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

The Battle of Cable Street – When Anti-fascists Repelled The British Union of Fascists

$
0
0
The Day Satire Died - The Guardian Gets Mark Regev, Ambassador for the world’s most racist state to pay tribute
When the Jewish Chronicle, the Zionists and the Board of Deputies urged the Jewish workers not to confront the fascists - now Mark Regev is rewriting history
It is really unbelievable.  Who does the Guardian choose to write an article commemorating the Battle of Cable Street, one of the most famous days in the annals of the British Labour Movement when up to quarter of a million workers, including thousands of Jewish workers, sent the fascists packing?  The PR man for Netanyahu and now Israel's Liar-in-Chief in Britain, Mark Regev.  The man who night after night justified on TV the murderous bombing of Gaza two years ago when 2,200 Palestinian refugees were murdered, including 551 children.
Entrance to Cable St on Sunday afternoon, October 4, 1936... crowds stop Mosley's Blackshirts passing through [Tower Hamlets Archive picture]
The man whose career was spent justifying every last racist measure of Netanyahu – from banning the commemoration of the Nakba in 1948, the massacre and expulsion of ¾ million Palestinians to the exclusion of Arabs from Jewish towns under the Access to Communities legislation.
The Guardian's shameless article allowing Israel's Ambassador & apologist for genocide Mark Regev to rewrite history
It is a sign of the deep sickness at the 'liberal' Guardian that they could even think of carrying an article which tries blatantly to rewrite history.  The Board of Deputies of British Jews vehemently opposed the march.  It had a box printed in the Jewish Chronicle warning Jews to stay away from the march.  The Zionists had effectively taken over the Board of Deputies by 1933 as Neville Laski made his peace with the Zionists.
Today's march in the East End
This is an example of how even the most radical moments in our history are co-opted by the ruling class in order to blunt their political message.  In the process they allow the passage of time to dim our memory so that the real lessons, the need to fight against all forms of racism, are lost.  

Bill Fishman, one of the best-known historians and political campaigners in London’s East End, died at the age of 93.
 According to Regev's rewriting of history, the Zionist movement, which had worked hand in hand with the precursor of Oswald Moseley’s BUF, the British Brothers League, was somehow in the vanguard of opposition to the fascists.  The Zionists played no part in building opposition to the march.  That was the job of Jewish communists and socialists.  The Jewish Peoples Council contained a few dissident Zionists but to pretend that a handful of Zionist individuals constituted an alliance between the Labour movement and the Zionists is a shameless rewriting of history.

Prof Bill Fishman, 1921-2014, next to Nicholas Mosley, son of his former adversary Oswald Mosley, speaking at Toynbee Hall in 2006 on 70th anniverary of 'Battle of Cable Street'
What the Guardian could have done, was to run this piece by Bill Fishman, the late and great historian of East End Jewry that was printedin the Docklands and East London Advertiser ten years ago on the 70thanniversary of Cable Street.
By 1936, Oswald Mosley’s party had been waging a hate campaign against Jews, communists and the Irish in the East End for more than two years, writes Bill Fishman.
Accusing Jews of taking ‘English’ jobs, Mosley’s elite bodyguard—the Blackshirts—terrorised Jewish stallholders in Petticoat Lane market, beat up Jews going home after synagogue and covered walls with anti-Semitic graffiti.
“Perish Judah” and “Death to the Jews” were scrawled all over the East End.
Copying the militaristic style of the fascist regimes in Germany, Italy and Spain, they carried out a reign of terror.
At that time, I was a member of the Labour Youth League and we heard that Mosley was planning a big rally in the East End on that Sunday in 1936, on October 4. We were told to get down to Gardiner’s Corner on the edge of the City.
It seemed like an act of solidarity because, on the same day, the Republicans in Spain were also preparing to defend Madrid against General Franco’s fascist nationalist forces.
Gardiner's Corner, Sunday, October 4, 1936... far left is stalled tram, in front of crowds blocking entrance to Whitechapel High Street [Tower Hamlets Archive picture]
I got off the 53 tram just after noon and there were already people marching and carrying banners proclaiming ‘No Pasaran’—the slogan we took from the Spanish Republicans which meant ‘They shall not pass.’
People were coming in from the side streets, marching towards Aldgate. There were so many that it took me about 25 minutes to get there.
I remember standing on the steps of the Whitechapel Art Gallery, watching Mosley arrive in a black open-top sports car. He was a playboy aristocrat and as glamorous as ever.
By this time, it was about 3.30pm. You could see Mosley—black-shirted himself—marching in front of about 3,000 Blackshirts and a sea of Union Jacks. It was as though he was the commander-in-chief of the army, with the Blackshirts in columns and a mass of police to protect them.
I had already seen him at a public meeting some months before. He had been standing on the back of a lorry parked outside the Salmon & Ball pub in Bethnal Green.
But at Gardiner’s Corner, Mosley encountered his first setback, thanks to a lone tram driver. I saw a tram pull up in the middle of the junction about 50 yards away from me—blocking the Blackshirts’ route. Then the driver got out and walked off. I found out later he was a member of the Communist Party.
I remember that, in contrast to the ugliness to come, the weather was beautiful, like a summer day. By mid-afternoon, the crowds had quickly swelled to more than 250,000, with some reports later suggesting that up to 500,000 people gathered there.
As the tension rose, we began chanting “1, 2, 3, 4, 5! We want Mosley—dead or alive!” and “They shall not pass!”
I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley and shall never forget that as long as I live—how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of fascism.
In a bid to keep the crowd away from the fascists, around 10,000 police officers, virtually every spare policeman in London and the South East, had been drafted in.
The police decided when the tram stopped and blocked the way to charge the crowd to disperse us. They were waving their truncheons, but we were so packed together, there was nowhere for us to go.
I could see police horses going up in the air because some kids in front of me were throwing marbles under their hooves. That made the police more hostile and they spent the next hour charging into us. Then, suddenly, people were waving to us from the back of the crowd.
The Communist Party had a system of loudspeaker vans and a command post with a phone and team of messengers from which to co-ordinate the action.
But they also had a secret weapon—a spy named Michael Faulkner, who was a medical student and communist sympathiser. Faulkner had infiltrated the Blackshirts.
When Mosley was halted at Gardiner’s Corner (today’s crossroads of Commercial Street, Whitechapel High Street and Commercial Road), police chief Sir Philip Game told him that the fascists could go another way, south through Royal Mint Street and Cable Street.
As Mosley was passing on instructions, Faulkner rushed to a phone kiosk near Aldgate Underground station and rang Phil Piratin, the Communist leader. Piratin told those in the loudspeaker vans to transmit the message—“Get down to Cable Street!”
The sheer weight of numbers meant it was a slow procession, but I got there in time to watch the battle.
I was young and afraid of what was basically a fight between the police and us, because we couldn’t get near the Blackshirts.
Cable Street is very narrow and there were three and four-storey houses where Irish dockers lived who quickly erected barricades of lorries piled with old mattresses and furniture.
Women in the houses hurled rotten vegetables, muck from chamber-pots and rubbish onto the police, who were struggling to dismantle some of the barricades.
The Zionist leader & first President of Israel defended the leader of the anti-Semitic British Brothers League, William Evans-Gordon MP - Regev 'forgot' to mention this
Things escalated again when the police sent ‘snatch squads’ into the crowd to nab supposed ringleaders. Organised groups of dockers hit back with stones and sticks, while making several ‘arrests’ themselves!
Indeed, there are some families in the East End who still have police helmets and batons as souvenirs!
Finally, with the area in turmoil and the protesters at fever pitch, Sir Philip Game told Mosley that he would have to abandon the march, fearing too much bloodshed. He ordered Mosley to turn back and march through the deserted City of London.
When the news filtered through, people went mad and what had been a wild protest became a massive victory party, with thousands of people dancing in the streets.
Once the dust settled, it was found that 150 protesters had been arrested, with some of them being severely beaten once in custody. In all, there were around 100 injuries, including police officers.
Oswald Mosley’s popularity began to wane, after his setback in Cable Street.
The Government hurried through laws banning political parties from wearing military-style uniforms, depriving them of both menace and allure.
Stanley Baldwin’s Tory government passed the Public Order Act, which gave the police the power to ban ‘provocative’ marches.
Then, during the Second World War, Mosley and his wife Lady Diana Mitford were interned as a threat to national security. Years in the political wilderness followed before his death in 1980.
Although a lot of fascists still lived in the East End following the Cable Street victory, never again would the ideology be so popular.
Jews, communists, Irish and English men and women rose up simply because they did not want extremism.
Years later, during my first teaching job in Bethnal Green, a parent came up and said: “My son speaks very highly of you. I have to apologise, I was a fascist and supported Mosley. Now I realise how wrong you can be.”
There was redemption in that and it moved me. It made me realise how much things were changing even then.
I have sent a letter into the Guardian but I suspect that they will prefer to pass silently over this shameful episode.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Clearly satire has died.  Mark Regev’s article ‘Remember Cable Street, when the labour movement and Zionists were allies’ was an exercise in the rewriting of history.  The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the British Zionist movement under Chaim Weizmann were implacably opposed to the anti-fascist mobilisation at Cable Street. 
On 2nd October 1936, the Board placed a warning notice in the Jewish Chronicle entitled ‘Urgent Warning – Keep Away’.  It read ‘Jews are urgently warned to keep away from the route of the Blackshirt march’. 
The anti-fascist mobilisation was organised by Jewish communists and socialists and the Jewish Peoples Council.  The Zionists played no part in the mobilisation.  The idea that English Zionism, which had allied with the anti-Semitic opponents of Jewish immigration in the Conservative Party, would support physical opposition to the BUF is laughable.
Mark Regev stands in opposition to everything the demonstrators at Cable Street represented.  He is Ambassador for the most racist regime in the world, a state that maintains a brutal military occupation in the West Bank, which bombs refugees in Gaza and which demonises Israel’s own Palestinian citizens. 
The lessons we should remember are those of the historian of East End Jewry, William Fishman who wrote that:
“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 London Advertiser 4.10.06]
Yours faithfully,

Tony Greenstein 

Appeal for Support for Keith Henderson - Victimised by the GMB Trade Union for his socialist beliefs

$
0
0

Appeal from John McDonnell to Support Keith Henderson

I have been asked to put this appeal on behalf of Keith Henderson, who was victimised for his socialist beliefs by the GMB Union, which is on the Right of the Labour Movement.  People will recall that the GMB was the only major union to support Owen Smith in the leadership contest.  It has been run for years by an undemocratic clique at the top.  It has no genuine or participatory democracy within it.

See also Defend Keith Henderson v GMB

Tony Greenstein

The Red Hall, 11 Grosvenor Rd,
Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2BT

Email: info@l-r-c.org.uk
Website: l-r-c.org.uk
Facebook: LRCofficial
Twitter: @LRCInfo
Dear  6,072   Keith  Henderson,
Dear Comrade,

Keith Henderson Appeal.

I am writing to ask for your support for Keith Henderson.

Keith is a longstanding, loyal and active supporter of the Labour Representation Committee and Momentum. He has an excellent record of campaigning for the Left in the Labour Party and the trade union movement.

On 2013 am Employment Tribunal judged that Keith had suffered unlawful direct discrimination by his employer, the GMB trade union, on the basis of his left wing democratic socialist beliefs.

The GMB successfully appealed this decision and the case is now back in court this week.

I have tried to secure a resolution to this dispute by agreement but with no success.

Keith is now facing a possible bill of up to £15,000 to cover legal costs.

Keith is a low paid worker and is worried that this will put him and his family at risk of losing their home.

I am writing to ask you if you could help Keith by making a donation to his appeal and/or asking your Labour Party or trade union branch to contribute to this appeal.

It is important that we stand by someone who has stood by our movement in solidarity.

Thank you for your assistance.

John

McDonnell MP


Donations can be made through : https://leftappeals.wordpress.com
 
Support Labour Briefing - Magazine of the LRC

Labourbriefing.org

   

The lynching of Jackie Walker

$
0
0

Below is an article I have written for Open Democracy


Lloyd Russell-Moyle – the Double Barrelled Hypocrite who was imposed as Chair of Brighton & Hove Labour Party

$
0
0

Caught passing information to the Compliance Unit - Moyle deprecates social media abuse unless he is doing it

Lloyd Russell-Moyle specialises in conflict resolution but seems to cause more conflicts than he resolves

What can one say about someone who wrote to me on 22nd August saying that

I am of a firm belief that one should say things publicly which are kind, and if you are unable to say that then one must be quite [sic] and say nothing on blogs and social media, esp about members. This is relevant when it comes to other members. I believe that attacking other members for taking (what you might believe is the wrong view) publicly brings the party into disrepute and it is an attempt to intimidate people from not saying anything

Admirable sentiments to be sure, but not quite at one with his actions!

Just over a week ago, in conversation with others including Sam Wheeler, a member of the Momentum Steering Committee and one of those who caved into the Jewish Labour Movement’s racist witch-hunt by removing Jackie Walker as Vice-Chair was not quite so restrained. Another participant was Joe Riches, a councillor and Yorkshire regional organiser of the Jeremy for Labour campaign who told Sheffield Momentum not to hold a stall at a Corbyn rally and was told where to go.  Indeed Moyle's comments fit squarely into the definition of abuse that has got thousands of Labour members suspended.  Moyle wrote:

‘I am the chair of his clp [District Labour Party in fact] and can tell you he is an abusive, unpleasant little man.  I have told him that to his face.  He alienates people who should be his natural supporters... he has gone about bullying the (Jewish, 17 year old) chair of our young labour group... abusing cllrs and being disruptive at meetings even when the “left” was winning.  There was not a right wing coup Brighton but an authoritarian move from the national office to suspend when the left was elected....’


A classic example of do what I say rather than what I do
i.                    Moyle obviously finds my height of some significance.  Perhaps I should also associate being a liar with having ginger hair!  It has about as much logic.

ii.                  Moyle said nothing to my face because he is one of those people who is polite to someone's face and then goes gossiping when their backs are turned.    

iii.                There is no truth in the allegation that I bullied anyone.  Yes I suggested to the Chair of Young Labour in Brighton when he announced to the world that he was joining the JLM that he was joining a group that defended ethnic cleansing.  Should age protect young people from the implications of their actions or should one patronise them and refuse to discuss 'adult' topics even over twitter?  Perhaps we should have been politer with 15 and 16 year old National Front supporters according to this same logic?

iv.                Likewise I pointed out to Progress councillors Caroline Penn and Emma Daniels, who also joined the JLM that they were joining an organisation which supports Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territories and that its methods include minor things like the beating up and torture of 12 year old children and shackling and depriving them of liberty without access to their parents.  Unsurprisingly Daniels, Penn and 17 yr old Joe were all Owen Smith supporters.

v.                  It is a lie that I have disrupted any meetings, but what is one lie among many?

vi.                The idea that there wasn’t a right-wing coup in Brighton is fanciful.  It was the false allegations of Moyle’s councillor friends which enabled the national party to intervene and suspend the Party.  

Russell-Moyle is one of those fairweather Corbyn supporters whose only firm principle is the need to advance his own career.  Despite policy being passed by the local party opposing my suspension, Moyle has repeatedly written to the Compliance Unit urging them to take swifter action and to ensure that they have a water-tight case for expulsion.  Being a believer in openness, honesty and transparency, he didn't think of copying me into the correspondence.
A heavily redacted e-mail from Moyle to the Compliance Unit
Moyle served as Chair of the DLP for little over 6 months.  During that time he managed to alienate most members.  At one meeting Clare Wadey, herself a member of the Executive, challenged Moyle’s high-handed and undemocratic behaviour such that he ordered her from the meeting.  When his ruling was put to the vote it was overwhelmingly defeated.   On another occasion he tried to use procedural rules he had invented to prevent an emergency motion in support of the Doctors' strike.  Again he lost.

What provoked Moyle’s ire?  Primarily my response to a fatuous Executive statement on anti-Semitism issued at the height of the fake anti-Semitism hysteria.
The statement began ‘Following the recent reports of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party’.  It tookas its starting point the fake and contrived campaign against ‘anti-Semitism’ that Progress, John Mann and the right-wing media concocted. 

It then confused what it calls ‘revisionist history’ i.e. Holocaust denial with ‘(making) links between the Nazi regime and the demand for a safe homeland’ i.e. Zionism.  Zionism was not a demand for a safe homeland, it was a movement for a Jewish settler colonial state in a land where it was intended that the indigenous population, the Palestinians, would be ethnically cleansed.  Leading Zionists such as Arthur Ruppin were quite clear about this at the time.  Zionism was a movement to establish a state of Jewish racial supremacy not a state whose primary purpose was saving Jews from the Holocaust.  That was why David Ben-Gurion in reaction to the Kindertransport, which the Zionists opposed, after Kristalnacht told the Mapai (Israeli Labour Party) Central Committee on 7.12.38 that:
If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.
This quote can be found in the official biography of Ben Gurion, 'The Burning Ground: 1886-1948' by Shabtai Teveth on p.855.   The whole chapter, entitled 'Disaster Means Strength' on the Nazi Holocaust and Zionism is worth reading for the cynical Zionist attitude that saw the Holocaust as a golden opportunity for advancing Zionist claims to a Jewish state.  In fact their attitude differs little from their exploitation of the Holocaust for Zionist purposes today.


Moyle's statement on 'anti-Semitism' repeats for a second time that there is a growth in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe, a dubious proposition in itself.  It then informed people that ‘Anti-Semitism is a distinct form of racism’.  Another meaningless statement since all forms of racism are distinctive in their own way.

As a classic example of the muddle headedness of the Labour Right on Palestine the statement then went on to declare that ‘Recent increases in people using "Zionist" as a substitute for "Jew" cannot be tolerated in our Party or our communities.’  Perhaps Lloyd and co. were unaware that it is the Zionists who assert that being Jewish and Zionist is one and the same.  For example in this week’s Jewish Chronicle there is an article Board criticises pro-Palestinian Soas students’ anti-Zionism event in which Marie van der Zyl, the Board of Deputies of British Jews vice-president, said:

 “For the vast majority of British Jews, political, cultural and religious affiliation with the state of Israel is a fundamental part of their Jewish identity.’

The occasion for this statement was the fact that students at the School of Oriental & African Studies had invited non-Zionist Jews to a meeting to discuss the differences between Zionism and Jews.  The Zionist Board didn't like this since it spends most of its time trying to confuse the two as well as closing down any meetings with which it doesn't agree!  In Israel dissidents are simply interned, subject to 6 months administrative detention without trial, which sometimes lasts for years.  In Britain they simply try to prevent free speech.  It is a constant theme of Zionists that being Jewish and Zionist is one and the same and hence anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is also the same.  Except of course for the thousands of Jewish anti-Zionists who are 'self-hater's, a term borrowed from the Nazi lexicon.  According to the Nazis, German anti-fascists also hated themselves since they denied the primacy of 'race' and 'nation' hence they hated themselves since, for fascists, a person only exists to serve the nation/race.

The article starts ‘The Board of Deputies has condemned a planned event by a pro-Palestinian student group which aims to separate anti-Zionism from antisemitism.’  Quite understandably, the BOD wishes to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, i.e, hatred of Jews with support for the Palestinians.  Lloyd was not however calling out Zionists who deliberately conflate  the terms ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jew’.

Having muddled up just about everything it was possible to muddle, the statement went on to say that ‘The existence of Israel and its peoples right to self determination should not be questioned more than anyone's right to a nation.’ What Moyle omitted to say (or more likely was too ignorant to have inquired into) is that Israel is not just another state, but a Jewish state in which racism is enmeshed in the fabric of the state – the Israeli state is the most racist state in the world.  This is because it is the only active settler colonial state today in the world.  It is a state consisting of Jews and non-Jews.  There is according to Zionist ideology no Israeli nation – the Israeli courts ruled against this in George Tamarin v State of Israel in 1972 and again in Uzi Ornan v State of Israel in 2013.

In the latter case Ha’aretz noted that the Supreme Court’s ‘statement that there is no such entity as an Israeli nation strongly echoes the statement by Golda Meir when she was prime minister that “there is no Palestinian people.” 
One of Moyle's redacted emails
In Tamarin Justice Agranat ruled that ‘the desire to create an Israeli nation separate from the Jewish nation is not a legitimate aspiration. A division of the population into Israeli and Jewish nations would … negate the foundation on which the State of Israel was established.’  In plain English, as a Jewish state, Israel is a state not only of its own Jewish citizens but Jews living outside the state, like myself.  The problem with Israel, uniquely amongst states, is that it is not a state of its own citizens but a state of Jews, be they citizens or not.

So the concept of the right of Israeli people to self-determination is a nonsense.  There is no Israeli people.  Zionism refuses to accept such a notion.  Ipso facto there cannot be Israeli self-determination. See Discrimination is legal, there are no Israelis: Reading the Supreme Court’s decisions on Israeli nationality.  Of course I wouldn’t expect Moyle to understand any of this since he takes pride in his ignorance.

The final part of Moyle's statement was that ‘many tens of thousands of Israeli citizens criticise their government on a daily basis through democratic processes.’is simply making a virtue out of stupidity.   The anti-Zionist and anti-racist Left in Israel probably doesn’t even comprise more than a thousand Israeli Jews.  That was the situation in South Africa where anti-apartheid whites were a tiny handful. Israel is a state where there is a permanent state of emergency, where torture is regularly used (mainly against Palestinians) where segregation in education, land, employent is the rule and where even Israeli Palestinians live there as guests, on suffererance.  In the Occupied West Bank the situation is an openly apartheid one since there are two different legal systems - one for Jewish settlers and one for Palestinians.

Moyle might be forgiven his ignorance except that he reacted to my letter criticising his statement by writing to the Compliance Unit asking them to speed up my expulsion.  Unfortunately for the hapless Moyle, I gained access to his letters via a Subject Access Request.  True LP HQ did blank out his name but it wasn’t difficult to discern that there was only one rat who would write as an informer to the Compliance Unit.  To Russell-Moyle the Compliance Unit is a neutral body implementing Labour Party rules, even if they occasionally get it wrong, rather than a body which interprets and uses the rule as part of the campaign against supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. 

The fact that the Compliance Unit and LP Headquarters have, in a vain attempt to stop Jeremy Corbyn being elected, expelled, suspended or otherwise deprived of their vote thousands of Labour Party members is of no account.  The fact that his own Party has been suspended means nothing.

One only need contrast the behaviour of Moyle with that of Kathy Runswick and Paul Davies, Chair and Vice Chair of Wallasey CLP who have fought the Compliance Unit on behalf of their parties rather than acting as a second-rate member of the Stasi.

I wrote to  Moyle when I first discovered that he was an informer.  Being in a forgiving mood I offered him an opportunity to apologise and I would not publicise the matter.  In response Moyle wrote that:

Tony, 

I wrote to the regional office on a number of occasions about differnt members. Generally I take and took the view that conflicts should be handled in a clam, friendly and local manor and not escalated to national office. 

After the investigation was started and after a number of phone calls with Mr Gregson on your behalf asking him to expedite the process, be open and transparent I wrote to him on the following matters:
1.       Abuse of other members
2.       Speed of investigation
3.       Revelation of accusation/making the case watertight
I believe point 2 is mutually agreeable by all, that any case must be quickly dealt with and I have repeated this call a number of times. 

I believe that point 3 is in hindsight poorly worded from myself, but is an attempt to get across that you must be told what you are being accused of and that any case must be clear cut and not smoke a mirrors. I believe that you often try and run rings around people on the political stance, when in essence the complaint it actually about your unpleasant behaviour. In this regard, whist i'm no expert, I think a case based only on anti-semitism would not stand up against you, but your behaviour is something to be desired. 

Point 1 is my concerns at your ongoing abuse on social media to our members from yourself. Your are not the only members who I have written to Harry Gregson about their use of social media, including members of the current executive who I have had to pass on their writings after complaints have been made. 

Once a formal complaint has been made to the Party, I pass on all infomation I have on that person to the national office for them to investigate because its effectually taken out of my hands. 

I am of a firm belief that one should say things publicly which are kind, and if you are unable to say that then one must be quite and say nothing on blogs and social media, esp about members. This is relevant when it comes to other members. I believe that attacking other members for taking (what you might believe is the wrong view) publicly brings the party into disrepute and it is an attempt to intimidate people from not saying anything. 

This works both ways and I can assure you I have made complaints and reported abuse on all sides

You will note that I not once challenged or asserted that you were an anti-semite, in fact the very opposite, I believe that the party shouldn't pursue any political case against you, because it could well fail. I do however believe that your behavior to other comrades (even if you don't consider them comrades) is intolerable and must stop. 

I hope that you can accept my limited apoligy for point 3 being poorly worded, and I hope that you will understand that whilst I don't regard you as an anti-semite, I do believe that to style, tone and manor which you comment to be very unpleasant and to have no place in the Labour Party. 

On this, I believe that people can change, they can reform and that support for you to understand how human being should talk to each other in professional communications could help you. 

Yours

Lloyd

As a result of this grudging half-apology I decided to let the matter rest until the Facebook comments above surfaced.  Again I offered Lloyd the opportunity to apologise and explain himself.  Clearly he felt incapable of either offering an explanation or an apology, hence this post.

By his own definition, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, if he has any integrity left, will shortly be referring himself, of his own volition to the Compliance Unit!

Politically the conclusion to be drawn from this is that there is a layer of soft-Corbyn supporters and low level officials and councillors who believe that the Labour Party machine is a neutral instrument that can be captured intact and then used against other socialists in the Labour Party.

Tony Greenstein

Jewish Board of Deputies Says Anti-Zionism Means What We Say it Means - Even if it’s Different From Yesterday

$
0
0

‘Words Mean What I Want Them to Mean – the Only Question is – Who is Master?’

The Zionists just hate free speech - as it's hard to justify murdering Palestinians, demolishing their homes, locking up their kids -  better to cry 'anti-Semitism'
Israel was Apartheid South Africa's closest military ally - Israel gave S Africa nuclear technology and built a large arms factory there - is this too part of today's Jewish identity?
Even though the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency has dropped the EUMC Working Definition on anti-Semitism, Zionist groups have been keen to hang onto a definition that was first formulated by the American Jewish Committee.  For example Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center was quotedas saying that‘Those who fight anti-Semitism have lost an important weapon”. 

One of the reasons that the Working Definition met such vehement opposition was that it equated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.  In particular its statement that ‘denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.’ was  absurd since Jews are a religion not a people or nation.  The idea that Jews form a separate nation from those they live amongst is anti-Semitic. 

