you is, if you’re Jewish. On the contrary, aren’t Jews smart and ambitious? Pew found antisemitism levels at seven percent. Is that grounds for a national hysteria? A May 2015 YouGov poll found that 40 percent of UK adults don’t like Muslims and nearly 60 percent don’t like Roma. Imagine what it’s like to apply for a job if you’re a Roma! So where is your order of moral priorities?

Many of those involved in last year’s ‘antisemitism’ hysterics are also participants in the current campaign against Corbyn. 

The question you have to ask yourself is, why? Why has this issue been resurrected with a vengeance, so soon after its previous outing was disposed of as a farce? Is it because of a handful of allegedly antisemitic social media postingsfrom Labour members? Is it because of the tongue-in-cheek map posted by Naz Shah? That’s not believable. The only plausible answer is, it’s political. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual situation; instead, a few suspect cases of antisemitism – some real, some contrived – are being exploited for an ulterior political motive. As one senior Labour MP said the other day, it’s transparently a smear campaign.

The ‘antisemitism’ accusations are being driven by the Conservatives ahead of the local and Mayoral elections. But they’re also being exploited by the Labour Right to undermine Corbyn’s leadership, and by pro-Israel groups to discredit the Palestine solidarity movement. 

You can see this overlap between the Labour Right and pro-Israel groups personified in individuals like Jonathan Freedland, a Blairite hack who also regularly plays the antisemitism card. He’s combined these two hobbies to attack Corbyn. Incidentally, when my book, The Holocaust Industry, came out in 2000, Freedland compared it to Mein Kampf. Although he appears to be, oh, so politically correct now, he didn’t find it inappropriate to compare a book by the son of Nazi holocaust survivors to Mein Kampf. We appeared on a television program together. Before the program, he approached me to shake my hand. When I refused, he reacted in stunned silence. Why wouldn’t I shake his hand? He couldn’t comprehend it. It tells you something about these dull-witted creeps. The smears, the slanders – for them, it’s all in a day’s work. Why should anyone get agitated? Later, on the program, it was pointed out that the Guardian, where he worked, had serialised The Holocaust Industry across two issues. He was asked by the presenter, if my book was the equivalent of Mein Kampf, would he resign from the paper? Of course not. Didn’t the presenter get that it’s all a game?
Compare the American scene. Our Corbyn is Bernie Sanders. In all the primaries in the US, Bernie has been sweeping the Arab and Muslim vote. It’s been a wondrous moment: the first Jewish presidential candidate in American history has forged a principled alliance with Arabs and Muslims. Meanwhile, what are the Blairite-Israel lobby creeps up to in the UK? They’re fanning the embers of hate and creating new discord between Jews and Muslims by going after Naz Shah, a Muslim woman who has attained public office. They’re making her pass through these rituals of public self-degradation, as she is forced to apologise once, twice, three times over for a tongue-in-cheek cartoon reposted from my website. And it’s not yet over! Because now they say she’s on a ‘journey’. Of course, what they mean is, ‘she’s on a journey of self-revelation, and epiphany, to understanding the inner antisemite at the core of her being’. But do you know on what journey she’s really on? She’s on a journey to becoming an antisemite. Because of these people; because they fill any sane, normal person with revulsion. 

Here is this Muslim woman MP who is trying to integrate Muslims into British political life, and to set by her own person an example both to British society at large and to the Muslim community writ small. She is, by all accounts from her constituents, a respected and honourable person. You can only imagine how proud her parents, her siblings, must be. How proud the Muslim community must be. We’re always told how Muslim women are oppressed, repressed and depressed, and now you have this Muslim woman who has attained office. But now she’s being crucified, her career wrecked, her life ruined, her future in tatters, branded an ‘antisemite’ and a closet Nazi, and inflicted with these rituals of self-abasement. It’s not hard to imagine what her Muslim constituents must think now about Jews. These power hungry creeps are creating new hate by their petty machinations. As Donald Trump likes to say – it’s disgusting.