Likewise the suggestion that ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’  is equally absurd.  History is based on comparisons and there are many comparisons that can be drawn between NaziGermany 1933-1941 and Israel, not least the fact that Zionism seeks the expulsion or removal of Palestinians from Palestine/Israel and the permanent privileges that are accorded to Jews, the master race in Israel, compared to Palestinians.  There are many other comparisons, for example the hatred of ‘miscegenation’ mixed-race Jewish and non-Jewish relationships

However the Working Definition was right to suggest that ‘holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’  The fact that the Board of Deputies of British Jews continually seek to associate Jews with Israel’s racist and genocidal policies is indicative of the fact that Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same coin.   

This week’s Jewish Chronicle has an articlein which the Board of Deputies condemns students at the School of Oriental and African Studies for holding a discussion ‘which aims to separate anti-Zionism from antisemitism.’  The Board doesn’t like the idea that you can separate opposition to Israel and its inherent racism from hatred of Jews.  The fact that the Board’s stance directly contradicts the Working Definition’s proposal that associating Jews with Israel’s war crimes is anti-Semitic is neither here nor there, because as Humpty Dumpty saidWhen I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

It is not surprising that the Board should object to a discussion whose title is ‘Decoupling Judaism and Zionism in Palestine Advocacy’.  After all Zionists spend all their time trying to propagate the lie that if you oppose Zionism, the racist philosophy that treats Palestinians as the untermenschen of Israel, then you are anti-Semitic.

Even worse, the discussion also aims to draw the line between ‘combating the weaponisation of anti-Semitism and identifying real instances of anti-Semitism.’  Quite understandably Marie van der Zyl, Deputy President of the Board finds an ‘attempt to redefine anti-Semitism for hostile political ends’ nothing less than outrageous.  Zionism if course never attempts to use anti-Semitism in a hostile political manner.  Zionism is a gentle political creed that preaches brotherly love to all good (Jewish) people on Earth.

Ms Zyl is quoted as saying that for the ‘vast majority of British Jews’  the State of Israel is a fundamental part of their identity.  Criticism of Israel cannot help but be anti-Semitic according to this definition.  There is, of course, just one small flaw in this argument.   Criticism of a religious identity or indeed any other identity is not racist.  It is the essence of free speech and Zionism hates nothing so much as free speech.  In Israel every newspaper and periodical is subject to censorship in order to prevent any criticism of the fundamentals of Israel society.  This is, of course done under the rubric of ‘security’.

In Israel censorship has taken on levels undreamt of.  The age of digitalisation of archives has meant that thousands of documents, which were previously available to academics have now, fallen under the remit of the Chief Military Censor.  In Classified: Politicizing the Nakba in Israel's state archives, Shay Hazkani, who was Israel Channel 10’s military correspondent from 2004-8 estimated that about one-third of documents that were de-classified in the 1980s have been re-classified starting from the late 1990s, when the archives were digitized.

Censorship is a Zionist habit.  In Israel Palestinians are regularly detained and imprisoned, often without trial, for writing something that is considered ‘incitement’.  Jews, however foul and racist they are on social media, however many death threats they make, are never detained or jailed.

Ms Zyle is quoted as ‘utterly condemning’the event.  The overtly Zionist Union of Jewish students, which makes Israel advocacy a condition of affiliation of Jewish societies, saw the SOAS discussion as ‘further proof of some in the student movement denying Jewish students the right to define anti-Semitism and their own relationship with Israel.’

Quite how a meeting on separating out anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism challenges the right of the poor Zionist dears to define their own identity is a mystery worthy of Conan Doyle.  But there is a serious point here.  If people define themselves in a way that is reactionary, racist, chauvinist etc. is it racist to challenge them and criticise that identity?  Some Roman Catholics see opposition to abortion and contraception as part of their identity.  Is it racist or chauvinist to support a woman’s right to choose?

Many Africans define their own religious identity to include Female Genital Mutilation.  Is it racist to oppose FGM?  Some Muslims see the burka or niqab as part of their identity.  Is it racist to oppose these articles of clothing.  Perhaps opposition to the Hindu custom of Suthee, the burning of widows on their husbands funeral pyres was also racist?

The idea that criticism and condemnation of a racist ideology is itself racist is absurd.  Literally words have lost all meaning. Afrikaners used to try and pretend that Apartheid was inherent to their identity.  Zionism seems to agree with that proposition.  After all Israel and Apartheid South Africa had the closest of relationships.

As the Zionist movement in this country tries to emulate its American cousins, so it goes onto the offensive in trying to outlaw all political opposition to Zionism.  In this it is increasingly backed up by the political establishment in both parties.  See for example Partisan Report on Antisemitism discredits Home Affairs Select Committee


Tony Greenstein 

Manufacturing Consent On ‘Anti-Semitism’

$
0
0

Modern Day Alchemy - Home Affairs Select Committee Transforms Anti-Zionism into Anti-Semitism
The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has just published a Report, Anti-Semitism in the UK.  The first and most immediate question is why, when other forms of racist attacks are at an all-time high, the Committee should spend its time examining the least widespread or violent form of racism?  By their own admission, anti-Semitic hate crimes, however defined, total just 1.4% of all such crimes, yet anti-Semitism has its own Parliamentary Report. 
To many Zionists, anti-Zionist Jews deserve to be victims of anti-Semitism for ignoring the 'attraction' of Zionism
In its section ‘Key Facts’ the Committee informs us that there has been a rise of 11% in anti-Semitic incidents in the first half of 2016 compared with 2015.  Shocking you may think.  The rise is from 500 to 557.  But 24% of the total, 133 incidents in all, were on social media.  Of the increase in anti-Semitic incidents, fully 44 of the 57 were on social media.[1]  Obviously it is not very pleasant to receive anti-Semitic tweets such as those above (which were sent by Zionists!) but it is clearly different from acts of violence.
If one looks closer at the Community Security Trust’s Report quoted from then it turns out that there were just 41 violent incidents.  If one delves a little deeper it turns out that there was actually a 13 per cent fall in violent incidents for the first half of 2015 and none of these were classified by the CST as ‘Extreme Violence’, i.e. they involved potential grievous bodily harm or threat to life.  This is good not bad news.  Why would the Select Committee wish to exaggerate the incidence of anti-Semitism?
Anti-Semitic tweet from a Zionist
Most of the anti-Semitic incidents involved ‘verbal abuse’ and it is difficult to know how many of these were genuinely anti-Semitic and how many were of the kind ‘why do you bomb children in Gaza’.  G given that the Board of Deputies of British Jews does its best to associate Jews with Israel’s war crimes, is it any wonder that some people take them at their word?
Contrast this with anti-Muslim hate crimes.  According to a report from the Muslim Hate Monitoring Group Tell MAMA, British Muslims are experiencing an “explosion” in anti-Islamic.
The annual survey by Tell MAMA found a 326 per cent rise in incidents last year, while the Muslim Council of Britain group of mosques said it had compiled a dossier of 100 hate crimes over the weekend alone.
Unlike anti-Semitism, ‘many attacks are happening in the real world – at schools and colleges, in restaurants and on public transport. The number of offline incidents rose 326 per cent in 2015 from 146 to 437’  The effect has been that many Muslim women – especially those wearing Islamic clothing –were being prevented from conducting normal “day to day activities”.[2]
In its concern to marry anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism the Committee 'forgot' about the only visibly Jewish community in Stamford Hill of Ultra Orthodox Charedi Jews who do experience anti-Semitism
Yet the Committee, which was chaired by Keith Vaz, has shown no interest in anti-Muslim racism.  Why might that be? 
Somewhat confusingly for a Report that is supposed to be about anti-Semitism, another of its Key Facts tells us that ‘Research published in 2015 by City University found that 90% of British Jewish people support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and 93% say that it forms some part of their identity as Jewish people, but only 59% consider themselves to be Zionists.’  [3]  In reality this Report is not about anti-Semitism but the use of anti-Semitism as a weapon against anti-Zionists.
This Report dips in and out of what it is quoting without any attempt to put anything in perspective.  It probably is true that 90% of British Jews support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, but how many of them appreciate that a Jewish settler colonial state is an inherently racist state?   What is interesting is that although the Report admits that only 59% of British Jews consider themselves Zionists, 31% don’t.   Even more interesting, the Report states that ‘in 2010, 72% of the respondents classified themselves as Zionists compared to 59% in the present study.’  As to why that is, the Report offers two different explanations:
i.                    Jews believe that criticism of Israel is incompatible with being a Zionist and
ii.                  the frequent use of the term ‘Zionist’ in general discourse as a pejorative or even abusive label discourages some individuals from describing themselves as a Zionist.
If the latter is correct, then this is clearly a good thing as anti-Zionist criticism of the State of Israel is having some effect and is deterring Jewish people from identifying with a racist ideology.  However the Committee draws the opposite conclusion because it considers Zionism a good thing.  Therein lies the problem.
Amongst other ‘key facts’ was the report of a survey of Labour Party members who joined after the 2015 General Election, 55% of whom agreed that antisemitism is “not a serious problem at all, and is being hyped up to undermine Labour and Jeremy Corbyn, or to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel”.[4]  Clearly, despite the bombardment of the mass media about fake anti-Semitism, most party members are dismissive of this fable.  When Owen Smith debated Jeremy Corbyn in Cardiff and claimed that he hadn’t taken ‘anti-Semitism’ seriously, he was booed.  In reality very few Labour Party members sincerely believe in this hype.
A Report whose primary motivation is to attack Corbyn and the Labour Left
It is curious that a Report on anti-Semitism should start off with a section ‘Anti-Semitism in the Political Parties’ before homing in on just one party, Labour.  Labour is the target throughout this ill-conceived and politically tendentious Report.  It immediately begins with the suspension of Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone and others (who it estimates range from 18-40) for’ anti-Semitism’.  Since no one has been tried or found guilty of ‘anti-Semitism’ one can only assume that the presumption of innocence has been abandoned by lawyer Chuku Ummuna and his Tory friends.  Livingstone expressed an opinion that Hitler supported Zionism.  He may be right or wrong, it may even give offence to those who find the truth unpalatable, but anti-Semitic it is not.  Naz Shah made a joke about how much nicer it would be if Israel was located within the borders of the USA as that would mean less death and destruction all round.  She borrowed a map that originated with the Jewish Virtual Library, hardly the greatest act of anti-Semitism the world has known!
After noting that the vast majority of anti-Semitic attacks come from the far-Right, the Report then speaks about ‘the fact that incidents of antisemitism—particularly online—have made their way into a major political party’ despite not having established any facts to support this.  It is this sleight of hand, asserting that which it is supposed to be proving, which runs throughout this Report.
The Report tried to come up with a definition of anti-Semitism but it did this in a very curious way by aiming to maintain ‘an appropriate balance between condemning antisemitism vehemently, in all its forms, and maintaining freedom of speech—particularly in relation to legitimate criticism of the Government of Israel.’  It is curious in two ways – firstly what has criticism of Israel got to do with a definition of anti-Semitism?  The underlying assumption is that criticism of the State of Israel is somehow anti-Semitic.  Because Israeli racism  is based on its self-definition as a Jewish state, i.e. a state where Jews have privileges, it is assumed that criticism of its racism is therefore anti-Semitic.  This is the ‘logic’ that the Report employes throughout.  Anti-Semitism is hatred of or discrimination against Jews as individuals or violence against them.  A state is not an individual or a victim of racism.  Secondly what is ‘legitimate’ criticism of Israel and in whose eyes?
The Report then dabbles with the MacPherson definition of a ‘racial incident’ suggesting that the definition of a racist incident should be “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.  Again this is fundamentally dishonest because they ignore the context, which was the refusal of the Police to record as racial incidents, incidents perceived as racial by the victims.  MacPherson did not imply, unlike the Committee, that a perception of racism is therefore proof of guilt.
The Report quotes a government statement that ‘it is for the victim to determine whether a crime against them was motivated by a particular characteristic (the Macpherson definition)’.  An absurd statement which is not the MacPherson definition, since that applied to Police perceptions not the judicial process of inquiry.  A victim’s testimony may be good evidence but that is all it is.  It is not determinative.
The purpose of the Committee’s Report is a transparent as it is shallow.  It quotes the ‘International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism which in relation to criticism of Israel:
‘Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’
The Committee demonstrates its ignoranxw since Israel is not a nation, nor does it claim to be so.  It is a state of the Jewish people, regardless of whether they live in or outside Israel.  Nor is Israel a democratic state since it rules over 4.5 million people who have neither civil nor political rights.  It is an ethnocracy, in which settlers rule over a people who are considered guests at best.[5]
Apparently ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’ Is anti-Semitic.  Leaving aside the small fact that Zionists, including Israeli government politicians repeatedly use the Nazi period and the Holocaust to justify their actions, does this principle hold good for other states?  Were the demonstrators in France in May 68 anti-Semitic for chanting ‘CRS-SS’ at the riot police?
‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’ is also apparently anti-Semitic.  I have great sympathy with this but the Committee’s attention should be directed primarily at Zionists who go to great lengths to associate British Jews with Israel’s war crimes!  Indeed the Report notes that ‘Sir Mick Davis, Chairman of the JLC, told us that criticising Zionism is the same as antisemitism’  because, in the words of the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis ‘Zionism has been an integral part of Judaism from the dawn of our faith”.  The conclusion cannot be other than that British Jews are collectively responsible for Israel’s crimes.  What a tangled web the Committee weaves.
The most blatant attempt to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism which the Committee accepts:  ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.’
Firstly there is no Jewish people.  There are French, British, Argentinian and other Jews, who are members of their respective nations.  Only anti-Semites claim that regardless of where they live, Jews form one seamless nation.  It was a proposition that Hitler adhered to.  Apparently it also finds favour with Chuka Ummuna’s Committee too.
As for the Committee’s claim that the existence of the Israeli State is a racist endeavour, that is a matter of opinion or fact.  It has nothing to do with racism.
Without even bothering to examine the question, the Report says that Israel is ‘generally regarded as a liberal democracy’.  The question of what constitutes a liberal democracy is an interesting one but Israel is anything but a democracy by any normal definition.
i.                    Although Israeli Arabs have the vote their representatives are vilified and demonised and Haneen Zoabi of the nationalist Balad Party has had to be protected by security guards from other Knesset members.  Arab parties also have no influence and have never been part of an Israeli government.
ii.                  In a Jewish state policies and laws are draw up with the intention of benefiting one sector only - the Jewish community.  In every area of public life there is entrenched state sponsored discrimination -  be it education funding, local authority grants, land access or police coercion and repression.  The Centre for the Rights of the Arab Minority Adalah has compiled a list of 50 discriminatory laws.[6]
iii.                Israel is in a permanent state of emergency, even though it faces no military threat.  It is a state where torture is legally allowed, where administrative detention is used to imprison (mainly Palestinian) dissidents for repeated bouts of 6 months.
iv.                Israel is a state where all publications have to submit to the military censor whose remit has extended to cover government archives.  The Military Censors can prevent the unsealing of archives and even worse, prevent physical access to archives which were once available.  This is because of digitalisation.[7]
v.                  Four and a half million Palestinians are subject to permanent military rule without any political or civil rights.
To call Israel a ‘liberal democracy’ is to render the term meaningless.  By this definition Apartheid South Africa could also have been considered democratic.
The Use of the Term Zionist
Despite allegedly being a Report on Anti-Semitism this is really about Zionism which, it concedes is ‘avalid topic for academic and political debate’.  Of course anti-Semites substitute the term ‘Zionist’ for ‘Jew’’ but that is precisely why it is incumbent upon us to make a clear distinction between Zionism and being Jewish.  Yet both Sir Mick Davies and the Chief Rabbi gave evidence to the Committee that Zionism and Judaism are one and the same.  It is a testimony to the Committee that it never saw the contradiction.
Where the Committee’s Report becomes a threat to freedom of speech and basic civil liberties is in its recommendation (Para. 32) that:
‘For the purposes of criminal or disciplinary investigations, use of the words ‘Zionist’ or ‘Zio’ in an accusatory or abusive context should be considered inflammatory and potentially antisemitic.’ Anti-Zionism it is proposed should be made, in certain circumstances into a hate crime.  This is the criminalisation of speech.  ‘Zionist’ or its abbreviation is a political not an ethnic or racial category.  That although 59% of Jews consider themselves Zionists, 31% do not.  There are millions of non-Jews who are also Zionists, especially fundamentalist Christians.  Is it anti-Semitic to accuse them of being Zionists?!
The Committee quotes the Institute for Jewish Policy Research that between 4% and 5% of British adults could be termed ‘clearly anti-Semitic’.  In other words 95-96% are not anti-Semitic.  Would that the same could be said of Islamaphobia.  Aabsurdly the Committee concludes that ‘it is alarming that recent surveys show that as many as one in 20 adults in the UK could be characterised as “clearly antisemitic”.’  One wonders what the Committee will say when an opinion poll gets around to measuring anti-Muslim racism!
Contrast this with Israel where no less than 48% of Israeli Jews, a plurality, want to physically expel Arabs from Israel and 79% believe Jews are entitled to preferential treatment in Israel.  It is clear that British  people are remarkably free of anti-Semitic sentiments.[8]
Politically tendentious
When it comes to the affair of Oxford University Labour Club the Committee makes its intentions clear.  It complains that the Baroness Royall Report wasn’t published by Labour’s National Executive Committee in full.  That might be because it contained no evidence of anti-Semitism at the Labour Club.  When Royall first reported, she wroteon the web site of the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement that:
 ‘I know that you will share my disappointment and frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.’ 
What kind of political clown is disappointed that she couldn’t find any institutional anti-Semitism?  In fact Royall found no individual anti-Semitism either.  By her own admission she was ‘honoured but daunted when asked by the NEC to undertake this inquiry.’ [9]  It was clearly all too much for her.  What she found was a remarkably thin gruel.  She reported that she was aware of ‘one case of serious false allegations of antisemitism which was reported to the police.’   
All she had to say was that ‘I received a number of complaints of incidents of alleged antisemitic behaviour by individual members of OULC. I have also received evidence that members of the Club, including past office holders of  the Club, have not witnessed antisemitic behaviour by other members. ...It is clear to me from the weight of witnessed allegations received that there have been some incidents of antisemitic behaviour ... However, it is not clear to me to what extent this behaviour constituted intentional or deliberate acts of antisemitism. This is particularly true of historic hearsay evidence.’  We get no inkling as to what this behaviour consists of.  In the end she sees ‘no value in pursuing disciplinary cases against students who may be better advised as to their conduct’ which suggests that whatever she was told was clearly not serious.  It is little wonder that the Report was not published. 
Even the Parliamentary Report observes that these allegations arose when the non-Jewish Zionist Chair of Oxford University Labour Club, Alex Chalmers, a former intern for the Zionist propaganda organisation BICOM, objected to the Club supporting Oxford University’s Israel Apartheid Week.  The Committee fails to explain what this has to do with anti-Semitism.
Malia Bouattia – President of the National Union of Students
In attacking the President of NUS, Malia Bouattia, a refugee from real oppression in Algeria, for ‘anti-Semitism’ the Committee descended into the gutter.  It relied on McCarthyite guilt by association and did not have the integrity or honesty to invite her to give evidence.  Instead it quoted the Union of Jewish Students, for whom Israel advocacy is an integral part of its constitutional requirements, that the statement the University of Birmingham is “something of a Zionist outpost” is anti-Semitic.  Why this is anti-Semitic is never explained.  Presumably the UJS and the Committee, in conjunction with the BNP and other fascist organisations, agree that to be Zionist is to be Jewish.  There is no other logic.   It is no more racist than describing the University of Sussex as a radical outpost.
On the basis of the above the Committee concludes that ‘The current President of the National Union of Students, Malia Bouattia, does not appear to take sufficiently seriously the issue of antisemitism on campus’  The Jewish students it refers to are representatives or supporters of the pro-Israel UJS.  Anti-Zionist Jewish students are, of course, invisible to the Committee as are anti-Zionist Jews generally.
Ill Intent
In the section entitled ‘Political Discourse and Leadership’ the Report says:
‘A number of hard-left organisations, such as Unite Against Fascism, Stop the War Coalition and Palestine Solidarity Campaign, have clearly taken a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Government stance. These organisations hold or participate in marches, some of which have been attended by leading politicians such as Mr Corbyn.’  This is called killing two birds with one stone!  How anyone can describe Palestine Solidarity Campaign as ‘hard left’ is beyond comprehension.  The attendance of Jeremy Corbyn though is clearly an added bonus for the Chuku Ummunas of this world. 
The Committee also regurgitates the false allegations of Board of Deputies President Jonathan Arkush that on some demonstrations ‘there were “huge marches” in London at which people held placards that read “Hitler was right.”(para 99).  This is an outright lie.  Not an iota of proof has been provided to substantiate this assertion.  For a report heavy on pictoral descriptions one might expect a photograph to back this up.  It is an evidence free assertion that typifies the whole report.
The Report is critical, in a nit picky way, of the Chakrabarti Report quoting the Board’s observation that it does not deal with ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘anti-Zionism’ on the left.  Maybe that’s because there is none!  The Report does however mention (paras. 103/104) the false allegations of anti-Semitism at the Chakrabarti Press Conference by Ruth Smeeth MP, who Wikileaks outed as a protected agent for the US Embassy.[10]  What was the anti-Semitic statement that caused this fake victim to walk out?  ‘Ruth Smeeth is working hand-in-hand with the right-wing media to attack Jeremy”.   I defy anyone to show how this is anti-Semitic since Marc Wadsworth, the Black activist who said it, didn’t even know she was Jewish.
The Committee concludes that the Chakrabarti Report ‘is ultimately compromised by its failure to deliver a comprehensive set of recommendations or to provide a definition of antisemitism.  Given that the definition of anti-Semitism has eluded far wiser people than Chakrabarti, perhaps because the very concept of anti-Semitism is now so politically loaded, the failure to provide an all-encompassing definition is neither here nor there.  The Committee after all also failed to provide one.  The best it could do was to say that it ‘broadly accept(s) the IHRA definition’ with 2 caveats regarding criticism of the Israeli government.
Chakrabarti’s problem was that there is next to no anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.  There is certainly criticism of Zionism and the Israeli state, but despite much muddying of the waters, most people still refuse to accept that criticism of the West’s armed watchdog in the Middle East is anti-Semitic.
What the Committee does do is to try and discredit Shami Chakrabarti through hint and innuendo.  Her acceptance of a peerage somehow discredits her Report.  This is an institution where the giving of money to a party in exchange for a peerage doesn’t even raise an eyebrow.     
 It is a measure of the political desperation of the Report that it picks up on the Jackie Walker debate on which I have previously reported.[11]  It did this without asking her to give evidence.  Its comments are inaccurate and frankly malicious.  It states that:
Jackie Walker, who was temporarily suspended from Labour earlier in the year for stating that Jewish people were the “chief financiers” of the slave trade, reportedly criticised Holocaust Memorial Day and said that she had not heard a definition of antisemitism that she could “work with”.’  Since Jackie did not say that ‘Jewish People’ were the chief financiers of the slave trade this is nothing short of malicious.  Secondly, how is saying that one hasn’t heard a definition of anti-Semitism that one can work with, anti-Semitic? 
It is therefore not surprising that, after much malicious and tendentious commentary, under the title ‘Other Political Activity’ the Committee concludes that ‘there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party.’  This throws into stark relief the Report’s vacuity.  It demonstrates that this is above all a Report of the Labour and Tory Right.
The Report depends almost exclusively  on evidence from  pro-Israel, anti-Corbyn sources.  This alone demonstrates that this Report is a one-sided propaganda exercise.
But the most remarkable omission of all is the fact that the one Jewish community which is visible in its distinctive appearance and which does suffer anti-Semitic attacks, the ultra-Orthodox haredi community of Stamford Hill, London isn’t even mentioned!  As the President of the Stamford Hill Shomrim (Guards) Rabbi Herschel Gluck states: 
‘While this report focuses primarily on the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.... it’s important to note that the parliamentary committee did not request any evidence from the most visible section of the Jewish community,  the Charedi Community, where the majority of the attacks are in person rather than online... and are usually clearly and unequivocally anti-Semitic.  I repeat my call to the Home Office to understand the real life anti-Semitism that members of the Charedi Jewish Community experience...’
It is not surprising that the only Jewish community to experience anti-Semitism was ignored, because this Report was not about anti-Semitism but about redefining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.  Truly this Report is risible. 
Tony Greenstein



[4]          Professor Tim Bale, Dr Monica Poletti and Professor Paul Webb, Submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry on behalf of the ESRC Party Members Project, 3 June 2016.
[5]          Twice, in 2013 in Uzzi Ornan v the State of Israel and again in 1972 in Tamarinv State of Israel the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as an Israeli nationality.  In Tamarin Justice Agranat ruled that ‘the desire to create an Israeli nation separate from the Jewish nation is not a legitimate aspiration.’  It would ‘negate the foundation on which the State of Israel was established.’
[9]          Baroness Jan Royall, Allegations of anti-Semitism, Oxford University Labour Club
[10]            In a cablethe US Embassy placed ‘strictly protect’ after Smeeth’s name.  

Open Letter to John Mann MP from a 90 year old Jewish Doctor

$
0
0
Re; Your (self appointed) role as ‘Witchfinder General’ of the Labour Party.
This is a quite brilliant open letter from a 90 year-old Jewish doctor to that unashamed self-publicist John Mann MP.

Tony Greenstein
narcissistic and attention-seeking
Dear Mr Mann, 18/10/2016

It is with a sense of deep distaste personally, and an even deeper concern for the future of our freedom of speech, generally, that I have viewed your recent antics. In my opinion, your behaviour appears both narcissistic and attention-seeking, in the extreme. Whether it is at a level at which one could view it as pathological, I am not sufficiently qualified to say, but it is my view that ‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’ may, reasonably, harbour suspicions.
Your ambush of Ken Livingstone, with pre-arranged media presence is a case in point. Any less reasonable man may have told you to ‘clear off’. Instead he tried, in a calm manner, to point out the historical evidence to support what he had said. His words fell on (your) deaf ears, for you, of course, had decided already that he ‘would float if you threw him in the river’ (the test applied, historically, vis a vis witchcraft). Cynical observers too, may, possibly, take the view that you are attempting, on behalf of others, to airbrush history, in the name of anti-Semitism.
John Mann at the centre of an 'anti-Semitic storm' despite not being Jewish!
Are you not aware of the potential of historical resonance here? Let’s, for the sake of argument, turn history on its head and assume that the Nazis had won WW2. You can imagine, can you not, that they would want to stamp out any reference to the ‘Final Solution’? After all, political opponents in actual historical fact had already gone to the extermination camps, along with the mentally ill, those with learning difficulty, Roma and the Jewish community. So, one might imagine that the Nazis might encourage the denunciation of those who would wish to speak the truth, as ‘Jew lovers’ and make them targets for ‘neutralisation’. Do you take my point? Thankfully, such a situation never came about, thanks to the sacrifice of over 400,000 people, including my own brother, (and many more from other nations) who gave their lives to preserve our freedom of speech.
Let me now refer to matters In connection with Jackie Walker, the former vice-chair of Momentum and with whom we share membership of the Labour Party. I do not wish to refer to the specifics of the matter as her appeal against suspension from the Party is pending, (although the issue of the circumstances of her ‘entrapment’ and ‘denunciation’, are deeply worrying to me). However, your comments that all Labour members who supported her “should be expelled from the Party,” which were reported in the media, absolutely appalled me. The implied ‘guilt by association’ is akin to the ‘fellow traveller’ accusations made during the McCarthyite era in the USA. Shame on you.

There seems to be a desire, on your part, to conflate (i.e. run together as if they represent the same meaning), the words and concepts of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Or perhaps you are just confused? I never have been. To me anti-Zionism represents political opposition to a style of social and political expression stemming from a particular religious interpretation of Judaism. Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, refers to a dislike of Jews, which is rooted in the same xenophobic soil as other forms of racism. When this is openly displayed, we, in Britain have anti-discrimination laws, including those relating to hate speech. Now...the application of and efficacy of our legislation is a matter open for debate and is something you can, potentially, influence as an MP. Why then, at this present time, are you focusing your attention on the Labour Party?

That brings me to the issue of the political motivation for your actions. It has been suggested that your prime motivation, given your position on the right-wing of the Labour Party, is to attempt to undermine the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and all that he stands for. I was a committed and experienced member of the Socialist Medical/Health Association (affiliated) since 1946 and have been a member of the Labour Party since 1972, or thereabouts. As such, I find it difficult not to agree with such a conclusion, in the current circumstances. No doubt your fairly regular visits to Israel (as a consequence of your documented links with organisations and individuals there) must be enjoyable for you on a personal level, but would not, surely, be sufficient incentive, in of themselves?

No.... my view is that, to use military terms, you represent a sniper with a long range rifle, ‘softening up’ the enemy, causing confusion in the opposing ranks, picking off individuals and making people afraid of putting their head above the barricades. You are, however, in my view, waiting for your ‘General’ a.k.a. Tony Blair to come and rally the troops for a counter-offensive. I admire your loyalty to him, but would point out that he doesn’t have an awfully good record militarily. That poor record had quite a lot to do with the allies he chose, or was coerced by (in that regard it was interesting to see Mr Blairs’ presence, almost as if he were still a head of state, at the recent funeral of Shimon Peres, in Israel).

So there we have it....I have concern about the nature of your personal behaviour: I am a Corbyn supporter, and have great sympathy with the situation of Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker, to whom I offer my solidarity: I am also not afraid to look to history for lessons and I view your actions as being ‘McCarthyite’ in nature: I refuse to conflate Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and I see through your cloak of justification and heap scorn upon your underlying political motivation......

So, please feel free to denounce me, though, I suspect, that you lack the moral and political courage to do so.

Throughout my 90 years, I have always held to a belief in the essential goodness of people. That belief has been severely tested in recent times, as I have witnessed your machinations and those of the Labour PLP.

Today, the mere demands of day to day living tax me greatly, but with all the energy I can muster, at the age of 90 years, I offer you, Sir, unfortunately, not fraternal wishes, but my heartfelt derision.

Dr Sam Glatt MCRS LRCP MB ChB
British, Socialist Jew.

John Mann MP,
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Cc Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of the Labour Party, leader@labour.org.uk
Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker

Hastings Festival for Socialism this Sunday

$
0
0
This Sunday the Hastings Labour Movement is holding a festival 4 socialism at which Jackie Walker and myself, amongst many people will be speaking.

Louise Raw in particular is a feminist historian who has written a well researched book about the Matchgirls' Strike of 1888: 'Striking a Light: The Bryant and May Matchwomen and their Place in History'


Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s silence over the Zionist ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign is as deafening as it’s embarrassing

$
0
0

Like the 3 wise monkeys, PSC Executive neither sees, hears nor speaks of anything going wrong

PSC Executive's attitude to the anti-Semitism tsunami  
One of the problems with the leadership of PSC is that they are sometimes intoxicated by their own rhetoric.  They are convinced that, under their brilliant leadership and following the guidance of their own small political organisations, the Palestine solidarity movement is going from strength to strength in an inexorable and unstoppable wave upwards.  In their view there are no setbacks, nothing to be worried about.  Everything can only get better.

In the past year, the Zionist movement, in conjunction with the Labour Right and the establishment media, especially the Guardian, has waged a war against Jeremy Corbyn using ‘anti-Semitism’ as its chosen weapon.  The lack of any evidence of ‘anti-Semitism’ has not been a hindrance to an Establishment consensus that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party has grown like the weeds in an untended garden.
Brighton PSC demonstrator againt BBC coverage of Palestine
There has also been a rebellion in the Zionist ranks in Britain which has completely bypassed PSC Executive.  Previously the staid Board of Deputies, a bourgeois organisation dating back to George III in 1760, mounted the odd demonstration in support of Israel but did very little to combat what was seen by Zionist activists as an assertive and growing Palestine solidarity movement.  The first signs of a rebellion was when Jonathan Hoffman was elected as co-Chair of the Zionist Federation in or around 2009.  Hoffman was not a particularly bright chap and he accused the Chair of the Jewish Leadership Councillors, Sir Micky Davies, of various misdemeanours including being hostile to Israel.  Davies doesn’t tolerate fools or upstarts easily and he threatened a libel action before Hoffman made a grovelling apology.  This resulted, in 2012, in Hoffman being removed from office in the Zionist Federation but his advocacy of opposing Palestine solidarity activists on the street took root.  An example of the debate within the Zionist movement is contained in the newssheet of the Jewish Israel News NetworkIn support of the Zionist Federation Vice Chairman and other activists

In 2014 during Operation Protective Edge, when Israel murdered 2,200 Palestinians in Gaza, including 551 children, the Board of Deputies mounted what was considered a feeble response.  Its demonstration in London barely mustered a couple of thousand people in comparison with the time when they got 25,000 on the streets.  In reaction the Young Turks, grouped around the misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitismmounted a demonstration against ‘anti-Semitism’ outside the Royal Courts of Justice.  Board of Deputies speakers were booed for what was considered their inactivity.  Thousands turn out for London rally against antisemitism Around the same time there was formed activist Zionist groups such as Sussex and North-West Friends of Israel, both consisting of the Zionist far-Right.  Sussex FOI were formed in reaction to the campaign against the Sodastream shop in Brighton.  They were determined to prevent a repeat of what happened in London when Palestine solidarity activists closed down Ahava in Covent Garden, which traded in stolen Palestinian beauty products.  Nonetheless the Sodastream shop, in a major victory, was shut down, but Brighton PSC received little help from PSC nationally in mounting weekly demonstrations which came under sustained and vitriolic abuse and which faced a hostile Police presence.
Demonstrators on a PSC demonstration
The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign in the Labour Party first began with Jeremy Corbyn himself when it was alleged, by the Daily Mail and the Jewish Chronicle, that he kept the company of anti-Semites.  It then resurfacedwith a vengeance this January with the bogus allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ at Oxford University Labour Club.  Its Chair, Alex Chalmers, a former intern for the Israeli propaganda organisation, BICOM, resigned claiming anti-Semitism because the Labour Club had decided to support Israel Apartheid Week.  In March I was suspended, although given no reasons it was leaked to the Telegraphand Times, that the reasons were ‘anti-Semitism’.  In May Jackie Walker was suspended and, having been cleared of the allegation that she blamed the Jews for causing the slave trade, she was again suspendedthis month for remarks made in a Jewish Labour Movement ‘training event’ at Labour Party Conference..  In between Ken Livingstone was suspendedfor having remarked that Hitler supported Zionism.

In between we had the Chakrabarti Report which the Zionists at first welcomed but, as part of their campaign against Corbyn, later denigrated.  Coupled with that was the fake incident of ‘anti-Semitism’ at the Chakrabarti press conference with Ruth Smeeth MP weeping crocodile tears.  The latest event in the false anti-Semitism campaign has been the Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on anti-Semitism.  The Report consciously confuses anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  By redefining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism it seeks to criminalise opposition to Zionism by saying that using Zionism in an ‘accusatory’ or ‘abusive’ manner should be a matter for the criminal law. See Manufacturing Consent On ‘Anti-Semitism’
Over 100 people came to a talk I gave on anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  A number of Zionists were able to speak and put their view across including Lara Gantz below.  This is unlike Zionist meetings where dissenters are physically ejected or shouted down, but holding such a discussion was 'anti-Semitic' according to Ms Gantz
What has been remarkable throughout this bogus campaign, manufactured to order in the Israeli and US Embassies, is that the Executive of Palestine Solidarity Campaign has behaved like the 3 wise monkeys – they have neither seen, heard nor spoken out about what is happening.  They act like an alcoholic in denial.  The opening paragraph in the notice that has gone out about the forthcoming PSC AGM in January 2017 reads:

Thank you for your support over the past year. We have had a hugely successful year with actions and events across the country highlighting the situation Palestinians face. But there is still so much more we can do and our AGM is a key time for you, our members, to feed into our plans for the year.’
PSC Demonstration in London
One is reminded of what Bob Dylan wrote in Love Minus Zero/No Limit‘There’s no success like failure and failure’s no success at all’.  The worse things get for PSC Executive the better they are. The statement unconsciously gives witness to the problem.  The AGM is a key time 'for you, our members, to feed into OUR plans for the year.'  The role of the membership is to serve the Executive and its plans.  It has no active role in determining what the priorities are.

There are a number of reasons for this but in my view it is primarily because of the politics of what has become a self-perpetuating clique that runs the Executive.  They have depoliticised the struggle of the Palestinians and turned what is a political struggle into one of human rights.

There are many campaigns in the world over human rights.  The struggle of the Palestinians is not exceptional in that regard.  However bad the plight of the Palestinians is there are many countries where the situation is far more dire – Syria, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.  What makes the Palestine struggle unique is that Israel is the world’s only active settler colonial state.  It is the world’s only apartheid state.  It is a state that is at the centre of the West’s military ad strategic presence in the Middle East.
In response to the decision of the Israeli High Court that the Jewish National Fund could not refuse to rent or lease land to Israeli Palestinians, the JNF put on its website a statement that 70% of Israeli Jews opposed this decision and that 80% of Israeli Jews prefer a Jewish state to a state of all of its citizens.  Could it be any clearer?
PSC is an organisation that supports BDS and the struggle for Palestinian rights but it is not an explicitly anti-Zionist organisation.  It has no critique of the Israeli state as an inherently racist, Jewish supremacist state which is based on the racial subjugation of the Palestinians.  Indeed its support for a 2 State solution effectively means it supports the continued existence of a ‘Jewish’ state within the 1948 armistice borders.  It supports the quisling Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, whose ‘President,  Mahmoud Abbas believes that repressing the Palestinian resistance and supporting the Israeli security forces and providing them with intelligence is ‘sacred’.  This is a regime which acted last year to actively prevent a third intifada, which brutally attacks all resistance demonstrations and activities, which uses torture as a matter of course and arrests and hands over to the Israeli military Palestinian activists.  PSC says nothing about this regime, whereas the Anti-Apartheid Movement never had any problem in criticising the leadership of the Bantustans or Buthulezi, the client Zulu leader.

It is because PSC has no analysis or understanding of Zionism, the ideology and movement which gave birth to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and the refugee problemthat they have no answer to the attacks by the media and the Zionists on ‘anti-Semitism’ other than to say that supporting the Palestinians is not anti-Semitic.  They have precious little to say about the racism that Israeli Palestinians experience either.

There is a belief in PSC that the false and fake ‘anti-Semitism’  campaign is an internal Labour Party matter in which they should not get involved.  This is utterly myopic.  The Israeli Embassy, which has effectively seconded one of their staff members to be Director of the Jewish Labour Movement certainly doesn’t take the same attitude.  It intervenes in every area where there is anti-Zionist or Palestine solidarity campaigning.  What is happening in the Labour Party is not confined to the Labour Party.  The affair at Oxford University was about supporting an Israel Apartheid Week.  The suspension of Labour Party activists has been on account of their criticism of Israel and Zionism.  The Home Affairs Select Committee Report which is recommending the criminalisation of criticism of Zionism is an alliance of the Labour Right and Conservative MPs.  We are heading for a situation as in France where BDS is all but illegal.  In Scotland a Palestine solidarity activist was prosecutedfor shouting ‘Viva Palestina.’   To treat what is happening in the Labour Party as an internal matter is an illustration of the political weaknesses of the current PSC leadership.

The other political weakness of PSC which is allied to its lack of a clear anti-Zionist politics, is its support for 2 States.  It’s Boycott activities relate primarily to settlement goods.  It plays down a Boycott of Israel itself even though the settlements in the West Bank only exist because Israel ‘proper’ supports them.  Indeed PSC is about the only organisation to recognise the Green Line between Israel and the West Bank.  Israel certainly make no such distinction.  A 2 States solution today is a position supported by all Zionist organisations in Britain – from the Board of Deputies of British Jews to the Labour Friends of Israel and Tory politicians.  Why?  Because the Zionists know that a Palestinian state will never be formed.  They can therefore afford to support it.

The Peace Process is a war process.  It provides the cover for the continuing expansion of the settlements at the same time as it provides a pretext for the denial of any civil or political rights to the Palestinians.  Israel is today a single state, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, but if it gave the vote and full civil and political rights to the Palestinians under occupation the Jewish state would be faced with a position in which Palestinians were in the majority.  So Israel has to maintain the present Apartheid situation which is why it prefers to maintain the fiction of 2 states.

If we contrast Stop the War Committee with PSC we see where the lethargy and inactivity of PSC have led us.  The former have kept close to Corbyn and not allowed him to water down his anti-nuclear weapons positions.  Corbyn was also a PSC patron.  He has attended virtually every PSC Conference in the past decade, or at least up to his election as Leader of the Labour Party.  Since then?  The words ‘Palestine’ have barely crossed his lips. 

But Corbyn has patronised Labour Friends of Israel and attended its fringe meetings two years in a row.  This year, by all accounts, Corbyn’s presence at the LFI meeting was marked by his friendliness to Israel’s uncritical apologists for all things Israeli.  Luke Akehurst, an unsuccessful candidate for Labour’s National Executive Committee wrotein the Times of Israel that Corbyn at the LFI reception surprised everyone with a carefully worded and balanced speech on both Israel and antisemitism, in sharp contrast to the car crash last year where he would not even say the word “Israel”.’

Corbyn has also spent the year denouncing anti-Semitism without ever once condemning the use of anti-Semitism as a weapon which has been deployed against the Left and supporters of Palestine.

Internal Problems on PSC Executive

In addition PSC has been going through a number of problems, all of which it has tried to hide from its members.  I am reliably told that Hugh Lanning, Chair of PSC resigned earlier this year and was reluctantly persuaded to withdraw his resignation.

On 23 May 2016 Lanning resigned as Chair of PSC with immediate effect in an e-mail which he sent to the vice-chair and copied to all PSC Exec members and the staff in the PSC Office.  The resignation came without any prior warning and the Exec decided to ask him to revoke his resignation.  Lanning did retract his resignation but only some 3 weeks later.  At no point have the branches been informed of these problems which come in addition to the problematic resignation of Sara Colborne, the previous Director of PSC. 

I am told that the reason Lanning resigned was that he felt the atmosphere on the Executive was negative and not supportive enough of him as Chair.   By all accounts the Executive was shocked at the way he resigned not least because of the timing which was right in the middle of the anti-semitism attacks on the whole movement when PSC should have been trying to push back on the attacks. Lanning has been on the 'let's keep our heads down and hope it will all go away' faction on the  Exec.  The PSC Executive is worried that Lanning will bale out again when he thinks the going gets tough. Apparently PSC Executive took weeks to decide he should come back but it is not clear under what terms . I have a copy of the resignation but I am not making it public at this time.

On April 11thof this year I wrote an Open Letter to the National Secretary of PSC, Ben Soffa.  I detailed the Zionist attacks on supporters of the Palestinians and anti-Zionists, including my own suspension.   

I wrote that PSC prided itself on being the largest solidarity organisation in Britain and that it had boasted in its Annual Report that it had contacted 1,042 candidates at the General Election, yet it hasn’t seen fit to contact any Labour parliamentarians to speak up against the attacks of the Zionists and MPs like John Mann and Louise Ellman.  I asked why it hadn’t organized any public meetings with people like Ken Livingstone (who of course was later suspended himself) or called press conferences, written articles etc.  I wrote that ‘PSC is renowned for its caution and timidity but there must be some limits to this.’  Unfortunately I was wrong.  There were no limits.  I pointed out that PSC had resources that other groups did not.  It has paid staff, media contacts, contacts with MPs etc. and that it was ‘inexcusable that it has done absolutely nothing to respond to the Zionists daily attacks.’   Whereas I and others had organised joint letters from Jewish groups to the Guardian and Independent and complained about the biased BBC coverage,  PSC had simply ignored what was happening. 

I wrote that‘The ceaseless political attack by the Zionists on support for the Palestinians in the LP cannot simply be ignored.  They will not go away because their campaign is linked with the determination of the Right in the LP to remove Corbyn.  ‘Anti-Semitism’ is their weapon of choice.’  It pains me to say that I have been proved right.  I also predicted that ‘Until Jeremy Corbyn firmly rebuts his critics he will continue to come under attack.  Appeasement rarely works.  It is no use Corbyn saying that he opposes anti-Semitism because what he means by anti-Semitism and the Zionists mean by it are two different things.  Their ‘anti-Semitism’ is, as they freely admit, anti-Zionism.  Until Corbyn speaks out saying that yes he opposes anti-Semitism but yes he supports the Palestinians, including the Boycott of Israel, giving chapter and verse on why Israel is a racist and apartheid state, then the attacks will continue.’

On 20th April Ben Soffa responded to my letter.  The gist of his reply was contained in the following paragraph:

“Many recent attacks reflect the strategy set out by the Israeli strategic thinktank the Reut Institute in their 2010 report, which because of our successes, largely focused on PSC: 

"A central objective is to change this situation by forcing them to 'play defense'.  This means systematically exposing information about delegitimizers, their activities, and the organizations that they operate out of. The goal is to eventually frame them, depending on their agendas, as anti-peace, anti-Semitic, dishonest purveyors of double standards."

Although Ben accepted that ‘the upsurge in attempts to link support for the rights of the Palestinian people with anti-Semitism requires a new a concerted response’ referring me to a recent branch forum in Birmingham in March and promising to ‘significantly increase the priority and resources devoted to this area’ in practice  nothing at all has happened. 

The reason is clear.  PSC Executive’s idea of a response was to inform me that ‘we will shortly be launching an initiative proudly declaring not only the legitimacy of campaigning for Palestinian freedom, but our urgent duty to speak out against the onslaught faced by those living with occupation, siege and exile. This will include national press advertising, online publicity and other political initiatives.  Prominent within this will be an assertion of the right to boycott. We will be explicitly refuting the absurd allegation that refusing to buy, or declining to invest in goods, arms or services from entities due to their complicity in breaches of international law is in any way racist.’  Ben further informed me that ‘We have already begun discussions with partner organisation how we can better co-ordinate our work challenging the attempts to smear our movement. We will be seeking to bring together a co-ordinating group of organisations working in this area in the very near future.’
Ben concluded by adding that ‘I make no apology for the fact that we do not engage in every debate some would wish to involve us in. As the Reut Institute set out, there is a plan to force us to 'play defence' on the terrain chosen by those wishing to preserve the status quo in Palestine. We must not fall into the trap of allowing our opponents to set our agenda, which is precisely why PSC chooses to make the intervention we feel are most helpful to the situation, rather than seeking to make every intervention which might be possible.

There are a number of glaring problems with this.  In the first place, just because your opponents threaten to put you on the defensive, it is no reason to therefore ignore them.   If someone attacks you then sometimes you have to respond.  How you respond is a different question. The fact is that the Zionists have mounted a very concerted and successful campaign in the past few months.  The Vice Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement Mike Katz got a standing ovation at Labour Party Conference.  The reason for this is because the Zionists have launched their attacks in conjunction with the Labour Right, backed up by the Tory Party and the organs of the state. 

Whereas previously the Zionist organisations in the Labour Party and in particular Poalei Zion/JLM were largely defunct, they have recently been revived.  To ignore the Zionists in this situation is to do nothing about their attacks.  It is in essence to adopt a position of pacifism.  Not responding is tantamount to retreating.

The second problem with this is that it ignores the central thrust of the Zionist attack.  Simply declaring the ‘legitimacy of campaigning for Palestinian freedom’ is not enough.  It is effectively to ignore the thrust of the Zionist campaign.  The Zionists aren’t saying that you can’t campaign for Palestine.  On the contrary they say they support 2 states and an end to the Occupation (which of course is a lie but that is what they say).  What they are doing however is to use ‘anti-Semitism’ as a specific weapon to attack the anti-Zionist Left.  They have therefore taken out people like Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone, Charley Allan and myself.  They have made a particular target of Jewish anti-Zionists.  In such a situation to simply say nothing other than to repeat that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism is politically negligent if not worse.

As for holding discussion with partner organizations and ‘seeking to bring together a co-ordinating group of organisations working in this area in the very near future’ this is and was mere words.  Nothing whatsoever has been done.  The main group which has fought the ‘anti-Semitism’ attack has been Free Speech on Israel.  It has not been contacted by PSC.  Whereas FSOI has been consistently hamstrung by lack of funds and resources, PSC has these in abundance.

FSOI consists mainly, though not entirely, of Jewish anti-Zionists who have played a prominent part in rebutting the claim that opposition to Zionism is anti-Semitic.  On October 2nd I posted a short message on the Boycott Israel Network:

‘ Corbyn has backtracked on BDS and PSC has said absolutely nothing the whole past year on the anti-Semitism attack by the Zionists.  PSC's behaviour is outrageous as they have made no attempt to keep Corbyn in line’.  I referred people to an articleI’d written on how Corbyn had effectively abandoned 30 years of support for the Palestinians.  Someone by the name of Salim replied taking issue with my statement:

 Tony, You say ‘PSC has said absolutely nothing the whole past year on the anti-Semitism attack by the Zionists’ .  In fact the following was issued by PSC on 3 May 2016 and publicised.’

It is true that PSC issued a statement.  The problem is that this was all that they did.

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, who is an activist with both FSOI and also Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods responded thus:

‘I am a PSC member, and I have seen nothing in their postings that isn’t just a routine and uninspired recital of assurances that PSC, and the solidarity movement is anti-racist and certainly not anti-Semitic.

 Meanwhile a firestorm has been raging, alleging rampant antisemitism in the Labour Party in an attempt to unset Jeremy Corbyn. PSC has nothing to say about this?! Corbyn has been an excellent and committed friend of Palestine over decades. The attack on him is at least partly (ie the Zionist part) precisely because of this.

 None of the many pro-Israel Jewish Community organisations is holding back – from attacking him. They have funding, offices, staffing, media contacts. PSC is the only Palestine support organisation that has these assets, but does nothing with them. It leaves the defence against hyped and invented claims of antisemitism to be contested by voluntary organisations – BIN, Free Speech on Israel, Jewish Socialist Group – which have nothing but their enthusiasm and energy to throw into the breach.

Jonathan

And in these 3 paragraphs Jonathan Rosenhead set out eloquently the case against the passivity and inertia, indeed paralysis of PSC Executive.

Another activist in FSOI and J-Big, Les Levidow, also responded and again I quote what he wrote in toto:

After Salim's message there was little response on this list. Why? Perhaps because most of us have given up on PSC doing anything more than ritual repetition, so why bother complaining?  Anyway this problem should be made more explicit.  Let us review the recent history.

With the Oxford Union Labour Club conflict, the 'antisemitism' smear campaign began in February and soon escalated.  Spearheaded by the Jewish Labour Movement, all the pro-Israel forces were throwing their resources into intervening in the Labour Party. Regardless of whether we are members, we all recognised the necessity of a coherent counter-strategy, especially against the JLM and its allies.  We set up FSOI to do so. 

Some of us also asked PSC to deploy its significant resources for such a counter-campaign.  After several weeks delay, PSC issued the 3rd May statement below.  This does not even name the smear campaign.  It could have been the start of a counter-campaign, but instead it was a perfunctory gesture: end of story. 

When Bernard Regan was a speaker at a Haringey public event (probably in May), I distributed the FSOI flyer and spoke from the floor, asking everyone to help counter the smear campaign.  His reply was basically, "They want us to stop talking about Palestine, so we will continue raising the issue."  Some PSC people said to me that we need not (or even should not)  involve ourselves 'in internal disputes within the Labour Party'.  This response mis-recognised the enemy attack in several respects, thus justifying no change in PSC's activities and targets.

With our scant resources, FSOI has tried to oppose the JLM agenda in many ways. We have regularly sent letters to the press, but only a few get published.  We have tried to contact, defend and link LP members who were suspended for supposedly antisemitic comments.  We organised interventions against the smear campaign at the Liverpool LP conference. Given PSC's much greater resources and paid staff, what has been its contribution?

As a symptom of a deeper problem, we have just seen a Zionist press report on pro-Palestine fringe meetings during the LP conference.

The pro-Palestinian fringe meetings were downbeat, focused only on settlements, not on any broader agenda. The MPs who spoke from the platform at these events took a moderate and considered line. In fact, most of them are people who spent the summer trying to unseat Corbyn as leader.

Judging from this and other reports, such events gave anti-Corbyn, LFI-affiliated MPs a convenient cover, e.g. by merely criticising settlements, supporting official recognition of Palestine, advocating a 2-state solution, etc.  Apparently little or nothing was said about BDS, much less the colonial-settler character of Israel (except by Manuel Hassassian).  So MPs can be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine at the same time! The Zionist lobby had little to fear from such events.

Those events symptomise a general political approach which weakens the solidarity movement.  A minimalist agenda helps our enemies to distinguish between 'legitimate criticism of Israel' (e.g. settlements) and 'antisemitism', e.g. opposition to Zionism.  What was PSC's role in influencing those fringe events?  How it will try to correct the above problem?