Labour has now set up an inquiry that is supposed to produce a workable definition of ‘antisemitism’ – which is to say, to achieve the impossible. It’s been tried countless times before, and it’s always proven futile. The only beneficiaries of such a mandate will be academic ‘specialists’ on antisemitism, who will receive hefty consultancy fees (I can already see Richard Evans at the head of the queue), and Israel, which will no longer be in the spotlight. I understand the short-term political rationale. But at some point, you have to say, ‘enough already’. Jews are prospering as never before in the UK. The polls show that the number of, so to speak, hard-core antisemites is miniscule. It’s time to put a stop to this periodic charade, because it ends up besmirching the victims of the Nazi holocaust, diverting from the real suffering of the Palestinian people, and poisoning relations between the Jewish and Muslim communities. You just had an antisemitism hysteria last year, and it was a farce. And now again? Another inquiry? Another investigation? No.

In order to put an end to this, there has to be a decisive repudiation of this political blackmail. Bernie Sanders was brutally pressured to back down on his claim that Israel had used disproportionate force during its 2014 assault on Gaza. He wouldn’t budge, he wouldn’t retreat. He showed real backbone. Corbyn should take heart and inspiration from Bernie’s example. He has to say: no more reports, no more investigations, we’re not going there any more. The game is up. It’s long past time that these antisemitism-mongers crawled back into their sewer – but not before humbly apologising to Naz Shah, and begging her forgiveness.

Who is Driving the ‘anti-Semitism Witch Hunt in the Labour Party?

$
0
0

The Jewish Labour Movement – British Branch of the Racist Israeli Labor PARTY
The Jewish Labour movement, led by serial liar Jeremy Newmark, is the British branch of the Israeli Labour Party.  The ILP has a racist track record second to none.  They were the government of Israel for the first 30 years.  In that time Israel’s Palestinian population spent the first 18 years under military rule.  All the institutions of apartheid, such as Jewish National Fund, were integrated into Israeli society as para state organisations in that period. 
Isaac Herzog - Racist leader of Israeli Labour Party
The Nakba, the expulsion of ¾ million Arabs in 1947/8, the massacre of thousands and the confiscation of most Arab land was carried out by Labour terror militias primarily – Hagannah and Palmach (shock troops) in particular.

The left Zionist  Mapam (now Meretz) party was no better.  The infamous massacre at Dawayima was carried out by these ‘Marxist’ Zionists:  “Their socialism did not extend to their non-Jewish fellow men.” Wrote David Hirst in his book ‘The Gun and the Olive Branch’ (p.25)
Jeremy Newmark - racist liar
In November 1948, Eliezer Peri, the editor of Mapam’s newspaper Al Hamishmar,received a letter describing a massacre at al-Dawayima.  Benny Morris estimates that there were ‘hundreds’ of dead. [Survival of the Fittest, Ha'aretz 8.1.04. http://www.haaretz.com/survival-of-the-fittest-1.61345see also Welcome To al-Dawayima, District of Hebron]  Agriculture Minister, Aharon Cisling referred to a letter he had received about the atrocities from Eliezer Kaplan declaring: ‘I couldn’t sleep all night . . . This is something that determines the character of the nation . . . Jews too have committed Nazi acts.’ [The Birth of the Palestine Refugee Problem Revisited, p.488., Benny Morris, Cambridge University Press, 2004]  Cisling agreed that publicIy Israel must admit nothing; but the matter must be thoroughly investigated.  ‘The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks.  There was not a house without dead’, wrote Kaplan, the Jewish Agency [JA] Treasurer and later Minister of Finance [Morris, p.470]
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Fraser v University College Union re Newmark
The Political Committee was briefed on 11 November 1948 by the recently ousted Chief of Staff of the Haganah, Yisrael Galili, about the killing of civilians during Operations Yoav and Hiram. Aharon Cohen led a call for an independent inquiry. [Falsifying the Record: A Fresh Look at Zionist Documentation of 1948, Benny Morris Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3. (Spring, 1995), pp. 44-62]. The problem was that the commanders of these operations were senior Mapam members, Yitzhak Sadeh and Moshe Carmel.  Ben-Gurion however was opposed to any investigations of atrocities committed by the Israeli military. 

There is nothing that Likud has done that Labour didn’t do before them, nor have they changed.  Israeli Labour’s election campaigns have focussed on scaring Jewish voters that Netanyahu’s policies, of not allowing even the tiniest little Palestinian Bantustan will result in Israel becoming an Arab state (god forbid). 

Last week Isaac Herzog, Labour’s leader said that the ILP mustn’t be identified as an ‘Arab lovers’ party.  The term ‘Arab lover’ is a racist taunt flung by the Right.  Herzog is saying that he doesn’t want the ILP to be considered in such terms.  In Britain during the fight against fascist from the National Front and British National Party we were accused of being ‘nigger lovers’ and a previous generation were ‘Jew lovers’. 

The irony today is that the racists of the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel are driving the witch  hunt of Black and Asian members of the Party in particular.  Anyone who stands out against Zionism and Israeli Apartheid is liable for the chop.

It is a myth that the ILP bears any resemblance even to the pale pink European social democratic parties.  As Zeev Sternhell shows in his book The Founding Myths of Israel, the ILP or Mapai as it was, was always an anti-socialist party.  Mapai was formed in 1930 as a result of the merger of Hapoel Hatzair, an avowedly anti-socialist party whose creed was the  labour of the land and Poalei Zion, under David Ben-Gurion.  Although nominally socialist, it had in fact junked socialism years ago when it committed itself to Jewish Labour i.e. a boycott of Arab labour.  It levied a special sum from all of its members in order that a campaign was waged to picket out Arab labourers from Jewish employers.  The ‘union’ Histadrut which the Labour Zionist parties formed in 1920, saw class struggle in national terms.  In other words it was the Arabs, not Jewish employers, who were the class enemy.  Hence Histadrut was a Jewish only ‘union’.

Today the ILP is a shadow of its former self.  Apart from 2 governments, under Rabin and Barak and a shared administration of Peres and Shamir, the ILP has been out of power for 40 years.  Whereas in 1949 and subsequent elections, the Labour Zionist parties secured a majority of seats in the Knesset today they can muster less than a quarter.

But though diminished in size, their racism is stronger than ever.

Tony Greenstein

Opposition leader tells party activists that Yair Lapid is taking Labor's votes in opinion polls and Labor must prove they can change the status quo without abandoning security.

Opposition head MK Isaac Herzog said Tuesday in Ashkelon that in order to attract more voters there is a need to shake the feeling that Labor Party members are “Arab-lovers.

Herzog, the Labor Party chairman, was speaking at a toast for party activists in Ashkelon, where he discussed the changes in Israeli society and the need for the party to change in order to attract voters.

“It’s true – Lapid is taking votes from us today in the opinion polls,” Herzog said, referring to Yesh Atid chairman MK Yair Lapid. “Among other things, he is moving to the right of us in the national consciousness and that requires a discussion of what that says. After all, we won’t be right-wing, but what does it say? Where do we enter the hearts of the public, so they’ll believe that we have not only experience but the ability to change the situation in the country without abandoning security?”

Herzog said he finds a feeling “in endless encounters with the Israeli public that we are always Arab lovers. It’s complicated, but that’s part of the issue, that’s part of the challenge. We are a party that always knew how to be a ruling party.”

Herzog said one of the reasons that he had “put out feelers to see if it was possible to link Israel’s two large national movements into a political turnover” stemmed from the need for “a large Israeli center.” Herzog said that in his opinion the gap between him and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon is relatively small.

Herzog verbally attacked members of his party, saying that they do not appreciate the achievement of the party under his leadership in the last elections. “Since 1992 we haven’t had such great political power, 24 Knesset seats are a lot…So what do we get? Whining. Whining in the party and in the movement and MKs who hand us out grades all day long. Instead of saying ‘look what wonderful work our faction is doing’…”

As for the criminal investigation against him, Herzog said: “These are not easy days. I am completely calm. And I know that I have to go through this like any other citizen.” Herzog added, however, that the difference between him and an ordinary citizen is “that a citizen doesn’t get headlines, and when I go through it, it serves all kinds of factors and interests.”