Les

Despite talk of 'partner organisations' PSC Executive is highly sectarian.  It works with virtually nobody.  It hasn't even bothered to contact FSOI about how it might help.  It opposed last year working with 'Together Against Prevent'.  This has to change.

What Can Be Done?

The key figures on PSC Executive belong to a secretive political group, Socialist Action or associated splinters from the old International Marxist Group.  They are uncritical of bourgeois nationalism and reject direct action or much political activism.  Hence PSC has been completely uncritical of Mahmoud Abbas’s quisling Palestinian Authority, even though it is a sub-contractor for the Israeli Defence Forces.  This is in contrast say to Electronic Intifada which hasn’t hesitated to criticise what it terms the Vichy administration in Ramallah. See for example The Palestinian Authority stands in the way of the Palestinian struggle

PSC has become an organisation which simply engages in routinism – an annual lobby of Parliament, a week around the Nakba or the Hewlett Packard  boycott, worthy in themselves but they are incapable of adapting to what is a changed political climate.  In a situation where the Zionist movement is on the attack, simply confining oneself to routine activities represents an abandonment of politics. 

At the forthcoming PSC AGM it is essential that a number of people from the branches stand for election to the Executive.  There urgently needs to be some new blood and new ideas on the Executive.  I am myself prepared to stand for election although I had hoped that having served in the formative period of PSC in the 1980’s that I wouldn’t have to stand again.

In addition there is a need for a serious review of the way PSC operates.  It has a number of paid staff but they don’t seem to be used in a particularly productive way.  PSC rests on the activity of its branches but the organisation as a whole is less than the sum of its parts.  Although the constitution (which is no longer available on-line)  makes provision for regional representatives on PSC Executive, the Executive has in the past consciously sought not to implement this clause.

There is an urgent need for a dedicated Branch Development Officer to encourage the growth of new branches and to consolidate and help existing branches and indeed to try to co-ordinate things like speakers’ tours.

It is clear with the attacks on the new President of NUS that there is an urgent need for some co-ordination and support for existing Palestine societies, given the amount of support and funding that goes to the Union of Jewish Students, which is a wholly Zionist outfit.

I want to suggest a Review of PSC is immediately set up from this Conference consisting of 6 people, including the National Secretary and one other Executive member, which can make proposals for the future operation of PSC.  It is long overdue when there was a systematic investigation into how PSC is working, its faults, failures but also successes and how things can be improved.

Such a review would look at existing fundraising and improving it, the deployment of staff and any other matter that can lead to an improved and functional PSC.

It is also crucial that the Executive consist primarily of activists and not those whose days of activity have long since gone.  It is crucial that within the next year, a regional structure of PSC is implemented and that regional representatives, elected by the branches, take their position on PSC Executive.  The days when PSC Executive is seen as the monopoly of one or other political grouping must end.  This is crippling PSC’s effectiveness.  This doesn’t mean a witch hunt of any political group  but a recognition that PSC belongs to its members.

The most crucial problem with PSC is not organisational but political.  I suggest a number of things:

i.               It is long overdue that PSC junked its 2 state position and came out clearly in favour of a democratic and secular unitary state.  Israel today is a single state, there is no green line, but it is a state where half the population – the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza – have no civil or political rights. 

No doubt this will need fighting for in the trade union and labour movement but we cannot avoid this fight.  Yes people are comfortable with the idea of 2 states.  It sounds as if it will satisfy everybody but in practice it satisfies only one side – the Zionists. 

ii.             A 2 state solution omits the question of Zionism.  Zionism, the movement which established the Israeli state does not and never has recognised a shared sovereignty over what it terms the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael).  No member of the Israeli government supports a 2 state solution but Netanyahu is happy to pay lip service to the idea, despite rejecting it at the 2015 Israeli general election because he knows and the Americans know, that verbal acknowledgment of 2 states allows settlement building to proceed apace.  Further it allows Israel to maintain a situation of apartheid whereby for another 50 years, Palestinians will live under a separate system of laws and military rule.
Tzipi Hotoveli - Israel's religious nutcase of a Deputy Foreign Minister
When Tzipi Hotoveli, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Secretary saidThis land is ours.All of it is ours. We expect as a matter of principle of the international community to recognize Israel’s right to build homes for Jews in their homeland, everywhere.” We should believe her.  Even if a 2 state solution were desirable, which I don’t accept, it is no longer feasible.  That is why all Britain’s Zionist organizations, from the Jewish Labour Movement to the Board of Deputies support it!  PSC at present is utterly stupid for not being able to recognize reality. 

iii.           We should also explicitly reject the idea of a Jewish state.  A Jewish state in the context of a settler colonial state can only mean that the state is inherently racist.  Being Jewish means possessing apartheid-style privileges.  PSC should be an explicitly anti-Zionist organisation.  If we are sincere in saying that Israel is an apartheid state we have to oppose the ideology of that state, Zionism.

iv.           PSC needs to recognize that the outcome of the Oslo Accords in 1993, when the PLO and Israel reached an agreement, is that Israel has been able to subcontract out, a considerable part of the repressive activities of the Israeli state to the Palestinian Authority.  The PA quite consciously acts as the arms of the Israeli Defence Forces.  For this it receives aid money.  We should be quite clear about the nature of the PA.

These are just a few proposals as to resolutions to PSC Conference.

Tony Greenstein



A Desperate John Mann MP Tries to Undermine 90 year old Jewish Doctor's Letter by Falsely Alleging It was a Forgery

$
0
0

Mann Suggests that 90 Year Old Dr Sam Glatt Wasn’t Capable of Writing the Letter that Condemned his Wrecking Tactics

Dr Sam Glatt at a Newcastle Labour Party dinner last year with Jeremy Corbyn

The Ubiquitous John Mann - or 'rent-a-mouth' as he is known in the trade
Update:      
Following this post, John Mann rang Dr Glatt again today to try and get him to retract!!  He denied saying that supporters of Jackie Walker should be expelled and challenged Sam for the source of his allegation.  Well Sam is 90 and not as quick as he used to be so he referred Mann, whose actions are those of a bully and coward, to Graham Martin.
It is however understandable that Mann couldn't remember what he said, so I will remind him.  In an article in Politics Home, Mann said:
enough is enough” and argued it was time for Labour to cut ties with her.
Though she claims impunity for many reasons, Jackie Walker’s behaviour is discriminatory, provocative, offensive and by any standard unacceptable in a modern political party,” ....
“Not only has she caused offence personally, she has inspired waves of anti-Semitic and racist backlash including Holocaust denial.
“Not only must she be expelled from the Labour party immediately but all those abusing others in supporting her must go too.
“Temporary suspensions are not good enough, these people must be given permanent bans and no platform to express their antisemitism anywhere in the Labour party, if we are to be serious about opposing anti-Jewish hatred.”

Mann has now taken the whole Facebook post accusing wicked anti-Zionists of forging Dr Glatt's name on the letter down!  Instead Jonathan Hoffman, the former Zionist Federation co-Vice-Chair who is happy to work with the Jewish and English Defence Leagues, has leapt to his defence with a blog for The Times of Israel.

Two days ago I published an Open Letter from a 90 year old Jewish doctor, Dr Sam Glatt, to John Mann MP.  Even by parliamentary standards, John Mann is widely seen as a boorish, conceited loudmouth.  A rent-a-mouth who is attracted to publicity like a moth to the light.  But not even I imagined that instead of coming to terms with Dr Glatt’s trenchant criticisms and rethinking what Dr Glatt termed his McCarthyite behaviour, Mann would instead decide to rubbish the letter by claiming it was a forgery.

The thrust of Mann’s argument was that a 90 year old man wasn’t capable of writing such an articulate and thoughtful letter.  A letter that attracted (so far) over 33,000 hits on this blog alone.  One would think that someone who is so concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ would think twice about ageism and bigotry to the old.  But as we all know, John Mann isn’t concerned about opposing anti-Semitism but supporting the Israeli state, an armed superpower in the Middle East, the recipient of the largest amount of US aid of any country and a state that maintains a viciously racist and oppressive regime over the Palestinians.

John Mann conveniently denied that the letter was genuine
Following reports today that the letter which I had published on my blogfrom Sam Glatt, a member of the Labour Party, had been forged by Graham Martin, a Momentum member, I took steps to ascertain whether or not I had published a forgery.  It would certainly have been embarrassing if I had.  Lots of posts had begun arriving from gleeful Zionists saying exactly that! 
If the letter was a forgery then this was a very stupid, as well as dishonest, act.  Whoever was responsible should have realised that the truth would soon be revealed.  As I was preparing a response accepting I had made a genuine mistake, I was made aware of a tweet from a Dr Alan Maddison, a friend of Dr Glatt, who insisted that the letter was genuine.  At first I was sceptical as John Mann’s explanationseemed convincing. 
After corresponding with Dr Maddison it was clear that there were grounds for questioning whether the the letter was a forgery.   Alan gave me the phone number of Dr Glatt and I spoke to both him and Graham Martin.  It became clear to me very quickly that the original letter was not a forgery and I copy below both the first letter and a second draft letter, which Dr Glatt has written backing up the first.
Even John Mann is going to have difficulty alleging that the second letter is a forgery since it is written, in best doctor’s handwriting (!) by Dr Glatt himself.  I just hope that Mr Mann is hungry as he has an awful lot of humble pie to consume. 
John Mann’s allegations of a forgery are classic Zionist tactics.  It's all an anti-Zionist conspiracy!  Attack the messenger and avoid the message.  Instead of coming to terms with what Dr Glatt was saying, that he was falsely accusing people like Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone of anti-Semitism and also destroying the chances of Labour electorally, Mann did what we have come to expect from him.  He sought to evade the message by attacking the man.  Further comment on Mann’s behaviour would be superfluous. 
Mann was so annoyed he had been rumbled that he repeatedly phoned Graham Martin, a friend of Dr Glatt, who helped him compose the letter.
Below is:
i.                A draft of the second letter which Dr Glatt wrote
ii.              An biographical article by Dr Alan Maddison about his friend, Dr Sam Glatt
iii.            The original letter which John Mann MP believes is a forgery  
A typical Zionist tweet gleefully announcing that it was us wicked anti-Zionists who had invented this calumny against the saintly John Mann MP

Draft Letter From Dr Sam Glatt to John Mann MP


Dear Mr Mann, 
Thank u for your letter.  First let me say that my previous letter was a joint letter with Graham Martin.  If the language appears to be robust in places I can only reply that the incidents you were involved seriously undermined the character of 2 people, Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone and diminished the chances of victory in the forthcoming general election. 
Graham Martin shared my concerns and was a great help in assembling the facts in such a case.  It is physically difficult for me to visit people but I am in full possession of my mental faculties.  I am not a puppet of Graham’s. 
There is one word in your letter which is a sheer invention.  I’ve  never said that I despise you or hate you as you suggested.  I find your views that people should be expelled from the party for supporting Jackie Walker abhorrent and your propagation of them incomprehensible to me.  This has to stop.
In my opinion this undermining of Corbyn and supporters by weaponising anti-Semitism repeatedly has to stop.  It damages the Labour Party and offends many of its members.  If a forthright letter from me can stop this I will have achieved my objective. 
Yours sincerely,

Dr Sam Glatt
A sample of the many messages I received today from the Zionists.  All of them KNEW that Dr Glatt's letter was a forgery because Israel is beyond criticism and anti-Semitism is ubiquitous in the Labour Party

An 89 year old Jewish friend finds anti-Semitic attacks on Corbyn ludicrous. By Alan Maddison

August 21, 2015Author by PoliticalSiftPosted in Guest Posts  in Wordpress.com
Alan Maddison · @alanmaddison20
I asked Sam, a retired Jewish GP, for his reflections as he happens to be a Jeremy Corbyn supporter.
He, like many other Corbyn supporters are understandably dismayed at what they see as this ‘smear campaign’ with no convincing basis in fact, against this man of principle and peace. They see their hopes being hi-jacked by these attacks. Some Corbyn supporters have launched a campaign publishing photographs of many other British politicians with characters such as Pinochet (allegedly involved in state torture and murder), members of the Saudi royal family (allegedly involved in creating ISIL and ignoring human rights) with the heading ‘Guilty by Association’ to make their point.
‘Twitter’ exchanges about Corbyn’s meetings with those who encourage terrorism, have not been very helpful. The fact that Corbyn has never encouraged, nor condoned violence, and for decades has been a genuine promoter of peace, cuts no ice with his Jewish critics. Neither has it helped when Corbyn explains that in order to have peace you have to talk to people whose view you do not share, as was necessary for Northern Ireland. Nor does is help that he thinks the Holocaust was the most vile event in history and that he says he is not anti-Semitic.
Last night I went to see Sam, a wise old (89 years) Jewish friend. Sam is a very intelligent and thoughtful man whom I admire enormously. I was interested in getting his reflections on this disturbing conflict of views regarding their claim that Corbyn is an anti-Semite. Sam is a retired GP and a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn would you believe? 
Sam told me that father was a refugee from Hungary in 1900 and his family lived in the East End of London. They were very poor and not always treated well by the local ‘gentiles’, but Sam said it was a case of a punch in the face rather than a knife attack as can happen to other immigrants (rarely) today. At the time of the Moseley marches in the 1930’s he was only 13 years old, but he remembers that the only support the Jewish community got was from the Communist party, all the other parties turned a blind eye, and some on the right were even supporters of fascism. 
Apparently Jeremy Corbyn’s parents were themselves in movements showing solidarity with the Jewish community at this time – ironic that the child of such rare friends to our Jewish community is now treated in this way by some of our own.
Sam, of course, talked about the horrors of the war. The hopeless fleeing of fascism, the dreadful concentration camps, the millions slaughtered so cruelly by the fascists, including innocent children. He said “ do you know they actually made these poor victims pay a fare before putting them on these cattle-wagon trains to take them to the concentration camps?”
After the war, in which all his family in Europe were lost, Sam said that the fear of the Jewish people was that the holocaust could be repeated. No country had opened their door to the Jews fleeing fascism before the war. This is why they are vigilant for any rebirth of anti-Semitism that could eventually grow so that history is repeated. There is understandably a lot of strong emotion when anti-Semitism is suspected and it makes rational dialogue in the case of these unfair slurs on Corbyn almost impossible. 
This terrible fear of Jews, that history is repeated, is why the birth of Israel was so important and why its protection today is vital for them. Sam adds though that it was so unfair to punish Palestinians for what German fascists had done to European Jews! 
Many Jews also do not now accept the brutality too often used by Israel government against the Palestinian people. Many Jews desire, as most of the World, the protection of the State of Israel alongside a separate viable State of Palestine. 
The only means by which this can be achieved is by the sort of dialogue that Jeremy Corbyn undertakes. He should rather be thanked. It is ludicrous to describe Jeremy Corbyn as anti-Semitic, rather ask how could he fail to be moved by the plight of the people of Gaza?
In trying to help an oppressed minority, as his parents did for the Jews, he is also trying to facilitate a peace that would reduce the anxieties and victims of Israelis under the threat of attack. 
These unjustified attacks on our friend, Jeremy Corbyn, can only create tensions between the Jewish people, here or in Israel, and the peaceful Corbyn supporters whose vision, ironically, is for a fairer, kinder Britain.
By Dr Alan Maddison • @alanmaddison20
Please comment, share, follow this blog and follow me on Twitter @PoliticalSift 
Original Letter to John Mann MP 
Dear Mr Mann, 18/10/2016 
It is with a sense of deep distaste personally, and an even deeper concern for the future of our freedom of speech, generally, that I have viewed your recent antics. In my opinion, your behaviour appears both narcissistic and attention-seeking, in the extreme. Whether it is at a level at which one could view it as pathological, I am not sufficiently qualified to say, but it is my view that ‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’ may, reasonably, harbour suspicions. 
Your ambush of Ken Livingstone, with pre-arranged media presence is a case in point. Any less reasonable man may have told you to ‘clear off’. Instead he tried, in a calm manner, to point out the historical evidence to support what he had said. His words fell on (your) deaf ears, for you, of course, had decided already that he ‘would float if you threw him in the river’ (the test applied, historically, vis a vis witchcraft). Cynical observers too, may, possibly, take the view that you are attempting, on behalf of others, to airbrush history, in the name of anti-Semitism.

Are you not aware of the potential of historical resonance here? Let’s, for the sake of argument, turn history on its head and assume that the Nazis had won WW2. You can imagine, can you not, that they would want to stamp out any reference to the ‘Final Solution’? After all, political opponents in actual historical fact had already gone to the extermination camps, along with the mentally ill, those with learning difficulty, Roma and the Jewish community. So, one might imagine that the Nazis might encourage the denunciation of those who would wish to speak the truth, as ‘Jew lovers’ and make them targets for ‘neutralisation’. Do you take my point? Thankfully, such a situation never came about, thanks to the sacrifice of over 400,000 people, including my own brother, (and many more from other nations) who gave their lives to preserve our freedom of speech.

Let me now refer to matters In connection with Jackie Walker, the former vice-chair of Momentum and with whom we share membership of the Labour Party. I do not wish to refer to the specifics of the matter as her appeal against suspension from the Party is pending, (although the issue of the circumstances of her ‘entrapment’ and ‘denunciation’, are deeply worrying to me). However, your comments that all Labour members who supported her “should be expelled from the Party,” which were reported in the media, absolutely appalled me. The implied ‘guilt by association’ is akin to the ‘fellow traveller’ accusations made during the McCarthyite era in the USA. Shame on you. 

There seems to be a desire, on your part, to conflate (i.e. run together as if they represent the same meaning), the words and concepts of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Or perhaps you are just confused? I never have been. To me anti-Zionism represents political opposition to a style of social and political expression stemming from a particular religious interpretation of Judaism. Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, refers to a dislike of Jews, which is rooted in the same xenophobic soil as other forms of racism. When this is openly displayed, we, in Britain have anti-discrimination laws, including those relating to hate speech. Now...the application of and efficacy of our legislation is a matter open for debate and is something you can, potentially, influence as an MP. Why then, at this present time, are you focusing your attention on the Labour Party? 

That brings me to the issue of the political motivation for your actions. It has been suggested that your prime motivation, given your position on the right-wing of the Labour Party, is to attempt to undermine the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and all that he stands for. I was a committed and experienced member of the Socialist Medical/Health Association (affiliated) since 1946 and have been a member of the Labour Party since 1972, or thereabouts. As such, I find it difficult not to agree with such a conclusion, in the current circumstances. No doubt your fairly regular visits to Israel (as a consequence of your documented links with organisations and individuals there) must be enjoyable for you on a personal level, but would not, surely, be sufficient incentive, in of themselves? 

No.... my view is that, to use military terms, you represent a sniper with a long range rifle, ‘softening up’ the enemy, causing confusion in the opposing ranks, picking off individuals and making people afraid of putting their head above the barricades. You are, however, in my view, waiting for your ‘General’ a.k.a. Tony Blair to come and rally the troops for a counter-offensive. I admire your loyalty to him, but would point out that he doesn’t have an awfully good record militarily. That poor record had quite a lot to do with the allies he chose, or was coerced by (in that regard it was interesting to see Mr Blairs’ presence, almost as if he were still a head of state, at the recent funeral of Shimon Peres, in Israel). 

So there we have it....I have concern about the nature of your personal behaviour: I am a Corbyn supporter, and have great sympathy with the situation of Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker, to whom I offer my solidarity: I am also not afraid to look to history for lessons and I view your actions as being ‘McCarthyite’ in nature: I refuse to conflate Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and I see through your cloak of justification and heap scorn upon your underlying political motivation...... 

So, please feel free to denounce me, though, I suspect, that you lack the moral and political courage to do so. 

Throughout my 90 years, I have always held to a belief in the essential goodness of people. That belief has been severely tested in recent times, as I have witnessed your machinations and those of the Labour PLP. 

Today, the mere demands of day to day living tax me greatly, but with all the energy I can muster, at the age of 90 years, I offer you, Sir, unfortunately, not fraternal wishes, but my heartfelt derision. 

Dr Sam Glatt MCRS LRCP MB ChB

British, Socialist Jew.

John Mann MP,

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Cc Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of the Labour Party, leader@labour.org.uk

Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker

Complaint Against John Mann MP for Harassment

$
0
0
Let us see how quickly Iain McNicol acts on a complaint against the Right?

Graham Martin complains on Facebook about harassment from John Mann MP
Dr Sam Glatt, the 90 year old Jewish doctor who told John Mann to stop using anti-Semitism for political and Zionist ends and to stop undermining Jeremy Corbyn
What began with a letterfrom a 90 year old Jewish doctor, Sam Glatt to John Mann, complaining at his weaponising of anti-Semitism against Labour Party anti-racists such as Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker and myself ended up with false allegations by Mann that the letter was a forgery and that Dr Glatt had not written it.  The clear implication of what Mann wrote on his Facebook page was that Dr Glatt, being Jewish and 90 years old, was not capable of writing the letter.

Instead John Mann attributed the authorship of the letter to a Momentum activist, Graham Martin whom Mann laid into.  Whilst he, Mann, was inviting Dr Glatt to the House of Commons to see how democracy works, he wouldn’t be inviting someone who had written this ‘hate mail’ because ‘in a democracy you should have the courage to say things yourself and not masquerade as a 90 year old doctor.’
John Mann in fine form alleging wickedness all round lays into Momentum supporter Graham Martin - shortly after Dr Glatt's second letter appeared, this FB was mysteriously deleted from Mann's FB page!

In other words the letter was a crude forgery.  As we now know from my follow up post A Desperate John Mann MP Tries to Undermine 90 year old Jewish Doctor's Letter by Falsely Alleging It was a Forgery, the letter was anything but a forgery.

John Mann has now deleted the post from his Facebook page, which is an admission that the only skulduggery was on Mann’s part.

Graham Martin, who was unfairly vilified by Mann and harassed by him, has now filed a complaint with the Labour Party in respect of the harassment by John Mann.  Let’s see if the General Secretary of the Labour Party, Iain McNicol, acts with his customary speed when it comes to complaints against the Left.

Tony Greenstein
The letter from Dr Glatt that convinced John Mann that the game was up 
 Letter of Complaint from Graham Martin to Jeremy Corby
From:Graham Martin
Sent: 22 October 2016 14:36
To:leader@labour.org.uk
Cc:nickbrownmp@parliament.uk; speakersoffice@parliament.uk; Fiona Stanton
Subject: Complaint re; John Mann MP

Dear Mr Corbyn,
I refer to matters in connection with the open letter sent to  John Mann and copied to you by Dr Sam Glatt, which I distributed on the internet.

Yesterday, John Mann made an unsolicited call to Sam Glatt: where he got the telephone number from, I don't know. During the call, he, apparently expressed concern that Sam had used the word 'despise' in his letter: Mr Mann had clearly misread, or failed to understand the word derision, which was in the letter. Sam called me to let me know he had been on the phone and that he had given him my number.

At this point I checked my facebook account and within the space of only a few minutes, John Mann had,  left 7  messages in the public domain, one of which accused me of actually writing the letter myself and, by implication, manipulating an elderly gentleman. He was clearly attempting to 'troll' me from his nominated account, i.e. that account where his identity as a public figure is acknowledged. I blocked him from accessing my account. Isn't it coming to something when you have to block an MP in this way?

Shortly afterwards I got a telephone call from a number I did not know.... 07513610348. I rang it back to get John Manns' Secretary. I was busy explaining to her that I did not wish to speak to him, when he suddenly came on the line. I explained to him that I had no wish to talk to him unless he issued an apology for his statement regarding the supporters of Jackie Walker being expelled from the party and desisted from his malicious activity. I put the phone down on him. Despite me making my position crystal clear he persisted by trying to ring me again from the same number; I did not answer. This action I consider to be harassment.