Herzog leveled veiled criticism at Zionist Union members saying: “That is why a party should stand behind the leader, without blinking."

Herzog’s bureau responded: “We are not afraid to deal with problems that we discover about the public’s attitude toward the Labor Party and Zionist Union. One of the problems is the mistaken and dangerous feeling that they are trying to label us with that we take the needs of the Palestinians into consideration before those of the State of Israel and its citizens. This is clearly a mistaken feeling, but it increases in magnitude among groups that did not know us in the last elections and it’s important for us to reach them in the process of a deep and broad campaign that we are doing with our ‘expanding circles’ plan, the length and breadth of the State of Israel and the communities that live here.” 

Yitzhak 'Arab lovers' Herzog is Concerned about Racism in British Labour

$
0
0

The Racist Israeli Labour Party Threatens to Boycott the British Labour Party for 'anti-Semitism

According to the Jewish Chronicle, the Israeli Labour Party, which presided over Israel becoming the world's only Apartheid state (it used to have a close partner in South Africa) is now threatening to boycott the British Labour Party because it is 'anti-Semitic'. 
Happier days when the Israeli Labour Party was in government and Apartheid South Africa was its best friend
It’s like the Yorkshire Ripper threatening to report someone for sexual harassment or Count Dracula giving a stern lecture to meat eaters on the benefits of vegetarianism.  It’s what’s called in Yiddish a ‘chutzpah’.  For those who are interested in these things, the definition of a chutzpah is a boy who has killed both his parents and then falls on the mercy of the court, pleading that they should take pity on him because he is an orphan!

South Africa Prime Minister John Vorster - who was interned during the war because he was a vociferous supporter of the Nazis - pays tribute to the dead at Israel's Holocaust propaganda museum Yad Vashem
The Israeli Labour Party (Mapai) used to campaign for 'Jewish Labour, Land and Produce'.  Which meant a boycott of Arab Labour and Produce and the eviction of Arabs from ‘Jewish’ land.   As David HaCohen, former Managing Director of Solel Boneh, Israel's largest building company, which used to be owned by Histadrut, the apartheid 'trade union' explained:

‘I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my Trade Union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they should not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there... to pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash Arab eggs they had bought... to buy dozens of dunums from an Arab is permitted but to sell God forbid one Jewish dunum to an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild the incarnation of capitalism  as a socialist and to name him the 'benefactor' - to do all that was not easy.’ [David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p.185 citing Ha’aretz 15.11.69.]

The idea that these racist hypocrites would dare to lecture the Labour Party on ‘anti-Semitism’ is an outrage.  That he could even begin to lecture British Labour is a consequence of the witch hunt that Corbyn has presided over.
Israeli bill board switches between Netanyahu and Herzog
Let us remember the visit of John Vorster, South Africa’s Apartheid Prime Minister to Israel in the dying days of Yitzhak Rabin’s Labour Government in 1976.  Israeli Labour had established the closest of links with the Apartheid government in South Africa.  That is why the ANC to this day and people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu (another anti-Semite!) support the Boycott of Israel.  These links included nuclear links and the establishment by the Histadrut ‘union’ of an arms production factory Iskandoor in South Africa itself, thus breaking the UN arms embargo.

These  are the people that Jon Lansman is holding cosy chats with.

By JC Reporter, May 3, 2016

The head of Israel’s Labour Party, Isaac Herzog, has said he is reconsidering ties with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour in the wake of the allegations of antisemitism within the UK party.

Mr Herzog, who heads the Zionist Union and its Labour Party faction, said he was “considering suspending relations” with the UK party and that “it’s possible there may be no other resort.”

He added that he believed the antisemitic views expressed were “only a small and loud minority” within the UK Labour Party.

Fellow Labour MK Nachman Shai urged ending ties as “there is a toxic atmosphere of hatred and fanaticism in British Labour” and consequently “it is no longer a sister party with which we can have close relations and coordinate policy.”

Former Labour leader and current MK Amir Peretz said that UK Labour was suffering from “a moral collapse that requires immediate and unequivocal action.”
Viewing all 2415 articles
Browse latest View live