Mr Manns' behaviour brings the Labour Party and Parliament itself, into disrepute. He can not be allowed to continue in this way. In addition to the issues of harassment, and the public questioning of my integrity,  he has been outrageously ageist. I was forced to put the following reassurance on my page:

 "Let us be clear, Sam is a man of his own mind, his [90]years notwithstanding.... He drives still and is a regular attender at Labour and now Momentum meetings. I have known him for many years and he was a well known figure in the village in which I lived, given that he was the local GP. He knew my parents too, as they were members of the local Labour League of Youth. "

I look forward to hearing from you further on this matter.
Sincerely

Graham Martin BA Hons Dip SW



As the Guardian's 'anti-Semitism' campaign against Corbyn continues its time to BOYCOTT the Guardian

$
0
0

Howard Jacobson’s blindness to Zionist racism in the cause of fake anti-Semitism



Howard Jacobson - blind to the Palestinians

Zionist lobby group boasts of its success in neutering Guardian coverage of Zionism & Palestine
There was a time when the Guardian had the best Middle East correspondent of any paper, David Hirst, who wrote an excellent book, The Gun and the Olive Branch.  Now they have Jonathan Freedland, a thriller writer, who cannot see beyond his Jewish identity to understand that Zionism is a murderous,  racist settler colonial movement.
The Guardian carries Jacobson's junk article which speaks about support for Israel and omits to mention the Palestinians
Where once the Guardian and its Comment is Free column was an arena of lively debate, today anti-Zionists are effectively barred.   A decade ago I contribute a number of articles such as an article on the Royal Family's reception for the Jewish National Fund [Israel's Royal Welcome]  Such is the state of affairs at the Guardian, that the Zionists openly boast about how they have cleansed CIF of anything remotely opposed to Zionism and the Israeli state.
French fascist leader Marine Le Pen, combines anti-Semitism with a devotion to Israel
UK Media Watch, formerly CIF Watch, which is devoted to suppressing favourable coverage of the Palestinians or unfavourable coverage of Israel and Zionism in the media, boasts of its success with the Guardian.
'partly due to our efforts, the Guardian’s malign obsession with Israel had somewhat abated, and their legitimization of antisemitic tropes (above and below the line) had at least diminished.
The latter improvement in editorial decisions... occurred both as the result of our relentless naming and shaming of Guardian contributors who expressed such Judeophobic views, and at least two important decisions by the paper’s readers’ editor which had the effect of institutionally delegitimizing these narratives.  The readers’ editor we’re referring to is Chris Elliott ."
Geert Wilders - leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, virulently anti-Islamic and sees Israel as a bastion of the West
The one newspaper which could be relied on for objective coverage of Palestine and Zionism has now gone over to the dark side.  It is time that socialists and supporters of the Palestinians boycotted the Guardian.  In many ways its coverage is worse than paper such as The Daily Mail precisely because people expect The Guardian to be more balanced and fairer.
In its latest propaganda article, The Guardian has commissioned an article, Let’s be clear – antisemitism is a hate apart, from Howard Jacobson.  In his attempt to show that anti-Zionism is really a modern form of an ancient plaint, anti-Semitism, Jacobson’s literary talents seem to desert him.  His arguments are wooden and stilted as his hackneyed phrases betray a poverty of imagination. 
Heinz Christian Strache - leads the Austrian Freedom Party, which was formed to rehabilitate Austrian Nazis - a welcome guest of Likud to Israel recently
How can one write about Israel without once mentioning the Palestinians?  Israel is a state that receives the largest amount of aid of any country, despite its small population, from the United States.  It is a state armed to the teeth, with nuclear weaponry, whose military has ruled over 4.5 million people for 50 years.  Palestinians live in the same territory as 600,000 settlers yet unlike them they are subject to a different legal system of Military Law.  By any definition this is Apartheid.  At the hundreds of checkpoints that cover the West Bank there are separate entrances for Jewish settlers and Palestinians,  yet Jacobson has convinced himself that our reasons for opposing Israeli Apartheid is because of anti-Semitism!
Jacobson may be a distinguished novelist but there is nothing original in what he writes about anti-Semitism and Zionism.  Jacobson offers us no special insights that cannot be gained from Israeli hasbara (propaganda).  For Jacobson criticism of the Israeli state can be explained by the fact that ‘in the matter of the existence of the State of Israel... all the ancient superstitions about Jews find a point of confluence.’  Apparently criticism of Israel and Zionism has nothing to do with land discrimination and theft, the underfunding of the Arab education sector, the Judaisation of areas of Israel where there are not enough Jews, extra-judicial executions, torture of children or house demolitions.  It’s all because we are anti-Semitic!
Jacobson though is but the latest Guardian sock puppet.  In the past year it has run a series of articles about ‘anti-Semitism’ with the aim of portraying Labour under Jeremy Corbyn as a party in the grip of a tsunami of anti-Semitism.  Articles it has printed include The Left’s Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism and Why I’m becoming a Jew and why you should, toowhich is a rewrite of an earlier article in the Jewish Chronicle  Hatred is turning me into a Jewby Nick Cohen, Why Jews in Labour place little trust in Jeremy Corbyn by Joshua Simons,  Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem and My plea to the left: treat Jews the same way you’d treat any other minority by Jonathan Freedland Antisemitism is a poison – the left must take leadership against it by Owen Jones, which he rewrites annually.  The Guardian has refused to print articles rejecting the idea in the above articles that anti-Zionism is a modern form of anti-Semitism.
Howard Jacobson made his name as a comic novelist.  It is a genre that he should have stuck to because there is little that is amusing or revealing in his discursions into anti-Semitism.  Jacobson pronounces that the Chakrabarti Report into racism and anti-Semitism in the Labour Party was ‘a soft inquiry’ and ‘was stillborn’.  Instead of explaining what it is he disagreed with in the Report he insinuates that the elevation of Shami Chakrabarti to the House of Lords was the payment of a bribe .  The Chakrabarti Report was a serious attempt to investigate the spurious anti-Semitism allegations of the Labour Right, the Tory press, and the Zionist movement.  Chakrabarti found that the Labour Party was not overrun by anti-Semitism. 
Indeed it is one of the curious aspects of the anti-Semitism allegations that no hard evidence has ever been produced.  The one serious attempt to investigate these allegations by Asa Winstanley How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis showed that the evidence for the allegations was spurious, fabricated and in the specific case of Oxford University Labour Club, set in motion by a former intern, Alex Chalmers, for BICOM, Britain’s main Israeli propaganda organisation.
Howard Jacobson’s theme is anything but novel.  It is that anti-Semitism is ‘unlike other racisms’.  It ‘exists outside time and place and doesn’t even require the presence of Jews.’  In response to the Russian pogroms of 1881, Leo Pinsker, the founder of the Lovers of Zion, likewise wrote that ‘Judaephobia is then a mental disease, and as a mental disease it is hereditary, and having been inherited for 2,000 years, it is incurable. [Pinsker, Autoemancipation,  Berlin 1882 p.5.]
The logical conclusion is that if anti-Semitism cannot be explained then it cannot be fought.  It doesn’t even require Jews.  It exists in the realm of the metaphysical like all those other racial myths.  After all ‘when Marlowe and Shakespeare responded to an appetite for anti-Jewish feeling in Elizabethan England, there had been no Jews in the country for 300 years.’  Jacobson is wrong, there were Jews in England but the memory of the Jews and the roles they performed in society had not disappeared.  It is all too easy to characterise Marlowe and Shakespeare’s productions as anti-Semitic when they simply reflected not only popular perceptions but the actual role that Jews played in medieval society.
As Abram Leon, the Trotskyist leader who died in Auschwitz observed:
‘Zionism transposes modern anti-Semitism to all of history and saves itself the trouble of studying the various forms of anti-Semitism and their evolution.’..[Abram Leon, The Jewish Question - A Marxist Interpretation, p. 245. Pathfinder, New York, 1970]
Anti-Semitism was seen by Zionism as a permanent feature of Jewish relations with non-Jews, an immutable fact beyond history and time itself.  In June 1895, barely six months after the framing of the French Jewish Captain Alfred Dreyfuss for treason, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism wrote in his Diaries (p.6) that ‘In Paris ...I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all I recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat’ anti-Semitism.   Since anti-Semitism was a natural phenomenon, it could not be fought.  You might as well fight the tides.
Jacobson’s claim that anti-Semitism is a unique form of racism is a truism.  All forms of racism have unique characteristics but anti-Semitism is not a unique form of racism.  There has always been racism against groups who were seen as better off and prosperous, be it the Huguenots, the Biafrans, the East African Asians or Koreansin the United States.  The Chinese of South-East Asia were known as the ‘Jews of the East’.  Racism against the Roma is just as persistent and deadly as anti-Semitism if not more so. 
Jacobson tells us apropos of anti-Zionism that ‘The presence of a Jew in any movement no more guarantees it to be innocent of antisemitism than guilty.’  The same can be said, with somewhat more justification of Zionism.  Anti-Zionism was a product of Jews not non-Jews.  It is noticeable that far-Right and fascist groups are some of the most ardent supporters of Zionism.  As Ruth Smeed, a spokeswoman for the Board of Deputies of British Jews admitted‘‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web – it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel.  Members of the English Defence League combine the Hitler salute with flying the Israeli flag at its demonstrations.[2] 
Far-Right European parties such as Geert Wilder’s Dutch Freedom Party, Heinz-Christian Strache’s Austrian Freedom Party and Marine Le Pen’s Front Nationale all combine virulent Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism with support for Zionism, without a murmur of concern from Jacobson and the witch finder generals of Zionism.   Was it not Pastor John Hagee, President of Christians United for Israel who informed us that Hitler was a hunter sent by God to drive the Jews to Israel?  Although John McCain was forced to disavowHagee when he ran against Barak Obama in the 2008 Presidential election this did not stop Abe Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League praisingHagee. ‘We are grateful’ Foxman said, ‘that you have devoted your life to combating anti-Semitism and supporting the State of Israel,” 

Nor was Foxman alone.  One of the leaders of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign is the neo-con editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard.  Pollard sees no contradiction between attacking Corbyn for ‘anti-Semitism’ and defending Michal Kaminski, former MEP for Poland’s far-Right Law and Justice Party.  Kaminski opposed, in 2001, a national Polish apology for the burning alive of up to 900 Jews by fellow Poles in the village of Jedwabne in 1941.  Kaminski suggested it was the Jews who owed the Poles an apology.  Pollard however insistedthat Kaminski was one of the greatest friends to the JewsbecauseFar from being an antisemite, Mr Kaminski is about as pro-Israel an MEP as exists.’
Far from anti-Zionism being a disguise for anti-Semitism it is Zionism which has most in common with anti-Semites. From Edouard Drumont, the leader of the anti-Dreyfussards to Alfred Rosenburg to the BNP’s Nick Griffin, anti-Semites saw no contradiction in supporting Zionism.
Jacobson and the Guardian have great difficulty in accepting that criticism of the State of Israel is not on account of some ancient hatred of Jews but because it is a state that has racism woven into its DNA.  A ‘Jewish’ state in the context of settler colonialism means a Jewish supremacist state.  Whereas Britain being a Christian state is a constitutional adornment, in Israel Jews have real privileges over non-Jews.  Israel is a state where the ‘demographic question’ is the engine of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. [see When will Israel stop seeing Palestinians as a 'demographic threat?']
Jacobson is not above deploying his literary skills in order to misrepresent his adversaries.  He says that according to anti-Zionists ‘Jews have only one motive in labelling anti-Zionism antisemitic and that is to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. This assertion defames Jews’.  Well it would if it were true but it ignores that foremost amongst these defamers are Jews themselves!  It is the Zionist movement, Jewish and non-Jewish, who use ‘anti-Semitism’ as a weapon to deflect criticism of Israel.  Just as anti-Semites use the term ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jew’ interchangeably so too do Zionists.
Jacobson says that ‘Zionism originated as a liberation movement’.  Perhaps he could enlighten us as to when Zionists first described themselves so?  When Herzl founded the Zionist movement he wrote to Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist after whom Rhodesia was named asking ‘how then do I happen to turn to you since this is an out of the way matter for you.  How indeed.  Because it is something colonial.’ [Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.1,194].  In ‘Rebirth and Destiny’ [New York 1954] David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, refers throughout to colonization and colonies.  This was because, in the first half of the last century, colonialism was seen as a good thing.  Today’s zeitgeist demands that colonialism is transformed into national liberation. 
Jacobson says we need to talk of Zion.  I disagree.  We need to talk about Zionism and what it has done to the Palestinians.  The Holocaust is no excuse for the dispossession of the Palestinians.
Tony Greenstein

Opposing Parliament’s Racist Witch-hunt of Malia Bouattia

$
0
0
Academics, Lawyers and Anti-Racist Activists in Support of NUS President



It is good to see that so many prominent academics and other people have signed a letter to The Independent opposing the attack on Malia Bouattia by racist Zionists and racist Parliamentarians, led by Chuku Ummuna and Keith Vaz.
In attacking the President of NUS, Malia Bouattia, a refugee from real oppression in Algeria, for ‘anti-Semitism’ the Committee descended into the gutter.  It relied on McCarthyite guilt by association and did not have the integrity or honesty to invite her to give evidence.  Instead it quoted the Union of Jewish Students, for whom Israel advocacy is an integral part of its constitutional requirements, that the statement the University of Birmingham is “something of a Zionist outpost” is anti-Semitic.  Why this is anti-Semitic is never explained.  Presumably the UJS and the Committee, in conjunction with the BNP and other fascist organisations, agree that to be Zionist is to be Jewish.  There is no other logic.   It is no more racist than describing the University of Sussex as a radical outpost.
On the basis of the above the Committee concludes that ‘The current President of the National Union of Students, Malia Bouattia, does not appear to take sufficiently seriously the issue of antisemitism on campus’  The Jewish students it refers to are representatives or supporters of the pro-Israel UJS.  Anti-Zionist Jewish students are, of course, invisible to the Committee as are anti-Zionist Jews generally.
Chuku Ummuna - Black on the outside but his politics are of the White racist Establishment
Earlier this year at the time when the witch hunt of Malia first began I had a letter published in The Guardian in support of Malia.  Her ‘crime’?  Describing Birmingham University as a ‘Zionist output’.  The parliamentary idiots and defamers saw that as anti-Semitic.  Presumably the World Zionist Organisation and the British Zionist Federation are also anti-Semitic by this very same argument?  ‘Zionist’ is not the same as ‘Jew’ – the only people who claim it is are either anti-Semites such as the National Front or BNP or, of course Zionists for whom anti-Zionist Jews are ‘traitors’. 
Zionist is a political term and describing Birmingham University as a Zionist outpost is no different from describing Manchester University as a Tory outpost or Kent University as a feminist outpost etc.
The Zionists, who have been allowed unfortunately by the weakness of Jeremy Corbyn to traduce anti-racists in the Labour Party as ‘anti-Semites’ have now turned their attention to others, including it would seem Baroness Jenny Tonge and Mali Bouttia.  In targeting the first Black woman as President of NUS, Chuku Ummuna demonstrates what a shallow, right-wing little Uncle Tom he is.
Tony Greenstein
In support of Malia Bouattia 
We, the undersigned, unequivocally support Malia Bouattia, the current NUS president and applaud her impeccable record fighting anti-Semitism, racism and her unwavering support for international students.
The Home Affairs Select Committee this week released its report into anti-Semitism. As well as gratuitously levelling attacks against twice elected Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and former director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti, judgment is also reserved for Ms Bouattia. It claims that she has “failed to take sufficiently seriously the issue of anti-Semitism”.
Ms Bouattia has fought tirelessly against all forms of racism, anti-Semitism, sexism and homophobia. To name but a few of her many achievements and commitments, she previously called for a review into institutional racism (including anti-Semitism) in the NUS, spearheaded solidarity initiatives for migrants and refugees in Calais, campaigned against the deportation of international students, worked on interfaith projects and safe spaces for faith students, co-led the largest opposition to the controversial PREVENT agenda; and all alongside her constant work with student unions across the country to dismantle racism.
The disparity between the report’s representations of Ms Bouattia compared with her actual record should be cause for real concern. The misuse and abuse of anti-Semitism belittle genuine threats against the Jewish community, primarily posed by a newly consolidated far-right in a post-Brexit landscape.
Dr Tanzil Chowdhury, University of Manchester
Professor Norman Finkelstein, Sakarya University
Emeritus Professor Moshe Machover, KCL
Deborah Maccoby, Executive, Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Emeritus Professor Colin Green, UCL
Professor Haim Bresheeth, SOAS
Sir Geoffrey Bindman,QC
Michael Mansfield, QC, Mansfield Chambers
Mansfied Chambers, Barrister’s Chambers
Dr Elian Weizman, CBRL Kenyon Institute, East Jerusalem
Professor Mona Baker, University of Manchester
Professor Piers Robinson, University of Sheffield
Dr Paul Keleman, University of Manchester
Professor Richard Seaford, University of Exeter
Professor Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College
Dr Shirin Hirsch, University of Glasgow
Professor Myriam Salama-Carr, University of Manchester
Professor Hakim Adi, University of Chichester
Professor Tim Jacoby, University of Manchester
Dr Virinder Kalra, University of Manchester
Professor Paul Blackledge, Leeds Beckett University
Professor James Dickins, University of Leeds
Professor Robbie Shilliam, QMUL
Professor Salman Sayyid, University of Leeds
Professor Malcolm Povey, University of Leeds
Dr Anandi Ramamurthy, Sheffield Hallam University
Professor Ray Bush, University of Leeds
Professor Laleh Khalili, SOAS
Professor Gargi Bhattacharyya, University of East London
Dr Kasia Narkowicz, University of York
Dr Sarah Marusek, University of Johannesburg
Dr Joanna Gilmore, University of York
Dr Waqas Tufail, Leeds Beckett University
Dr Adam Elliot-Cooper, University of Warwick
Dr Nadine El-Enany, Birkbeck College
Dr Sadia Habib, Goldsmiths
Dr Mark Carrigan, University of Warwick
Dr Judit Druks, UCL
Dr Nathaniel Coleman, Birmingham City University
Dr Una Barr, Manchester Metropolitan University
Dr Les Levidow, Open University
Yael Kahn, Israeli anti-apartheid activist
Michael Kalmanovitz, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
Haifa Zangana, Author & Journalist
Victoria Brittain, Author & Journalist
Liz Davies, barrister & Honorary Vice-President Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
Zita Holbourne, National Co-Chair BARAC UK
Lee Jasper, National Co-Chair BARAC UK
Peter Herbert, Society of Black Lawyers
Ronnie Barkan, Boycott from Within
Max Blumenthal, Journalist
Dr Jamie Woodcock, LSE
Dr Naaz Rashid, University of Sussex
Dr Nisha Kapoor, University of York
Dr Abdul B Shaikh, University of Leeds
Dr Katy Sian, University of York
Dr Rizwaan Sabir, Liverpool John Moores University
Dr Naomi Foyle, University of Chichester
Dr Hannah Jones, University of Warwick
Dr Paul Bagguley, University of Leeds
Dr James Eastwood, QMUL
Dr Sarah Keenan, Birkbeck University
Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins, University of Warwick
Dr Kitt Price, QMUL
Dr Lorenza Monaco, University of Johannesburg
Dr Hannah Bargawi, SOAS
Dr Sadhvi Dar, QMUL
Dr Kerem Nisancioglu, SOAS
Dr Owen Miller, SOAS
Dr Paul Waley, University of Leeds
Dr Feyzi Ismail, SOAS
Dr Yasmeen Narayan, Birkbeck University
Dr. Jamil Sherif, Muslim Council of Britain
Dr William Ackah, Birkbeck University
Dr Humaira Saeed, Nottingham Trent University
Deyika Nzeribe, Green Party Manchester Mayoral Candidate
Neema Begum, PhD Candidate, University of Bristol
Mohammed Kasbar, PhD Candidate, QMUL
Ed Yates, PhD Candidate
Cecil Sagoe, PhD Candidate, UCL
Tom Cowan, PhD Candidate, KCL
David Wearing, PhD Candidate, SOAS
Noor Al-Sharif, PhD Candidate, McGill University
Sai Englert, PhD Candidate, SOAS
Altheia Jones-Lecointe, PhD Candidate
Hengameh Ziai, PhD Candidate, Columbia University
Lisa Tilley, PhD Candidate, University of Warwick
Jamie Stern-Weiner, PhD Candidate, University of Oxford
Smina Akhtar, PhD Candidate, University of Bath
Jas Nijjar, PhD Candidate, Brunel University
Nithya Natarajan, PhD Candidate, SOAS
Jack Copley, PhD Candidate, University of Warwick
Carrie Benjamin, PhD Candidate, SOAS
Sita Balani, PhD Candidate, KCL
Gwenan Richards, SOAS
Kevin Blowe, Co-ordinator, Netpol
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods
Colette Williams, Manchester lead, BARAC
Linda Clair, Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Marlene Ellis, General Secretary of Momentum Black ConneXions
Kingsley Abrams, General Secretary of Momentum Black ConneXions
Dr Ramez Ghazoul, Artizana
Diana Nelsen, Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Arzu Merali, Head of Research, Islamic Human Rights Commission
Patricia Lamour, CEO for Gender Education & Enterprise Development for Africa
Micheline Ravololonarisoa, Gender Education & Enterprise Development for Africa
Tom Hickey, University of Brighton
Dr Brian Robinson, Retired NHS psychiatrist
Mike Cushman, LSE
Terry Gallogly, Free Speech on Israel
Rosamine Hayeem, Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine
Abe Hayeem, Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine
Vivienne Hayes, CEO, Women’s Resource Centre
Tony Dickinson, Leeds Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Ian McDonald, Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Ismail Patel, Chairman, Friends of Al-Aqsa
Connor Woodman, Warwick For Free Education
Stephanie Davis, Lecturer in Psychology, University of Brighton
Sandy Nicoll, SOAS UNISON Branch Secretary
Graham Kirkwood, UCU membership secretary, QMUL
Sara Callaway, Women of Colour Global Women’s Strike
Selma James, Women of Colour Global Women’s Strike
Nina Lopez, Legal Action for Women
Sam Weinstein, Payday Men’s Network
Jenny Hardacre, Freelancer
Chris Gutkind
Margot Brown
Salma Patel, Associate Lecturer, Open University
Shreya Sinha, PhD Candidate, SOAS
Ruba Salih, Reader, SOAS
Mehroosh Tak, PhD Candidate, SOAS
Dr Vanja Hamzić, Senior Lecturer in Legal History and Legal Anthropology, SOAS
Dr Ashok Kumar, Fellow, Queen Mary University of London
Matteo Mandarini, Lecturer in Strategy, Queen Mary University of London
Rahul Rao, Senior Lecturer, SOAS
Dr Sharri Plonski, Postdoc Researcher, SOAS
Dr Alessandra Mezzadri, Lecturer, SOAS
Ahu Tatli, Professor, Queen Mary University of London
Nadje Al-Ali, Professor of Gender Studies, SOAS
Musab Younis, PhD Candidate, Oxford University
Mara Duer, PhD student, Warwick University
Victoria B-G Stadheim, PhD Student / GTA, SOAS
Te-Anne Robles, PhD student, University of Warwick
Rachel Harger, Defend the Right to Protest
Dr Milly Williamson, Brunel University
Penny Green, Professor of Law and Globalisation, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Emma Heywood, Lecturer, Coventry University
Phil Edwards, Senior Lecturer, Manchester Metropolitan University
Dr Anisa Mustafa, Teaching Associate in Public Policy, University of Nottingham
Yusuf Hassan, Vice President Student Affairs, Federation of Student Islamic Societies
Mehmet Kurt, Newton Fellow, Queen Mary University of London
Dr. Narzanin Massoumi, University of Liverpool
Julian Petley, Professor, Brunel University
Sayed Alkadiri, FOSIS
Andreas Bieler, Professor of Political Economy, University of Nottingham
Dr Jamie Melrose, University of Bristol
Jules Carey, Human Rights Solicitor
Nariman Massoumi, Lecturer, Film & TV, University of Bristol
Brian Richardson, Barrister, Mansfield Chambers
Javier Moreno Zacarés, Phd researcher, University of Warwick
Khalid Khedri, PhD Candidate, QMUL
Rhona Friedman, solicitor
Dr Emma L Briant, Lecturer, University of Sheffield
Muhammad Feyyaz, Assistant Professor, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Deepa Kumar, Associate Professor, Rutgers University
Dr Thomas MacManus, Research Fellow, Queen Mary University of London School of Law
Dr Kirsten Forkert, Senior Lecturer, Birmingham City University
John L. Esposito, Professor, Georgetown University
Matt Foot, Solicitor, Birnberg Peirce
Bouteldja Houria, Activist, PIR
Rana Jawad, Senior Lecturer, University of Bath
Ramón Grosfoguel, Professor, University of California at Berkeley
Sandew Hira, coordinator, Decolonial International Network
Dr Mark Hayes, Senior Lecturer Human Sciences, Solent University
Mark Elf, Jews sans frontieres
Dr Hatem Bazian, Lecturer, NES and Asian American Studies, UC Berkeley
Dr Abida Malik, Tutor in Sociology, University of Nottingham
Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
Amanj Aziz, Student, Gothenburg University
Tom Mills, Lecturer in Sociology, Aston University


Liberal Democrats Suspend British Peer for Supporting Palestinian Rights

$
0
0

The Anti-Semitism Witch-hunt Spreads to the Lib-Dems

spinoza sculpture
Baruch Spinoza, ‘heretic’

For decades I’ve joked about  an institution I “founded” called the Spinoza Society.  It’s a group of distinguished Jews who, over the ages, have been ostracized or excommunicated from their respective Jewish communities for holding views outside the mainstream.  They were dissenters who chose a different path.  One that took them outside the mainstream, but resulted in ultimate vindication.  Of course the first, and charter member was Baruch Spinoza.  He was excommunicated from the  Amsterdam Jewish Community in the 17th century for speaking heresies in which he denied the Afterlife and that God acted outside the natural order.  His co-religionists deemed such views as dangerous and sent him packing.

If we look for the first Jews expelled from the community, we need look no farther than the Bible, where women who were menstruating and all who had skin diseases like leprosy were expelled from “the camp” (i.e. the community).  They were seen as defiling the sacred Tabernacle and therefore must be set apart from it till their ailments were healed.  Some may argue that women today continued to be viewed as ‘tainted’ and certainly less valued than men, especially in the Orthodox community.  But this ostracism derived from a physical condition rather than a personal belief or expression.

Einstein was a heretic of sorts as well, because he rejected Jabotinsky’s Zionist Revisionism. He denounced Etsel and the Irgun going back to the late 1940s and called them “misled and criminal people.” He also refused to accept the honor of being Israel’s second president when it was offered to him. Einstein rejected nationalism, which was the epitome of Zionism. He too is an honored member of the Spinoza Society.

One of the most transgressive members of the club was Lenny Bruce, who was not afraid of telling all of our darkest secrets to the goyim.  His provocative comedy created a love-hate relationship both with his audience and among American Jews.  Here is one of his classic jokes about killing Christ:
“Yes, we did it.  I did it.  My family.  I found a note in the basement: ‘We killed Him–signed Morty.’
“Why did you kill Christ, Jew?”  “We killed him because he didn’t want to become a doctor, that’s why.”
…Not only did we kill him, but we’re gonna kill him again when he comes back.
Here’s another that drove him from the “Israelite” camp:
I was a Jew talking about Goyim. If I had just stuck to Moses, everything would have been cool. But, copping to being part of the whole Christ murder conspiracy got everyone goose-stepping again.
Speaking of great Jewish comedians commenting on being kicked out of the tribe, Groucho of course told the famous joke: “PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER.”

I was one of the early members of New Jewish Agenda, a progressive national grassroots Jewish organization founded in the early 1980s. The group advocated gay rights, the two-state solution, and social justice in America. That platform was considered extremely controversial both in the United States and Israel. I remember a group of Orthodox rabbis meeting in Massachusetts and convening a pulsa di nura, which was a strange Jewish ritual by which Jews would be excommunicated from the faith for heretical beliefs. The Washington Post asked Noam Chomsky’s response (he was another one of those excommunicated):
Linguist Noam Chomsky of MIT, another of those excommunicated, recalled that he shared the honor with the 17th century Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza.
At the time, I was proud to be one of the newly-inducted members of the Spinoza Society.
Today, Israel is vastly increasing Spinoza membership with its excommunication of hundreds of Jews thousands of Jews who show insufficient fealty to Zionist dogma. Any Jew who supports BDS is immediately beyond the Pale, if not a self-hating terrorist.  Such individuals are so dangerous that Israeli secret agents are right now burrowing into their homes and lives searching for ways to destroy them and their reputations: that means you, Ronnie Barkan!
jenny tonge palestine
Baroness Tonge, newest Spinoza Club inductee, addressing a Palestinian rights rally

Currently, in the UK, the Israel Lobby is mounting a scorched-earth campaign against British Jews and Palestinian activists who betray (in the case of Jews) the tribe.  One of the latest members inducted into the club was Jackie Walker, who had the temerity to question whether Holocaust Memorial Day was a day that should not also embrace other ethnic groups who were victims of the Nazis.  She also correctly claimed that some Portuguese and Brazilian Jews played an important role in financing the Brazilian leg of the Atlantic slave trade. For her trouble, she was suspended from the Labour party.  Jackie, join us, you’re welcome to the Club.

Today brings news that a new member of the club is being inducted: Baroness Tonge, a member of the House of Lords.  She chaired a parliamentary meeting about the Palestinian the Right of Return.  At the meeting, an audience member compared Israel, with its religious fundamentalist faith to Isis, and its Islamist fundamentalism. The comparison, if made in a careful and nuanced way, is a valid one.

But not for the Israel Lobby, which screamed bloody murder in the pages of the Jewish Chronicle, the Lobby’s in-house propaganda organ. As a result, Baroness Tonge has been suspended from the Liberal Democratic Party.  She has happily renounced her affiliation and become an independent member of the Lords.  Her ostracism is the Spinoza club’s gain.  Yes, the Baroness is not a certified member of the tribe.  But in this instance, I think we can make an exception.  Or perhaps declare her an honorary member of the Society.

The Execrable Luke Akehurst Defends Israel’s Occupation & Its Methods of Control

$
0
0

Akehurst of Labour FirstSupports Hewlett Packard’s Supply of Technology under the guise of ‘Anti-Terrorism’

Akehurst comes from a long tradition of Labour imperialists
The dictionary.com definition of execrable is either:
1.             utterly detestable; abominable; abhorrent or
2.             very bad:

By way of contrast the OEDdefines execrable as ‘Extremely bad or unpleasant.

I suspect they all describe Luke Akehurst even if they miss out the vital ingredient of what makes someone who is obviously intelligent support the most reprehensible aspects of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.  I refer to his right-wing pro-imperialist politics that sees little or nothing wrong with the imperialist presence in the Middle East.
Akehurst until recently worked for the British Israel Committee’s We Believe in Israeldepartment.  In Hewlett Packard stands with Israel – stand with HP against the boycotters Akehurst defend Israel’s use of Hewlett Packard’s technology to maintain its police state methods of repression.  Everything is excused under the rubric of ‘terrorism’.

Let us recall what Ronnie Kassrills, a Jewish member of the ANC’s Executive Committee for 20 years and Intelligence Minister for 4 years in the ANC government saidabout Israel’s benign occupation, whose methods Luke Akehurst is so committed to defending:
Protestors staging a die-in at HP headquarters

Ronnie Kasrils on Apartheid Israel, 2007: 
“Travelling into Palestine's West Bank and Gaza Strip, which I visited recently, is like a surreal trip back into an apartheid state of emergency. It is chilling to pass through the myriad checkpoints -- more than 500 in the West Bank. They are controlled by heavily armed soldiers, youthful but grim, tensely watching every movement, fingers on the trigger… The West Bank, once 22% of historic Palestine, has shrunk to perhaps 10% to 12% of living space for its inhabitants, and is split into several fragments, including the fertile Jordan Valley, which is a security preserve for Jewish settlers and the Israeli Defence Force. Like the Gaza Strip, the West Bank is effectively a hermetically sealed prison. It is shocking to discover that certain roads are barred to Palestinians and reserved for Jewish settlers. I try in vain to recall anything quite as obscene in apartheid South Africa.”

In 2002 Anglican Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutuwrote a series of articles in major newspapers, comparing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank to apartheid South Africa, and calling for the international community to divest support from Israel until the territories were no longer occupied. In an April 2010 open letter to the University of Berkeley, Tutu wrote 
“I have been to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid.I have witnessed the humiliation of Palestinian men, women, and children made to wait hours at Israeli military checkpoints routinely when trying to make the most basic of trips to visit relatives or attend school or college, and this humiliation is familiar to me and the many black South Africans who were corralled and regularly insulted by the security forces of the Apartheid government.”

 In 2011, Tutu wrote an article for the Tampa Bay Times, arguing that Israeli apartheid is now so bad that only an international boycott can force Israel to change its policies.  [Earlier this month, Tutu said, :  “It is not a Muslim or Jewish crisis. It is a human rights crisis with roots to what amounts to an apartheid system of land ownership and control. It is a crisis that fuels other crises…”  

Both Desmond Tutu and Ronnie Kassrills were aware of the close economic, political and military links between Apartheid South Africa and Zionist Israel.  Luke Akehurst, as a racist supporter of Israel’s settler colonialism is determined to ignore the reality of Israel’s occupation.  The wonder is how this creature managed to become a runner-up in Labour’s NEC elections this year and to have even served as a CLP representative previously.

It is an example of the depths to which Labour’s Right and the Zionist lobby will sink that such a man, who makes his living by working for an Israeli propaganda organisation, is the best they can find.  A man without any sign of moral scruples.

In Akehurst’s rant below he has even put up a petition for people to sign supporting this mega American multinational.  One wonders whether, if he had been alive at the time, Akehurst would have summoned up support for IBM’s involvement in providing a basic computerised card index for the Nazis in order that they could classify Jews more efficiently?  The methods of operation of IBM  and Hewlett-Packard are much the same – providing electronic services to regimes of oppression.
Edwin Black’s book IBM & the Holocaust  recounts how

The 1933 census, with design help and tabulation services provided by IBM through its German subsidiary, proved to be pivotal to the Nazis in their efforts to identify, isolate, and ultimately destroy the country's Jewish minority. Machine-tabulated census data greatly expanded the estimated number of Jews in Germany by identifying individuals with only one or a few Jewish ancestors.’
Akehurst’s arguments can be boiled down to these:

i.                    The information technology supplied to Israel is to prevent ‘terrorism’
ii.                  This protects not only Israeli (for which read Israeli Jewish) civilians but Palestinians too.  Perhaps the most nauseous of Akehurst’s statements is where he says that:
iii.                ‘Boycotts are harmful to peace, as they stop dialogue and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians.’


As the article The case against Hewlett-Packardshows, Hewlett Packard’s systems have nothing to do with preventing ‘terrorism’ but have everything to do with enabling the Israeli state to maintain its coercive and repressive regime of Occupation.  The idea that HP’s technology makes it ‘easier for Palestinian workers and others to travel into Israel, as they can prove their identity’ is simply a lie.  Palestinian lives are completely disrupted by the hundreds of Israeli checkpoints which makes a short journey take hours. 

Even Israel’s hard-line cabinet minister, Uri Ariel, himself a settler, condemned the conditions that Palestinians face at checkpoints where they are forced to wait for hours in the burning sun whilst Jewish settlers pass through a different entrance without problems. Hard-right minister: Conditions at West Bank checkpoints ‘disgraceful’

Elor Azaria, the Kahanist Israeli soldier who shot a severely injured Palestinians lying on the ground in the head has become an Israeli national hero
If it is terrorism that concerns Akehurst then there is plenty of terrorism that HP assists the army in committing.  For example the shooting in the head of a severely injured Palestinian who was lying comatose on the ground by a far-Right soldier Elor Azarya who is a national hero with over 60% support from the Israeli Jewish public. [Most Israelis Say Army Medic Who Killed Wounded Suspect Is Not a Murderer]

Or another example of the terrorism that Akehurst doesn’t see is the murder, one of very many, of an 18 year old college student Hadil Al-Hashloumon.  Eyewitness To Hebron IDF Murder of Hadil Al-Hashloumon: ‘I Never Saw Any Knife’.  There is of course the mundane terrorism that has seen over a thousand Palestinian homes demolished in the West Bank this year in order to make way for settlements.  But the only time Akehurst understand’s terrorism is when the Palestinians under occupation resist.  Otherwise it is simply a case of law and order, maintaining the racist peace and that of course is what the absurd ‘anti-Semitism campaign’ of the Zionists in the Labour Party is about.  As Akehurst says, he is not Jewish but he is a Zionist.   Thus it ever was. 


Akehurst’s Puff Piece on Hewlett Packard
Here’s our latest campaign – please sign this petition: 

Anti-Israel campaigners have called on people to boycott the information technology company Hewlett Packard (HP) and its successor companies, because they provide biometric identity systems for Israeli security checkpoints. They also provide IT systems to the Israeli Navy, Army, Defence Ministry and prison service, all of which help Israel combat terrorist threats such as Hamas and Hezbollah. With 6,000 local employees, HP is the second biggest investor in IT in Israel. Just to confuse things, HP recently demerged into two companies – HP Inc. which makes computers and printers, and HP Enterprise which provides IT services and software to governments and companies – but the boycotters don’t care, they are boycotting both!

The call to boycott HP would harm both Israelis and Palestinians because the HP-supplied security systems at IDF checkpoints help prevent terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, whilst making it easier for Palestinian workers and others to travel into Israel, as they can prove their identity.

HPE’s security system is used as a result of the Wye River Accords, signed by the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

Boycotts are harmful to peace, as they stop dialogue and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. The boycott movement demonises Israel. It is particularly reprehensible to seek to stop Israel obtaining technology that protects its citizens from terrorism, and to attack companies that are involved in Israel’s security.

As Hewlett Packard Enterprise helps protect Israeli civilians from terrorism, we want to encourage it to continue to provide technology to Israel, and to let HP know there is global public support for its role there.

Therefore we would like you to sign our petition thanking Hewlett Packard Enterprise for their continued investment in Israel and support for Israel's security, which we will pass on to the company’s management:
What is Hewlett-Packard?

Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) is a US multinational information technology corporation. It is a global provider of computer products and IT services. It is also one of the top 25 defence contractors with the US Pentagon.

Why is Hewlett-Packard a BDS target?
Palestinian movement within the West Bank is tightly controlled by Israel through the use of checkpoints. The major checkpoints use what is known as the BASEL system. This system uses scanners with hand and facial recognition to collect biometric data about every Palestinian who uses the checkpoints.

The biometric data of nearly every Palestinian over the age of 16 is held by the Israeli authorities as part of Israel’s system of control and repression.

HP Enterprise Services, a division of HP, is responsible for developing, integrating and maintaining the BASEL system.

HP not only profits from developing systems to racially profile Palestinians and track and control their movements, it is also complicit in the Israeli apartheid which limits the parts of the West Bank which they can access, and which restricts their freedom of movement.

As such, it is complicit in the breach of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement…within the borders of each state.”

HP is also contracted to provide the Israeli navy’s IT infrastructure. The Israeli navy is used to enforce the illegal blockade of Gaza from the sea, to prevent Palestinian fishermen from carrying out their trade, and to bombard Gaza during major assaults.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza constitutes collective punishment. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective punishment and designates it as a war crime. By contracting with the Israeli navy, HP becomes complicit in the Israeli state’s war crimes against Gaza.

HP has, in the past, supplied PCs to the Israeli army, which enforces the lethal occupation of Palestinian land.


Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions – don’t buy HP products!

The meaning of the decision of Labour’s Right to support Arms to Saudi Arabia

$
0
0

It is time to deselect the 98 Labour MPs who believe Saudia Arabia is our ally

What do you call Peter Kyle - Hove's gay Progress MP sees nothing wrong in supporting the alliance with Saudia Arabia where being gay can be fatal?

On the face of it, it is a strange issue on which to stage the biggest revolt since Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected as Labour leader.  Even the Lib-Dems, who were up to their ears, in the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia in the last government, voted against. 

On Wednesday a Labour motion which had already been unacceptably watered down to call for a UN Inquiry into ‘all sides’ of the Saudi Arabia’s attack on Yemen was met with a concerted abstention by nearly 100 Labour MPs.  It was wrong of Jeremy Corbyn and Emily Thornberry not to move a clear and unambiguous motion calling for the cessation of arms shipments to Saudi Arabia. 

The position of Emily Thornberry, Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary, was pathetically weak.   She is quoted in Labour List as saying that:

while Saudi Arabia will remain an “ally” in the region, the UK would suspend its support for Saudi forces in Yemen until “alleged violations” of international humanitarian law in the had been independently investigated.

She added that she would not want to see support resumed “until the children of Yemen have received the humanitarian aid that they so desperately need.”

The idea that we will resume support for Saudi Arabia after humanitarian aid to children has been let in, so that Saudi Arabia can continue to kill and maim children and civilians is nonsensical. 

The facts are quite clear.  Saudi Arabia which has no business meddling in Yemen’s civil war has killed at least 10,000 Yemeni civilians with US and British arms.  Only a few weeks ago Saudi Arabia planes killed 140 people in a funeral party.

Raif Badawi is due another 950 lashes of the 1,000 he was sentenced to in Peter Kyle's paradise kingdom

What needs to be  challenged is the idea that Saudi Arabia is an ally in the Middle East.  It is a barbaric state which has one of the highest execution rates in the world, primarily of poor migrant workers.  Its attitude to women, who are forbidden to drive or go out without a male chaperon, makes the Iranian state seem positively progressive in comparison.  Flogging dissident bloggers, executing children, torture etc. should make anyone who is serious about human rights abuses steer a million miles from giving this detestable regime an ounce of support.

Couple this with the export of the Wahabbi brand of Islam and the aid and financing of the very groups – ISIS and Al Qaeda – against which the West is allegedly waging a ‘war against terror’ and we see the hypocrisy magnify.  The fact is that there is moral basis for the alliance with Saudi Arabia, which together with the Gulf Sheikdoms, is in a close alliance with Israel in policing the region.

Saudi Arabia has no business interfering in Yemeni’s civil war.  Its blockade and merciless bombing, with British and US weaponry, has caused a human rights catastrophe.  One can but compare the crocodile tears shed over Russia’s aerial bombardment of Aleppo with the support given to Saudi Arabia to note that Western foreign policy in the Middle East doesn’t have a shred of moral legitimacy.

Saudi King Salman - John Woodcock's comrade in arms

Naturally Labour’s pro-Trident John Woodcock defendedhis decision to support Tory party policy in Saudi Arabia (which is what an abstention means) on the basis that the “last thing the Middle East needs is more gesture politics from the comfort of British dining tables and withdrawal by those who have the capacity to play a constructive role.”  In other words it is acceptable to supply arms to Saudi Arabia from London’s dinner tables but not to oppose their butchery.  If it is ‘gesture politics’ to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia  then it is the kind of politics we need.

The question therefore remains why did Labour’s Right choose this issue?  It is clear that the fundamental issue which divides Corbyn from the Labour Right is over the alliance with the United States.  Saudi Arabia is the US’s closest ally, despite its funding for terrorist groups.  Ipso facto Britain must tag along. The extent of this alliance was shown when the Serious Fraud Office was getting close to British Aerospace’s use of bribes to obtain Saudi arms contracts in the Al-Yamamah arms deal.  Tony Blair vetoedthe prosecution.

One of the quaint customs that John Mann and Peter Kyle have no problem with

The alliance, if one can call it that, with the Saudi Arabian ruling family, is the lynchpin of US and British policy in the Middle East.  The other key ally of course is Israel and it is no surprise that Israel and Saudi Arabia are extremely close politically.

Labour’s Right is therefore saying that whatever Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses and whatever its support for Jihadi groups in Syria, the necessities of the Western Alliance override the interests of the Saudi and Yemeni people.  Old fashioned imperialism and self-interest dressed up in the language of mutual interests and ‘anti-terrorism’.

It is one of the political weaknesses of Corbyn that instead of espousing an anti-imperialist  position that rejects per se support for Saudi Arabia in the region, it is dressed up in a pacifism which in the end is watered down to remove even an arms ban.

It is noticeable that the Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, Joan Ryan, was one of the abstainers, along with Ann Clwyd, the hypocrite who supported the Iraq war because of Saddam Hussein’s undoubted atrocities but was more than prepared to turn a blind eye to those of King Salman.  Other luminaries include the ‘anti-Semitism’ liar John Mann MP and of course our very own Peter Kyle.  Peter is a very great advocate of gay rights yet he was happy to support Saudi Arabia which reserves the death penalty for gays.  The same was true of Ben Bradshaw.  Keith Vaz and another Zionist Mike Gapes also abstained and Vaz actually spoke in the debat.

This is why the attitude of the Momentum leadership and Jon Lansman, that the Labour Right can be appeased and brought to accept Corbyn’s leadership is so off beam.  They will never accept the dominance of the Right in the party and that is why the Left has  to be campaigning, not only to reselect these people but to gain control of Labour’s civil service and dismiss Crooked Iain McNicol, Labour’s General Secretary.  Instead Corbyn has said that he has no quarrel with McNicol continuing in office so that he can continue the witch hunt of people on the Left.

In the past month the elected Brighton & Hove Labour Party Chair Mark Sandell has been expelled from the Labour Party and we heard last week that Greg Hadfield, the elected Secretary, has been suspended.  The witch hunt goes on and Momentum and its unelected leadership keep silent.  Indeed we have news of Momentum intending to hold a long awaited conference in the New Year.  Apparently it involves internet voting which suggests that they aren’t intending to hold a meaningful physical conference.  The sooner Lansman’s baleful grip, together with his cronies, is lifted from Momentum the better.  The membership of Momentum, which is now over 20,000 has to decide who their officers are.

The Labour MPs who abstained on a bill to withdraw support from Saudi Arabia’s murderous war in Yemen

see also The Labour rebels who didn’t back the Yemen vote have blood on their hands


Friday 28 October 2016 11:15 UTC

This week's Yemen vote demonstrates something apparent since the vote to invade Iraq: the party of war holds a majority in the Commons

Last month, Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected as Labour leader. It was his second victory by an overwhelming majority in a year, and it should have given Corbyn uncontested authority.

Yet he is still regarded with mutinous contempt by a significant proportion of his own side. They flatly refuse to accept Corbyn’s leadership.

I have reported politics from Westminster for almost 25 years and can recall few more shocking parliamentary events

This became clear on Wednesday night, when more than 100 Labour MPs failed to support a three-line whip on British policy towards the Yemen. It was disloyalty on an epic scale. 

Corbyn cannot be faulted for calling a debate on Yemen. For the past 18 months, Britain has been complicit with mass murder as our Saudi allies have bombarded Yemen from the air, slaughtering thousands of innocent people as well as helping fuel a humanitarian calamity.

Corbyn clearly felt that it was his duty as leader of a responsible and moral opposition to challenge this policy. He nevertheless bent over backwards to make sure that the Yemen vote was uncontroversial. The Labour motion therefore stopped short of calling for the suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia which has been demanded by many charities and campaign groups.

This is because Corbyn and his foreign affairs spokeswoman Emily Thornberry were mindful that some Labour MPs represented constituencies where local jobs depended on the arms industry. So they contented themselves with demanding an independent United Nations inquiry into crimes committed by all sides – not just the Saudis – in this terrible and bloody conflict. They reasonably suggested that Britain should suspend support for the Saudis until this investigation was completed.

Green light to Saudi

This is the position taken by the bulk of the international community, by all reputable aid agencies and, as far as I can tell, by almost all ordinary Yemenis. In her excellent speech on Wednesday afternoon, Thornberry set out the reasons why the Saudis could no longer be trusted to investigate their own affairs. 

But for Labour abstainers and absentees, Corbyn’s motion would have been carried and parliament would have voted for an independent investigation

Yet more than 100 Labour MPs – not far short of half the Labour Party - defied Corbyn. As a result, Labour’s call for an independent inquiry was defeated by 283 votes to just 193, a majority of 90. But for Labour abstainers and absentees, Corbyn’s motion would have been carried and parliament would have voted for an independent investigation.

The vote is bound to be interpreted by Saudi King Salman as a vote of confidence in his deeply controversial assault on the Yemen. 

It will also lift pressure on the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson as he resists a growing international clamour for Britain to throw its weight behind an independent UN investigation.  

To sum up, on Wednesday night, the British parliament sent the green light to Saudi Arabia and its allies to carry on bombing, maiming and killing. I have reported politics from Westminster for almost 25 years and can recall few more shocking parliamentary events. 

Party of War

Shocking – but not surprising. The Yemen vote demonstrates something that has been apparent ever since the vote on 18  March 2003 to support the invasion of Iraq: the party of war holds a majority in the Commons.

It comprises virtually all of the Conservative Party and the Blairite wing of Labour. As Nafeez Ahmed wrote in July, there is a clear and demonstrable connection between the vote for war in Iraq, opposition to an Iraq inquiry, support for the calamitous intervention in Libya, and opposition to Jeremy Corbyn. 

For the past 15 years, parliament has been governed by a cross-party consensus in favour of war 
Ahmed showed the majority of those who tried to unseat Corbyn last summer were interventionist. Some 172 supported the motion of no confidence in Corbyn’s leadership. By coincidence or not, exactly the same number of MPs have supported Britain’s calamitous overseas wars. 

Now let’s look at the Labour MPs who put a smile on the faces of King Salman and Boris Johnson by defying Corbyn’s three-line whip and abstaining in Wednesday night’s vote: once again we are at least partly talking about a confederacy of Blairites.

It turns out that Ann Clywd, who made such a sparkling speech in favour of war during the 2003 Iraq debate, has abstained over Corbyn’s call for an independent investigation of Yememi war crimes. So have John Spellar, Gloria de Piero, Fiona MacTaggart, Barry Sheerman, Angela Eagle, Liz Kendall, Luciana Berger, Lucy Powell, Mike Gapes, Stephen Kinnock, Tristram Hunt, Margaret Hodge etc etc.
Even Keith Vaz, who was born in Aden and makes a big deal of his Yemeni antecedents, defied Labour’s three-line whip and abstained. 

It is important to highlight the fact that some of the most prominent opponents of Jeremy Corbyn did traipse through the division lobbies with their leader on Wednesday night. Alan Johnson, Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper are just three examples. And, of course, the majority of those who abstained on Wednesday were not in parliament for the Iraq vote in 2003.

The Neocons and the unforgiven 

Nevertheless there is a telling pattern here. For the past 15 years, parliament has been governed by a cross-party consensus in favour of war. During that period, Britain has undertaken three major foreign interventions, each one of them utterly disastrous. In each one, military success was swiftly followed by political and, ultimately, state failure. 

Despite the hard-won experience of 15 years, there is still a parliamentary majority in favour of intervention.

There is an intimate connection between politicians who style themselves as moderate and neoconservative policies overseas

Very few parliamentarians opposed all these interventions. Jeremy Corbyn was among them and he has never been forgiven for it.

This brings me to the final paradox of Wednesday night’s vote: the intimate connection between politicians who style themselves as moderate or occupying the centre ground in Britain and neoconservative policies overseas. 

For the past 20 years, the so-called "modernisers", whether Blair’s Labour or Cameron’s Conservatives, have been in charge at Westminster. As has been well-documented (not least by Labour’s Jon Cruddas), they have hollowed out British politics through techniques of spin and electoral manipulation.

It is these same modernisers who have caused havoc in the Middle East, condemning the region to bloodshed and war. They were at it again on Wednesday by sending a signal to the Saudi dictatorship that it was acceptable to carry out its murderous policies in the Yemen. Thirteen years after Iraq, neoconservatism still rules.

- Peter Oborne was named freelancer of the year 2016 by the Online Media Awards for an article he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015.

Jon Lansman stages a Coup D’état in Momentum as the National Committee is cancelled by the Steering Committee

$
0
0

The  Long Awaited Founding Conference of Momentum Will Be a Virtual Conference!


Jon Lansman, Momentum's founder is determined not to share power with the membership


In his farewell speech to the House of Commons Tony Benn repeatedone of his most famous sayings concerning democracy and accountability.  It is particularly relevant at the present time given Jon Lansman’s coup against Momentum’s membership.
‘In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.’ 
These are the questions we should be asking of Jon Lansman and those on the Steering Committee who voted with him –does your power derive, to whom are you accountable and most importantly how do Momentum members rid themselves of your misleadership?
Jackie Walker - removed as Vice-Chair of Momentum by Jon Lansman and friends despite the overwhelming opposition of Momentum members and branches
On the evening of October 27, Jon Lansman, the sole director of ‘Jeremy for Labour’ company (renamed from Momentum Campaign Ltd in the summer), called an emergency meeting of the Momentum Steering Committee for the evening of October 28 – i.e., with 19 hours’ notice. Some members, such as Matt Wrack and Jackie Walker, were not able to attend at such short notice.  The meeting decided, by six votes to three, to cancel the November 5 meeting of the National Committee which was scheduled to take decisions on the organisation of Momentum’s founding conference in February 2017.   
It was the February National Committee meeting which elected the Steering Committee for the following six months, i.e. up to August.  Therefore what has happened is that Momentum’s Steering Committee, a lower body, has just voted to disallow the higher body from meeting!  Clearly constitutional theory is not Lansman’s forte!   
It also decided that the first Momentum conference should be in the ethernet, a virtual reality conference.  It would have no physical manifestation.  There would be no meeting hall, no delegates, no debates, just an atomised membership who  would vote on the different proposals put before them.  And who would decide the structures that allow such a vote?  Well you guessed it.  The same Jon Lansman and his coterie who have decided that, come what may, they can’t be removed.  Hence why Momentum’s Companies are in the sole name of Lansman, who is sole director.
Since the National Committee elected the Steering Committee it is unconstitutional for the latter body to effectively abolish the body which elected it.  It recalls the famous poem"Die Lösung" (The Solution) of Bertold Brecht after the workers’ uprising in East Berlin in 1953:
After the uprising of June 17th
The Secretary of the Authors' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Which said that the people
Had forfeited the government's confidence
And could only win it back
By redoubled labour. Wouldn't it
Be simpler in that case if the government
Dissolved the people and
Elected another?

In an email issued by Momentum to ‘key people’ “in local groups the decision was justified by the fact that “some Momentum members, groups and regional network meetings had raised concerns about the organisation of the 5 November National Committee meeting, the process leading up to it and democratic representation and participation for Momentum members more broadly”.  We are not told who these people are nor what were their concerns were.  Still less were we told whether they had called for the NC not to meet.
If it is true that people had concerns about the November NC then this is entirely the fault of the self-same committee that is now shutting down our democracy altogether.   This body gave branches and regional committees almost no time to meet and discuss proposals for the conference or to choose delegates for the November 5 meeting. In fact, most members have not even seen the various proposals on the future of Momentum and how the conference might be run.
One member, one vote
Lansman also pushed through a motion which stipulates that the conference must be organised via a system of “online voting for all members” – the full 20,000 of them! The merits or otherwise of the various forms of representation for the conference was to be decided by the November 5 National Committee which has now been conveniently cancelled.
An excited email sent to all members on 29th October from Momentum centrally informs us that, “Over the coming months, members will propose their ideas on Momentum’s aims, ethics, and structure. We will use digital technology to ensure that all members can be involved and shape Momentum’s future.
This is the very opposite of democracy. It is designed to atomise individual members and undermine conference as the collective decision-making body of Momentum. It underlines the extent to which sections of the left have internalised the defeats of the past decades.  It is Thatcher’s union ‘reforms’ writ large.
To add to the confusion, it is unclear precisely what Lansman and his allies are actually proposing. Jill Mountford takes a guess that “it seems what they mean is that delegates to Momentum conference will not take any decisions but votes will instead be taken by an online ballot of all members afterwards.  This is bizarrely reminiscent of Blairism, bureaucratic manipulation veiled in plebiscitary pseudo-democracy.”
This is worse than anything Tony Blair managed to foist on the Labour Party. How can we ever again gripe about the bowdlerising of Labour Party conference democracy if we acquiesce to the travesty that Jon Lansman and his cohorts are trying to foist on to us? 
We are still in the dark as to how motions might be proposed to conference. The original Lansman plan required an initial 50 signatures for a motion to progress further. After several more hurdles had been vaulted, 1000 signatures would be required for a motion to be heard by conference. Many branches and regional committees have criticised this, calling for the threshold to be lowered. It is very likely that the National Committee meeting of November 5 would have overturned restrictive stipulations like these and challenged many more of the plans of Lansman and co. 
Clearly it is much better to just stop the NC from meeting at all!  On 29th October I received the following email, as did other Momentum  members.  It is a classic example of deception dressed up in the language of false bravado.  I omit the final flowery paragraph:
Dear Tony,
Momentum has had a big first year. We’ve established over 150 local groups across the UK, run national campaigns, formed the backbone of Jeremy’s incredible second leadership campaign - and now we have over 20,000 members.
Momentum helps the Labour Party to become a more open, democratic and campaigns-focused organisation. We need to be member-led ourselves. You must decide the future of your organisation.
Yesterday, Momentum’s Steering Committee voted to start the process of ensuring that Momentum becomes a truly democratic member-led organisation, reflecting the new kind of politics.
Over the coming months, members will propose their ideas on Momentum’s aims, ethics, and structure. We will use digital technology to ensure that all members can be involved and shape Momentum’s future. This process will culminate in our first national conference, with online voting for all members, in February.
In solidarity,
Team Momentum
It is a classic in Orwellian hyperbole and double think.  It talks about a member led organisation when the proposals from the SC are designed to achieve the exact opposite.  The decision of the SC to distribute the arguments of those opposed to these proposals were conveniently overturned as Lansman fondly imagines that if he doesn’t distribute them people won’t oppose know about them!  Dictators far more intelligent than Lansman have harboured similar illusions!  Momentum groups are up in arms, not only about this but the removal of Jackie Walker as Vice-Chair.  
The Statement Below is a precis from Labour Party Marxists

The last 48 hours have seen all hell break lose in Momentum.  It is essential that Momentum members and branches hurry messages and resolutions into Momentum centre to condemn this latest attempt to shut down democracy in the organisation. 
At the heart of what has happened lies a deep, morbid distrust of the members and democracy. As SC member Jill Mountford put it in her report: “Sam Wheeler and Jon Lansman spent far too much time arguing that local groups and the regional committees were undemocratic and unrepresentative.” 
Momentum branches are forbidden to send emails to all Momentum members in their area. All communications must be routed through Momentum nationally, presumably so the content can be vetted.
·         Momentum branches have been told not to bring their members together in constituencies and wards to work to maximise their political impact in these geographical units of the party. This makes it very hard to effectively cohere the Labour left in these locales. The official reason for this restriction is that the Labour Party does not allow the affiliation of organisations with a ‘mirror' structure, as the rule book dubs it. But then, Momentum is not affiliated to the Labour Party, it is not a party. Its members should be working together in cohesive units, sharing experiences and discussing in their democratic local forums the direction of their national organisation. 
·         Apart from sending out insipid campaigning news, the Momentum leadership does not communicate with its members. There are no minutes, no reports, no agendas of the organisation’s committees. Some “key contacts”, as they are dubbed, insome branchessometimesreceive a little information. A few of these comrades forward this intel to some other people some of the time. In effect this has helped to create local cliques that monopolise key information. The vast majority of Momentum membership have no idea of who runs their organisation, what decisions they take and how. 
Momentum’s claim to represent some sort of clean “new kind of politics” is starting to look very much like the old type of politics – decisions taken before  meetings have even convened, a disregard of basic constitutional principles, an existing clique trying to preserve its own power.  In fact the  behaviour of Jon Lansman, Sam Tarry and co. seems to resemble nothing so much as the behaviour of Iain McNicol and Tom Watson.   They are the very antithesis of democratic socialism.

The London Momentum regional committee on October 29 voted by 31 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) for the following motion.  For a Report see here
This meeting of the London Momentum Regional Committee censures the National Steering Committee for cancelling the meeting of the National Committee that was scheduled for 5 November and agreeing a method of organising the national conference without waiting for the National Committee to discuss it.
We do not recognise the legitimacy of the Steering Committee to make these decisions. We call for these decisions of the National Steering Committee to be rescinded and for the NC to proceed as originally scheduled on 5 November.
 
2) The Labour Representation Committee:  
LRC national conference  passed this resolution at its October 29 conference:
LRC AGM condemns the decision of yesterday's Momentum SC to cancel the scheduled NC for 5th November and its decision to abandon a delegate conference in February.

3) Model motion from Labour Party Marxists:
This meeting condemns the decision by a hastily convened emergency meeting of the Momentum Steering Committee on October 28 to cancel the November 5 meeting of the National Committee. This NC was scheduled to decide the organisational details of our first national conference in February 2017.

Important decisions on the future of Momentum should involve as many members as possible. Six people on the national Steering Committee (a body that was supposed to be re-elected in August 2016) have decided to stop branches and regional committees to have their say on the future of our organisation.

We call for the National Committee meeting, re-arranged for December 10, to go ahead. It must discuss and make decisions on all issues pertaining to the organisation of our conference, including voting arrangements, delegate credentials and ratios, the future composition of the National Committee, etc.

 Jill Mountford who is a member of the Momentum Steering Committee has bloggedon what happened at the meeting of 28th October because of course Lansman and co. would not dream of distributing minutes or a report of the meeting.

Momentum Steering Committee cancels 5 November NC, but we win vote for new date (including who voted how)

* For cancelling 5 November: Jon Lansman, Darren Williams, Sam Tarry, Marsha Jane Thompson, Christine Shawcroft, Sam Wheeler.

Against: Jill Mountford, Michael Chessum, Cecile Wright.
Abstaining: Martyn Cook.

** For calling a new NC in December: Darren Williams, Martyn Cook, Cecile Wright, Jill Mountford, Michael Chessum, Christine Shawcroft.

Abstaining: Jon Lansman, Marsha Jane Thompson, Sam Wheeler, Sam Tarry.

I must confess to being surprised by the vote of Christine Shawcroft who is part of the split in Labour Briefing.  She voted for the removal of Jackie Walker as vice-chair of Momentum but I took that to be  because of bad blood between the groups.  This vote is inexplicable. 

Another member of the Momentum Steering Committee, Michael Chessum, explainshis vote against Lansman’s proposals.


‘What do you call it when an executive votes to abolish the legislature?...
Momentum's steering committee met tonight in a meeting that was called with less than a day's notice, ostensibly to consider delaying the National Committee meeting which was due to meet on November 5th. I went to the meeting prepared to oppose the move (it's already 6 months since our democratic structures met) and expected to find myself in a minority. The NC was due to discuss (among other things) the composition and processes for Momentum's February conference, which would in turn decide our structures. In advance of it, local groups and regions had patchily met to discuss various proposals.
But my initial concerns were blown out of the water. Instead, the meeting not only voted to postpone the NC to December, but to bypass the NC entirely and make the decision that Momentum's conference should effectively not happen (instead being a live streamed national gathering), and momentum's structures decided by e-ballot. This was in a meeting called with 19 hours notice.
A lot of this was justified with an attitude of "it can't possibly be undemocratic to let all members vote, so pack up your deliberative structures and democratically agreed processes". Now I don't know about anyone else who's been around the Labour movement for more than 5 minutes, but I've heard that strain of logic before - and i dont mean from the left.
Now even if you think that literally all of the organisation's decisions should be taken by OMOV (personally I favour a mixed system with both OMOV and delegate meetings; but I can quite see how with a complex conference structures debate you might want a delegate debate rather than an atomized online vote), but whatever your view, this is just an outrageous, farcical way for that decision to be made.
Momentum is fantastic - and so are many of the people who frankly found themselves on the wrong side on this - but I really worry about the left sometimes, and how some bits of it have absorbed the modus operandi of blairism during the wilderness years.

Jackie Walker has also issued a statement:
"I am making a statement on the working of the Momentum Steering Committee.
Up till now, despite others commenting freely, and often in an uninformed way, I have agreed to be silent. However, events of the last few days have changed this.
'Almost immediately after the Jewish Labour Movement began to tweet against me after the training event, a 'senior member' of Momentum joined in, briefing the press, in particular a Guardian journalist, Joan Elgot. Interestingly those tweets have since been removed, though screenshots have been taken. This was very soon followed by full articles, both in the on-line and paper version, which said "The Guardian understands her removal from the post is likely to be confirmed when the committee meets on Monday. A spokesperson for the left wing grassroots movement, which was set up to support Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the party, confirmed members wanted her to go." I was also informed by the Guardian, as were others on the Steering Committee, at the same time as the Guardian Leadership, the date and outcome of the meeting to remove me. Included in this same article were comments by Manuel Cortes, Gen Sec of the TSSA, threatening to remove Momentum from TSSA premises if I were not removed. This came, I believe, soon after Cortes had publicly called me a rabid anti-Semite, or something to that effect.
While the press may have known when the meeting to remove me would be, as well as the result, I was given only 48 hours notice of the hearing and no details either of how it would be run or what the charges were against me, despite repeated requests. The extraordinary spectacle of a group of trades unionist treating a comrade in a way THEY would not accept had they been representing me as trades unionist was shameful to our movement. No statement was taken from me or from anyone who had been at the JLM training event. The irony is the SC used evidence from the same media sources that had recently condemned Jeremy as an incompetent, an antisemite and a terrorist.
After this kangaroo court, I asked for a complaint of this process to be forwarded to the NC and for an investigation to be launched about the leak. A meeting of the SC voted against giving me access to the NC. I know who leaked, as do many people on the SC.
As to the most recent example of the lack of democracy of the SC, on Thursday at 10:30pm I received a notification of an emergency SC meeting. There was no mention of a discussion on how the conference would be run. A number of people could not make, or would not agree to come to such a meeting. A number of people, including myself and Matt Wrack, protested as to undemocratic process. Some members agreed to phoned in. Imagine my shock the next morning at being informed both that the NC was to be postponed and that the decision had been made by the SC that conference votes would be made on line. This occurred even though at least 2 papers were outlining different process of voting at conference had been tabled for discussion at the (now cancelled) NC.
The sovereign body is the NC. The SC is there to implement their decisions. This is an outrage.
The two examples I describe here are just the most well known of a general culture of disdain which too many members of the SC have supported. It is crucial that this changes.’ 

Dylan Thomas and Bob Dylan – a critical comparison – Heathcote Amory

$
0
0
It’s not often that you read a profoundly brilliant and moving essay such as that by Heathcote Amory.  Musically Bob Dylan is one of my favourite heroes but, as the essay below shows, he is also a deeply flawed hero.   Dylan is accused of plagiarism, not I think always fairly, given it is well known that he takes as his inspiration many influences.  Folk music has always been a progressive development resting on the output and memory of previous generations.

However the accusation that he has sold out politically and prostituted himself to commercial and right-wing political interests is spot on.  His earlier support, which he never disavowed, for the Jewish  Nazi Rabbi Meir Kahane of the Kach party, was and is unforgiveable.  His playing in Israel and  his atrocious song Neighbourhood Bully on the Infidels album, which portrayed Israel as the victim of bullying by its neighbourhood, is racist nonsense.  Perhaps the Lebanese, who saw 20,000 die and a further 100,000 wounded, in addition to mass devastation in 1982, had also been guilty of this crime.

Dylan’s comparison between the poetic genius Dylan Thomas and himself, the person who stole Thomas’s name, by suggesting that he had done more for Dylan Thomas than the other way round, was as absurd as it was offensive.  It was Dylan who had filched Thomas’s poetry for his songs as well as his persona.  Given Dylan Thomas had died in 1953 it is difficult to understand how he could have benefited from Dylan.  A combination of egomania and narcissism.

Tony Greenstein
Dylan Thomas ©Jeff Towns/DBC

As a reward for my having learnt William Blake’s poem ‘Tyger, Tyger’ and for having precociously recited it to him without stumbling, my father promised to take me to hear Dylan Thomas reading at the Victoria and Albert Museum.

I was nine. “Your treat,” he said. “He’s a poet. He’s Welsh.”

He was in the habit of taking me to things that he considered to be “improving” events such as Emlyn Williams’ one-man show based on Charles’ Dickens’ public readings; or to Shakespeare plays at the Old Vic, and from my earliest childhood my father encouraged me to learn and recite poems.

At his behest I was urged to learn a lot of Blake off by heart and most of Kipling’s ‘If’.  I learned one of W.S. Gilbert’s ‘Bab Ballads’ (the one about cannibalism), Gray’s Elegy, W. E, Henley’s ‘Invictus’ and a few scraps from the Welsh epic, The Mabinogion, of which my father had a fine copy with a gold embossed cover.

He’d also demand that I’d join him in reciting the seasonal, “It was Christmas Day in the workhouse/the one day of the year/In came the workhouse master/his belly full of beer…” as well as that lengthy music-hall standard ‘Albert and the Lion’, a narrative poem that ends in tragedy thanks to a small boy at Blackpool Zoo having been somewhat too curious about the Zoo’s star attraction, an elderly lion called Wallace.

Henley’s ‘Invictus’ begins: ‘Out of the night that covers me, /Black as the Pit from pole to pole, /I thank whatever gods may be /For my unconquerable soul.” And my father would boom it out whenever he felt disheartened or blown off course and he encouraged me to copy him, line by line.

My father had a small study off the landing in our house and as I ran up and downstairs I’d sometimes hear him regale himself with the poem as a tonic to bolster up his spirits. ‘Black as the pit from pole to pole, I am the master of my fate.” he’d roar with a thundering Welsh undulation, “I am the captain of my soul.’  He seemed to feel that the poem was an indispensible remedy for all spiritual ailments and he consequently insisted on my committing it to memory.

“In the fell clutch of circumstance/I have not winced nor cried aloud./Under the bludgeonings of chance /My head is bloody, but unbowed.”

Henley’s poem was essentially a high-minded precursor of that now ubiquitous and mawkishly self-regarding song, ‘I did it my way’ but my father was passionate about it and when I knew all the verses, he’d poultice them out of me on the mystifying walks he took me  on; mystifying because when I asked, “Where are we going?” his unvarying response would be, “There and back.”

With his children he was largely silent save for this  enthusiasm for poetry. The walks were conducted with his being entirely lost in thought except for recitations of a poem by him or by me at his prodding.  He’d say, ‘Give us the tiger,’  and so I’d do Blake’s ‘Tyger’ which, due to his insistence, had been burning brightly in my mind since I was more or less out of a high-chair.

My father had been badly injured in a training exercise in the First World War and to him poetry was a painkiller. “Poetry can stop you feeling ill,” he’d say simply.

England in the late forties and early fifties was a world without television; a world where visits to the cinema were a rarity and where the radio was a cumbersome mahogany box with a forbidding grille: unfriendly, dusty and predominantly silent due to its aggregation of valves overheating whereupon the whole contraption would black out with a sorry ‘phut!’.  I associate childhood radio with a distinctive smell of burning dust as much as with entertainment.

There was a prevailing quiet if not gloom in those early post-war years. My father, born in Queen Victoria’s reign, once persuaded me with dark whimsy that there was a government institution called The Ministry of Silence which was capable of meting out stern punishments to those who offended against its precepts. I half believed him. Books, and particularly poems, were therefore the media of choice, and an escape hatch.

William Ernest Henley
By coincidence, my mother’s maiden name was Henley and it happened that William Ernest Henley, the author of ‘Invictus’ was, in fact, a cousin at several removes. Henley had come from Bristol and he’d had tuberculosis of the bone as a child which resulted in one of his legs being amputated. He became a friend of Robert Louis Stevenson and as such was thought to have been the inspiration for Stevenson’s portrait of the one-legged pirate, Long John Silver.


 Judging from a description of Henley by his stepson, Lloyd Osbourne, Stevenson’s imaginative leap hadn’t been too hard to make:

“… a great, glowing, massive-shouldered fellow with a   big red beard and a crutch; jovial, astoundingly clever,   and with a laugh that rolled like music; he had an   unimaginable fire and vitality; he swept one off one’s  feet”.

Stevenson would later acknowledge the connection in a letter to Henley:

“I will now make a confession: It was the sight of your   maimed strength and masterfulness that begot Long   John Silver … the idea of the maimed man, ruling and   dreaded by the sound, was entirely taken from you.”

Striking as Henley’s verses were it was Henley’s piratical connection that caught my imagination, rather more than Henley himself or indeed the poem which found such favour with my father.

Although Henley’s paean to self-mastery was popular as a fireside morale-booster, Henley’s part in bringing Long John Silver into existence (albeit through a childhood illness rather than through actual piracy) weighed with me much more. It was like a feather in the genetic cap from which I derived a quiet glow, believing it to bestow outsider, if not outlaw, status.

The promised outing to see another poet – who also had what my father hinted was a slightly outlaw-like reputation – took place on Saturday, 11thAugust, 1951 in the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Lecture Hall. It was part of a Festival of Books that the Museum had been mounting in association with the Festival of Britain.

My father and I found our way to the front of the audience and we sat down directly beneath a small, plump man with curly auburn hair, a raffish bow-tie, loud checkered tweeds and a shining face who stood patiently behind a wooden lectern a few feet above us.

I remember that he seemed not to be able to hold himself still and he swayed gently from side to side as if caught by a rough sea-breeze. I was almost immediately below him. From my perspective, he was spasmodically hidden behind a large pint glass of amber-colored liquid from where he would tantalizingly slide in and out of view.

This human metronome, seemingly set to some slow internal beat, shuffled his slightly soggy handwritten papers and then, after a brief introduction from the Museum’s Curator, Dylan Thomas sprang to life.

He pitched into a series of unstoppable recitations. His eyes bulged and his voice resonated, boomingly and rhythmically with a series of florid arias spilling out of his diminutive frame (A phenomenon which was accompanied by misty sprays of saliva that I remember my father found hard to forgive.)

Dylan was so possessed that I thought he might go off like a bomb with his fizzing and surging. I’d not seen anyone drunk before and he was clearly drunk but he was also a phenomenon, as drunk on language as on alcohol. He was caught up by great muscular waves of language – anthemic, torrential and spell-binding  – whose meaning was lost on me but whose effect was hypnotic.

I’d been to the Albert Hall once and I’d heard that building’s enormous organ with its golden pipes that so dominate the Hall’s interior and I remember that I’d compared Dylan Thomas’ voice to the sound of it when my father asked me afterwards what I ‘d thought of Dylan’s performance.

I can only recall one line from the reading with any certainty, “I see the boys of summer in their ruin…” I particularly remembered it because my father would repeat it over the years. Whenever it looked to him as if I was going off the rails, he’d trot out this line, to my chagrin as he’d quite spoil it by giving it a stern, judgmental almost taunting edge.

After Thomas’ reading was over my father and I filed out of the auditorium and my father brought me home, announcing to my mother, in a matter-of-fact fashion, that “The boy was hypnotized” which was true. I still cherish a vivid, dreamy sense of having been entranced. Rhapsodically entranced.

Evidently I’d not kicked my feet in the air out of boredom once and so, to my father’s relief, I’d needed no chastening, but instead I seem to have surrendered myself to that great organ of a voice which Dylan possessed and I’d remained entirely still throughout.  There’d been no microphone in the venue. It was just Dylan’s voice from a few feet away.

It was not a wholly Welsh voice. It was certainly Welsh in its impassioned soaring, but it was a voice that had by now mutated into a highly stylized theatrical projection housed within what’s called ‘Received Pronunciation’, or more frequently ‘BBC English’.

Thomas was certainly aware of his slightly managed magniloquence and he was happy to milk it to maximum effect, whilst at the same time poking fun at himself: deprecating what was something of an assumed, actor-ish persona with the sobriquet,  “Lord Cut-Glass.”

My father also apparently told my mother (my mother would later tell me) that although I was “hypnotized” I couldn’t possibly have understood a word of what Dylan Thomas had been “on about” since my father hadn’t understood much, if indeed anything at all. He’d say gruffly, “none of it meant much to me.”

He was aware that Dylan was in some way “modern” but I think that he may also have had an uneasy feeling that his fellow Welshman was letting the side down by being, as he clearly thought, quite so wilfully obscure. However my father’s strictures were of no avail, the damage was done, and a potent seed was planted.

Although my father’s feelings about Thomas’ poetry were dismissive, it turned out that he, in fact, possessed a copy of Thomas’ ‘Eighteen Poems’, a slim volume published when Thomas was just 20, and after the reading my father, an avid book-collector, gave it to me, taking some pride in his foresight, and I was grateful as I could then start to familiarize myself with some of the poems that I’d just heard Dylan perform.

“Should lanterns shine this holy face caught in an octagon of unaccustomed light would wither up…” was one of them. I didn’t pretend to understand it either, but nonetheless I persuaded myself that, unlike my father, I knew what the lines meant since they carried the sound of sense and also because, when I read them aloud, I was able to relive that trance-like state in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

The reading in the Museum had been an entirely new kind of pleasure, different from anything I’d previously experienced. It was even quite close to what would later be described as ‘psychedelic’. Words, thanks to Dylan, were now things, things that could affect your metabolism.  “Love the words,” Dylan was to say to the cast of his play ‘Under Milk Wood’ when it was performed in New York at the end of the decade:  “Love the words” and, when I heard them as a child from Dylan Thomas himself, I certainly had.

Years later I went to a lecture that Robert Graves gave at the Taylorian Institute in Oxford, and afterwards (Thomas now having become an enduring affection) I asked Graves what he thought of Thomas’ work. He looked down his nose  – a large nose unevenly broken while playing Rugby into the impressive shape of a Roman Emperor’s nose – and he said just one word: “The hwyl.

In that almost untranslatable, portmanteau Welsh word, Graves had uttered the most useful clue to Dylan: the hwyl, a word whose meaning can range from spirit possession, to health, and also, very simply, to just ‘hello’,

As Dylan’s Swansea friend, Leon Atkin, would explain to me years later, thehwyl (pronounced ‘Hoil’) was that ecstatic peroration which occurs at the end of an old-fashioned Welsh sermon in order to stoke up an surge of spirituality in dissenter congregations and Thomas, with his juicy, neo-pagan psalms celebrating nature combined with a subversive politics, had the hwylin spades and he used it to great effect.

When I’d grown up my mother would often tell people about the Victoria and Albert visit as if this was the place where I’d contracted “the bug” – the bug which, by her lights, had taught me to behave oddly and to be determined to earn no money and thus be off the grid.

By her lights the germ of what she regarded as a kind of euphoric fecklessness had evidently been contracted in the Victoria and Albert Museum all those years ago and she used it to explain to herself why I wouldn’t be going in for the church as a priest as she’d not so secretly desired. She certainly never countenanced the idea that poetry could be another kind of priestly vocation and, being devout and quite strait-laced, viewed such a notion as being close to blasphemy.

Major events were few and far between in London in the late forties and fifties. The city was a bleak wasteland. Every other block in the street in which we lived was a bombsite, and the whole city was to remain a malingering bombsite for years during my childhood whilst a bankrupt England paid off its war debt to its wartime benefactor and now demanding creditor, America.

Highlights were rare. There was the soaring and futuristic Skylon at the Festival of Britain; there was the Big Dipper at Battersea Fun Fair; the Model Railway Exhibition at the Horticultural Hall; Maskelyne and Devant’s Magic Show at the Scala Theatre in Charlotte Street and the Crazy Gang at the Victoria Palace.

There must have been other high points in that flattened and flat decade, the nineteen fifties, but those are the only ones that I remember and so hearing Dylan Thomas’ reading was a peak event, if only because my father would go out of his way to make anything remotely cultural seem special.

My father was Welsh and Thomas was Welsh and, without his ever saying much about it, my father must, at some point, have infected me with some native pride. Neither he, nor indeed Thomas, spoke any Welsh although both their fathers had. My grandfather Joe, who made stained glass windows in Covent Garden, spoke it and, as my father was fond of boasting, Welsh was Britain’s first language, although, somewhat hypocritically, he’d never bothered to give the language the time of day by learning much more than a syllable or two, although I do remember his teaching me what he claimed had been the Druids’ motto, Y gywr yn erbyn y bwd– the truth against the world. He’d remind me of it if I was being less than direct, and he’d accompany his delivery of this ancient edict with a forbidding stare.

Although he’d made the forthcoming occasion seem special my father could have had no idea quite how seminal the reading was to prove. As a result of being bitten by this “bug”, as my mother put it, I was shortly to collect all the recordings of Dylan Thomas that I could lay my hands on. Recordings of Dylan’s reading tours, had been made by two stalwart American girls lugging primitive and, in those days, punitively heavy equipment in Dylan’s footsteps.

The recordings included not only Thomas reading his own work but also poems by other authors whom Dylan had liked and admired and had chosen to read. There were poems by Auden, Yeats and D. H. Lawrence; by Thomas Hardy, and Walter De La Mare. Dylan read “The Three Bushes” by Yeats, “Whales Weep Not” by Lawrence, “Broken Appointment” by Hardy, “At the Keyhole” and the comically touching, ‘The Bards’ by De La Mare about Wordsworth and Coleridge in old age.

Through the miracle of this pioneering piece of recorded speech published by Caedmon (named after Caedmon the seventh century monk who dreamt his poems and woke up singing them) it seemed that all of these poetic spirits had been made immortal. It was as if the recordings were able to punch holes in time.

I was to leave school under a slight cloud. I’d entered into a brief correspondence with the junior branch of the Communist party on King Street, in Covent Garden – more out of a mischievous curiosity than from any strong political commitment. Communism during the Cold War was taboo. My schoolboy correspondence was discovered through my mail having been opened and since in the late fifties anti-Soviet propaganda and spy paranoia was all-pervasive and since Communist Russia had succeeded Nazi Germany as “the enemy” it was thought ill-considered.

Out of the blue, my father received a letter from the school authorities which mentioned my Communist associations with disapproval and they suggested that I was, in the housemaster’s words, “no longer benefiting from the elitist education which the school prided itself on being able to offer”. Clearly, the housemaster said, no purpose was to be served by my remaining there any further.

My father was incandescent, and it was his cue for Dylan’s line about “the boys in summer in their ruin” to be invoked, but I was happy to leave both school and home and, after a brief spell in a Franciscan monastery in Dorset helping to look after their bees, I took to the road.

I’d read the poet W.H. Davies’ ‘Autobiography of a Super-Tramp’ and I fondly imagined, along with this Welsh proto-Beat, (“What is life if full of care/There is no time to stop and stare”) that, were you resourceful enough, you could survive on little to nothing. For no reason other than the germinative Victoria and Albert Museum reading, I’d set my sights on Swansea, thinking and hoping that this might be somewhere to find a different kind of spiritual sustenance, given the poet whom Swansea had spawned.

I had another book that I took with me: ‘The Campers and Trampers Weekend Book’ by Showell Styles which extolled the virtue of “just living for the next bend in the road”. It was full of handy survival tips although I’d soon find that living for the ‘next bend in the highways and by-ways’ wasn’t as romantic as I’d been imagining in my teenage dreams.

I naively thought that I’d be falling into a ready-made camaraderie of gentlemen of the road, a collection of gypsy encampments even, straight out of George Borrow, and that perhaps there’d be the ‘spikes’ that had housed the unemployed of Orwell’s ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’ positioned at convenient places along the route.  But this was a fantasy; such places no longer existed although there were a couple of Salvation Army Hostels en route and I’d set off from a Rowton House at the Elephant and Castle where I’d holed up for a bit.

I made it to Swansea mainly by walking and hitching, and, after a tip from an elderly vagrant in the centre of town, I found my way to a Crypt below St Paul’s Church in St Helen’s Road, Swansea, where, just as this providential gentleman of the road had indicated, “the Reverend Leon Atkin will see you right.”

The Crypt turned out to contain an assortment of refugees: there was a man who’d kept a collection of telescopes in a tent on Mumbles Bay but who had, inexplicably, “to bring them in for the winter.” His huge brass tubes were accordingly piled up in leather boxes beneath a Church trestle table upon which Leon Atkin would daily place a great spread of food for the Crypt’s transient residents.

In addition to this roving astronomer, there was a pair of petty criminals who were apparently wanted by the police for some nefarious dealings “in the smoke”, i.e. up in London.  There was a prickly bare-knuckle boxer whom you had to be careful to skirt around especially when he was in his cups.  Others drifted in and out. There were unemployed casual laborers and those simply unable to fend for themselves – people the French call les marginales.

As far as I could gather, thanks to the benignly anarchic sense of community established by Leon, you could come and go as you pleased. When this white-maned and burly figure appeared in the Crypt’s combined dormitory and living space, as he did daily, he’d greet everyone warmly and make sure that they had enough to eat and were supplied with proper bedding from the vestry where there were about forty camp beds. Each morning Leon would seize hold of a huge industrial-sized coal scuttle and fill it up from the bunker outside, then he’d ensure that the stove was generously topped up and that the radiators in the Crypt were in good working order, slapping them approvingly if they were.

All were invited, in a casual fashion, to attend Leon’s church upstairs, in the main body of the building, but no one was ever expected to. Board and lodging was free and came with no strings attached. It was the closest thing to unconditional love that I’d ever experienced and it was always understated. Leon gave off a kind of quiet, selfless radiance. There was no subtext, just a feeling of benign transcendence; grace even.

When I got to know him and when I told him that I’d seen Dylan Thomas reading a few years before and that I’d come to Swansea hoping to find people who knew him, Leon’s smile broadened and he told me that he’d known Dylan well, “since he was a lad”, and he missed him sorely, although, “The only time I saw Dylan in a church was when his coffin was taken in for the funeral service”.

“Like to hear a story about him?” Leon enquired.  I nodded enthusiastically, “You ever hear of the Blackshirts?” I said that I had. ”Well, they tried to hold a rally here, in the Plaza Cinema in ’34.  Dylan and I went to it, along with Dylan’s communist friend Bert Trick, and did we give them what for? We did. We did,” He twinkled in anticipation of reliving the story.

“The British Union of Fascists they called themselves and the leader of the Blackshirts was an Englishman called Sir Oswald Mosley. He was a fierce man for attacking the Jews was this Mosley – Sir Oswald if you please – and all of Swansea knew of him in advance and of his horrid foulness, you see?” I nodded.

“Now” – Leon leant forward conspiratorially –  “their modus operandi was to invite questions from the audience which were to be written down and then they’d pass them up to this Mosley creature for him to answer.

“I wrote down, “I work for a Jew. Do you think I should change my employer?”

“Well, at this Mosley curled his thin lip and expressed disgust that anyone should work for a Jew, and then he said that “surely the questioner would be certain to find someone more reliable to work for, amongst Swansea’s Gentiles?” and then this Mosley looked about him and he said to the audience, “Now, who asked this? My advice to you is that you should find a new employer.”

“They’d always ask this, see? ‘Who asked this question?’ and if was a question that they didn’t like then their thugs and their bully boys would escort the questioner outside and they’d more than likely duff him up, but this time, of course, it was their undoing because I stood up and, of course, when I stood up then I exposed my clerical collar.”

At this Leon chuckled, “Thus revealing who it was that I worked for. The penny dropped. Quite loudly. The audience got it.  ‘That’s Reverend Leon!’ they cried. All hell broke loose. The Plaza held three thousand people. Three thousand people up in arms!

“Well, they had to squirrel Mosley out through the back door, didn’t they? He was ranting and squawking “Blasphemy! Blasphemy!” and then the audience weighed in. They attacked the Blackshirts. Dylan and Bert and I, we were all pretty handy with our fists.” Leon looked up at me, and then added, slightly apologetically, “To do good, you know, in this life you must sometimes use your fists. Bit shocking but there we are. ‘What weapon has the lion but himself?’ Know that line? It’s John Keats.

“Oh yes,” he continued, “Dylan was spot on about the Blackshirts. He’d talk about their ‘curdled patriotism’ – that was his phrase  – and then he’d describe that scrawny old demagogue, Mosley, as suffering  ‘From an elephantiasis of the soul’. Quite a juxtaposition that, eh?” and Leon laughed in a great rumbling peal as he recollected “the great Plaza Cinema rout! Yes.  Just down the road from here, you know. It’s there still. It survived the bombing, but Mosley hasn’t though.  He’s completely discredited now.”

Leon Atkin described himself as a “minister of the Social Gospel.” He’d started the refuge in the nineteen thirties, and in the bitter winter of 1947 his Crypt became a friendly oasis for dozens of men who might otherwise have died. On every Friday evening for decades Leon would visit every public house in Swansea to collect money for the hostel and to enable Swansea’s children to enjoy a Guy Fawkes’ night with a stupendous firework display on the beach, and they’d also be taken by him in three huge parties to the circus.

Disillusioned with political parties and regarding them as being inept in their ability to deal with the underprivileged, Leon was to stand as a ‘People’s Party’ candidate and he heroically polled over two thousand votes.

When Dylan was alive, Dylan would always make a point of seeing Leon, referring to him as “my priest”, and when Leon was asked by David Thomas, the local Swansea historian, for his memories of Dylan, it was always Dylan’s spiritual virtues that were in the forefront of Leon’s recollection:

“He [Dylan Thomas] lived, I suppose, more on faith than most parsons ever have tried to do. And no one could ever accuse him of daring to submit his talent to commercial interest. In fact, there were times when he looked like a tramp, and I suppose he didn’t eat much more than a tramp. He always struck me as a man whose soul was so much alive that he suffered. He suffered a lot, I think. But every action he seemed to make was, according to my unorthodox view, a religious action. It was an attempt to evaluate and appreciate and express beauty and something that was lovely… He was a perfectionist… poor old Dylan, he did just explode… you could almost say that he died in childbirth.”

Leon had much more in common with the early, and resolutely pacifist, Christian church rather than with the established church and, despite their both being quick with their fists, he and Dylan were in fact staunch pacifists. Dylan was not averse to firing off letters to the Swansea and West Wales Guardian in which he railed against “the obscene hypocrisy of those war-mongers who venerate Christ’s name and void their contagious rheum upon the first principle of his Gospel.”

Dylan’s radicalism is overlooked but Caitlin, his wife, once observed that the sight of a uniform made him “physically sick” and in the same year that Leon, Dylan and Bert Trick made Mosley’s Blackshirts a laughing stock and caused the Blackshirt fascists to be banned from holding meetings in Neath, Llanelli, and Cardiff as well as in Swansea, Dylan was writing in ‘New Verse’:

“I take my stand with any revolutionary body that asserts it to be the right of all men to share, equally and impartially, every production of man from man and from the sources of production at man’s disposal, for only through such an essentially revolutionary body can there be the possibility of a communal art.”

The two film scripts Dylan produced, though never filmed, also reveal his radical concerns: The Doctor and the Devils was based on the adventures of the body-snatchers, Burke and Hare, and showed how there is one law for the poor and another for the rich; and Rebecca’s Daughters, based on the toll-gate riots in Wales in 1843, exposed governments only bringing in reforms when they were fearful of revolution.

At the time Dylan wrote his revolutionary manifesto for ‘New Verse’ a quarter of the population of Swansea was out of work. In January 1934 Dylan wrote to his friend Trevor Tregaskis Hughes, a short story writer from Swansea who worked for British Rail at Euston Station, that “society to adjust itself has to break itself; society… has grown up rotten with its capitalist child, and only revolutionary socialism can clean it up”. He concluded, “Capitalism is a system made for a time of scarcity.”

In November 1933 when Dylan was just 19, he was writing to Pamela Hansford Johnson of “an outgrown and decaying system” in which “light is being turned into darkness by the capitalists and industrialists… There is only one thing you and I, who are of this generation, must look forward to, must work for and pray for and, because, as we fondly hope, we are poets and voicers not only of our personal selves but of our social selves, we must pray for it all the more vehemently. It is the Revolution.”

Dylan promises her that, when he’s outlined the political facts to her in greater detail, she’ll want to “don your scarlet tie…” as he puts it, and then he adds, “The precious seeds of revolution must not be wasted”.

Dylan would later extol what he came to call ‘Functional Anarchy’ (and indeed his great friend Vernon Watkins said of him, “None has ever worn more brilliantly the mask of anarchy” and his revolutionary ideals were influencing his poetic output.

“Remember the procession of the old-young men,” Dylan Thomas would write of his pressing social concerns and he would choose to write of them in what was, for him, an unusually plain and accessible style:

“From dole queue to corner and back again,
From the pinched, packed streets to the peak of slag
In the bite of the winters with shovel and bag,
With a drooping fag [cigarette] and a turned up collar,
Stamping for the cold at the ill lit corner
Dragging through the squalor with their hearts like lead
Staring at the hunger and the shut pit-head
Nothing in their pockets, nothing home to eat.
Lagging from the slagheap to the pinched, packed street.
Remember the procession of the old-young men,
It shall never happen again.”

After the Reichstag fire, Hitler’s false flag operation, and the Vienna massacre which followed it, Dylan’s poem ‘My world is pyramid’ would appear in New Verse in December 1934 and in it he mourns the death of the hopes embodied in the socialism of ‘Red Vienna’ and Dylan describes the city’s being ravaged by vengeful Nazis as a crucifixion. It’s a poetic version of Picasso’s Guernica, and his “Red in an Austrian volley,” contains the lines:

“I hear, through dead men’s drums, the riddled lads,
Strewing their bowels from a hill of bones,
Cry Eloi to the guns…”

The persistent caricature of Dylan (created in large part by the American media’s response to him on his final US tour) as an apolitical self-destructive bohemian drunk was misguided and when, in one of the first books to appear in which he was mentioned, Dylan’s work was described as “apolitical” Dylan wrote challengingly to its author, Henry Treece, to say,

“Surely it is evasive to say my poetry has no social awareness – no evidence of contact with society; actually, ‘seeking kinship’ with everything… is exactly what I do do”.

Dylan was to make his opinion of Treece’s book even more clear when a friend asked him to inscribe a copy for him, and Dylan wrote in it ‘to hell with this stinking book’.

One day during my stay in the Crypt, Leon told me that he’d had a word with Dylan’s closest friend, Vernon Watkins, and said that he’d persuaded Vernon to agree to see me for lunch to talk about Dylan. “He was interested to know you’d heard Dylan.”

Leon prepared me for the meeting by saying, “You have to be a bit careful. He’s very religious is Vernon. He once leapt from a window in Cambridge to see if angels would save him. Unfortunately, he was met by a sudden rush of gravity. Made a full recovery though. Likes tennis very much, does Vernon. Tennis and the sea.

“But you’d be interested because Dylan would always show Vernon his poems before he’d show them to anyone else. Trusted him. Vernon has a tendency to quote Blake all the time, “prayer is the study of art.” That’s the sort of thing he comes out with. Had a breakdown once and got God.”

This was slightly disturbing, but Leon quickly corrected the impression he’d given by saying that although Vernon had been “playing the mad hatter for a bit” he was now “quite stable” adding, “you have to be really, don’t you, if you’re a bank clerk.”

When the time of the appointment which Leon kindly made for me had arrived, Leon picked me up from the Crypt and led me across St Helen’s Road towards the rendezvous. Detecting my adolescent apprehension (I was then just seventeen) he put his hand on my shoulder and said reassuringly, “No need to be nervous. It’s an article of faith with Vernon that he never thinks badly of anyone. You’ll be in compassionate hands.”

Vernon Watkins
He led me into a tiny Italian restaurant next to the branch of Lloyds bank where Vernon Watkins had worked for most of his life and where he was now the oldest serving cashier. I got the impression that he ate here every day. Vernon was a shy, elf-like man with pointed ears, at once jerkily spry and then quite immobile like a lizard.

He told me that he had been under the spell of Yeats’s poetry all his life and that he’d met Yeats and that he’d then written a poem about him into which he put all the things that Yeats had said. Yeats had told him, Vernon said, that all poems were “a piece of luck.”

I asked Vernon how Dylan had thought of his own poems and he said that Dylan had called his own poems “statements on the way to the grave.” There was a doleful pause. His remembering this seemed to trigger him off emotionally and his eyes welled up. I wasn’t quite sure how to react. I think it was the first time I’d seen a grown man weep.

It had only been seven years, in fact, since Dylan had died and while Vernon was obviously pleased to talk enthusiastically about Dylan’s work, Dylan’s being snatched away so dramatically and so many thousands of miles away at the age of just 39 obviously still grieved him dreadfully. At what I imagined to be a welter of unspoken memories pumping through his head he’d suddenly look transfixed; hollow eyed and shattered. Then he’d press a napkin to his eyes, dab his face and recover.  He went on quietly:

“Dead poets can be your contemporaries you know, that’s if the whole of the past is a simultaneous experience, and it is. In which case…” He studied me closely, “Dylan’s right here now, you see. He’s sat at this table. Not dead.” And then he repeated it, quite insistently, as if it was a phenomenon that he often experienced, “Not dead.”

All of a sudden we seemed to be having a kind of impromptu séance until he emerged from it and was able to concentrate on his spaghetti and then on his lychees.

He was like a slightly damaged schoolmaster, looking at you quite abstractly one moment as if you weren’t there, and then examining you closely on your knowledge of all the poets in Elysium; on all his personal familiars, on Swinburne, on Milton, on Hopkins, and now on Thomas – all of whom he clearly had intense relationships with. A kind of poets’ club, unconstrained by time; all united in poetic ecstasies on Mount Parnassus.

Although Vernon obviously kept some daunting imaginary company, I steeled myself and passed him a poem that I’d written about the old man from the Gower Peninsula and his rusting brass telescopes who was living in Leon’s Crypt. Vernon unfolded it carefully, scrutinized it and then folded it back up and passed it back without a word.

He ate another lychee, mixing it with a half teaspoonful of vanilla ice cream. He then gently intimated that the purpose of poetry was “to set up a vibration” but he left me in suspense as to whether I’d done such a thing with the poem I’d just been so forward in showing him and I was too shy to enquire any further.

After all with Dylan Thomas and all the other luminaries as Vernon’s benchmarks I thought I was unlikely to match his high standards. I also got the feeling that there might never again be room in Vernon’s brain for any other poets ever, given the huge crater left by Dylan’s absence, still evidently causing him such anguish. However he did allow himself to say rather obliquely, “any poet passing judgment on a living contemporary is damned.”

I then asked him what Dylan was like. Vernon said wistfully, “He was a born clown” and added, “he was so magnanimous.” There was a pause then he amended what he’d just said with a kind of desperate, rueful ache, “reputation is the enemy of poetry.”  He didn’t say much more but it was clear that he meant Dylan’s notoriety had swamped a proper recognition of his talent and Vernon was clearly pained by this and he evidently blamed the Americans for having indulged Dylan on tour and then for exaggerating his behavior as it made good journalistic copy.

I mentioned how I’d loved to listen to the recordings of Dylan and he told me that “the two ladies from Caedmon”, Marianne Roney and Barbara Cohen, had asked him to choose a suitable monument with which to honour Dylan in his home town and how they’d said that they would pay all the expenses and had generously sent Vernon fifty pounds.

Vernon said he’d chosen lines for it from Dylan’s poem ‘Fern Hill’ and they’d been carved by a local sculptor Roland Cour on a block of Pennant Sandstone from Cwmrhydyceirw Quarry. The lines were, “Oh as I was young and easy in the mercy of his means time held me green and dying though I sang in my chains like the sea.”  Vernon’s recitation of Dylan’s lines prompted another silent tear.

Richard Burton would say that “Only Dylan could read his own stuff” and that was perhaps true, but Dylan’s poetic spirit suddenly became audible to me again through Vernon Watkins’ quiet and infinitely sad evocation.

Leon now appeared at the entrance to the little restaurant and Vernon invited him to join us for a cup of coffee before we all left.

As we got outside, Leon and I watched Vernon slip back into Lloyds bank a few doors up. He seemed to hop into the building like an elderly, wounded seabird, there to spend the rest of that Friday afternoon behind his hatch.

“Poor man,” said Leon, as Vernon vanished,  “I always get the feeling that he was someone who was hit by a tornado when he was with Dylan and now… well, look at him. Flattened by bloody Dylan altogether.

“That Yankee fellow, Brinnin, wrote a mischievous book about Dylan in New York. Mostly lies.  He wanted to use some of Dylan’s letters to poor Vernon in his book.  But Vernon got his measure. Wouldn’t let the bastard use a single one. Very, very, very protective of Dylan is Vernon.”

I told Leon that Vernon had told me in the course of lunch that Dylan often talked to him in his dreams.

“Oh yes. The poor bugger suffers, doesn’t he? Dylan suffered too, you know. Had a very angry wife, did Dylan. Ever heard of Blodeuwedd? the woman made of flowers? Mythical Welsh beauty. Well,” he paused, “Dylan’s wife, Caitlin, wasn’t her although she was beautiful. Mostly Dylan saw the flowers. Good on him for that. Fair play. But speaking for myself, I could only see the thorns.”

“Poor Vernon. A good man. The bank clerk who dreams of being a fisherman and of catching mermaids. That’s how Dylan described him. Now, you don’t ordinarily think of bankers as being unworldly, do you?”

At this, Leon stopped still in the street, put his hands behind his back, and recited,  “I know the weight of unspoken words, of speech that cannot be drawn. I crouch and my life returns to the sea. It trembles, then it is gone.” That’s one of Vernon’s for you. Did he recite any of his poems to you? He’s not really as shy as he makes out. He stopped me once outside the bank and he exclaimed, ‘Leon, the world’s mysterious! Woven in light!’

“There. Been quite overshadowed by Dylan of course.”

Although Leon was large of stature and heavily built he seemed to become light-footed whenever he sang or recited. He’d often so unselfconsciously pepper his conversation with snatches of poetry that he made me wonder if everyone in Swansea had their heads filled with it, like biblical poet-prophets.

Dylan’s namesake, R. S. Thomas, was to pay Vernon Watkins a tribute in a poem called ‘The Bank Clerk’: “It was not the shillings he heard,/But the clinking of the waves in the gullies of /Pwll Du. Turning them over/To the customers at the counter/He offered them the rich change/Of his mind, the real coinage/Of language for their dry cheques.”

Philip Larkin also paid Vernon Watkins a visit once and commented, “In Vernon’s presence poetry seemed like a living stream, in which one had only to dip the vessel of one’s devotion. He made it clear how one could, in fact, ‘live by poetry’; it was a vocation, at once difficult as sainthood and easy as breathing.”

Vernon Watkins died playing tennis. The lines on his memorial stone are thought to reflect his feelings towards Dylan: “Death cannot steal the light /Which love has kindled/ Nor the years change it”

Leon Atkin and Dylan
In October, 1953 a picture appeared in the South Wales Evening Post of Leon Atkin and Dylan together in the Bush Hotel in the High Street. It was to be Dylan’s last drink in Swansea. He was on his way to catch the train at the start of his final journey to America for a fourth tour. This time it was apparently to write an opera with Stravinsky in California which Boston University might be commissioning. Stravinsky had already set a sonnet of Dylan’s to music and the opera’s formidable theme, as proposed by Dylan, was to be the rediscovery of the planet following an atomic misadventure for which the forging of a whole new language was required.  Stravinsky had said of Dylan, “As soon as I met him, I knew the only thing to do was to love him.”

Dylan had also been obliged to go in order to earn sufficient money through public readings to pay an outstanding tax bill. He would never return alive.

Not so long beforehand he’d written a poem on his birthday. Its prophetic last line was “As I sail out to die.”

The received wisdom is that Dylan died as a result of a drinking bout in the White Horse Tavern in New York but the story’s authenticity has lately been undermined. For a start, the post-mortem revealed no signs of alcoholic damage to the brain and nor was there any cirrhosis of the liver. It now seems likely that the real cause of Dylan’s death was medical negligence. Four days prior to his death a New York doctor, a Dr. Feltenstein, gave Dylan an unusually high dose of morphine as a sedative.

Although, while he was staying at the Chelsea Hotel in New York, Dylan had boasted to his last lover, Liz Reitell (an assistant at the Poetry Centre in New York who’d helped to stage the first performance of ‘Under Milk Wood’), “I’ve had eighteen straight whiskies. I think that’s a record”, it turned out that Dylan had, in fact, drunk nothing like that amount and that, rather than his suffering from a colossal alcoholic assault on the brain as the legend favors, he was actually suffering from a severe chest infection, probably bronchial pneumonia, possibly undiagnosed diabetes, and he was experiencing extreme breathing difficulties as a result of one or other of these two conditions rather than from an alcoholic stroke, the received wisdom.

Dylan had suffered from bronchitis and asthma since childhood and his Chelsea Hotel crisis required to be treated with antibiotics rather than with the paralysingly high doses of morphine that Feltenstein would give him on three visits. Feltenstein injected 30mg of morphine, three times the normal dose for pain relief.

Milton Feltenstein was Reitell’s family physician. She would later describe him as “a wild doctor who believed injections could cure anything”  and it’s now thought that Dylan’s mistreatment with morphine by an incompetent and flamboyant doctor accentuated his respiratory problems and brought on the coma from which he would never recover.

Shortly after his seeing Dr. Feltenstein, on Tuesday, 3rd November, and after his being misdiagnosed and then erroneously prescribed for, Dylan was overcome and started to break down and weep in his bedroom at the Chelsea. He told Liz Reitell that he wished to die and to “go to the garden of Eden”.

Seeing himself on his own deathbed, he wrote his last poem. It was called ‘Elegy’ and in it he holds his own hand:

“Veined his poor hand I held, and I saw/
“Through his unseeing eyes to the roots of the sea.”

He records himself, “crying as he died. Fearing at last the spheres’ /Last sound, the world going out without a breath.”

It was an accurate thought. Dylan’s death was momentous. When Dylan died, Karl Shapiro said, “it was as if there would never be any more youth in the world.”

Shapiro noted that “everyone looked upon Thomas as the last of the young poets.”

Shapiro was to go even further: “The death of Dylan Thomas in 1953 was the most singular demonstration of suffering in modern literary history. One searches his memory for any parallel to it. At thirty-nine Thomas had endeared himself to the literary youth of England and America, to most of the poets who were his contemporaries, and to many who were his elders; he was the master of a public which he himself had brought out of nothingness; he was the idol of writers of every description and the darling of the press. (The Press scented him early and nosed him to the grave).”

Dylan Thomas was radical and he had been attracting huge crowds. He’d recently been invited to the Soviet Union and it’s even been suggested that, just as in the case of Paul Robeson, a declared communist, there might have been something more to Dylan’s death than what would come to be caricatured for decades as simply the tragic self-destruction of a bohemian drunk.

But it was 1953; it was then the height of the Cold War, and here was a crowd-puller not averse to broaching revolutionary ideas in a US that was then so staid, so stultifying, and so paranoid about Communism.  Mightn’t it be better if he was disposed of?

Momentarily intriguing as the notion is there’s no evidence for it but certainly several other British writers have had a knack of being fatally consumed by America’s kleptocratic and venal mindset.

Charles Dickens was cheated out of his US royalties and, rather like Dylan Thomas, forced to undertake a series of demanding readings to try to recoup his losses – an ill-starred venture that accelerated Dickens’ demise. Dickens wrote to his friend the actor Macready of his alarm at having his brand new coat torn off his back by a grasping New York crowd eager for souvenirs. Several English writers have trod the gilded path to Hollywood and drunk from its poisoned chalice never to be heard of again and John Lennon was, of course, murdered outright.

In the case of Dylan Thomas, it can be said that he was to suffer no less than two deaths at American hands. Less than a decade after his death, his identity was eerily pilfered so that the Dylan Thomas that everyone had come to know and love pre-1953 would be eclipsed by his name being borrowed, or more properly stolen.


A then unknown and insecure folk singer looking to forge an identity for himself latched onto Dylan’s name and by assuming it, Robert Allen Zimmerman saw a way of securing for himself an as yet unearned significance.

Robert Allen Zimmerman had previously toyed with the idea of calling himself ‘Elston Gunn’ and even ‘Jack Frost’ but, as soon as he was introduced to the work of Dylan Thomas, he felt a compulsion to help himself to Dylan’s name in order to further his career as poet-folksinger.

Dylan Thomas had at this point achieved near-mythic status in New York’s bohemian and literary circles and so Robert Zimmerman’s appropriation of his name was a glaringly obvious way of his trying to pass himself off as a great poet before he’d begun. As Joni Mitchell put it:

“Bob [Dylan] is not authentic at all. He’s a plagiarist, and his name and voice are fake. Everything about Bob is a deception. We are like night and day, he and I.”

Now that the name ‘Dylan’ has become commonplace, Zimmerman’s identity theft may seem to have little significance yet, when Dylan Thomas was born there was, in fact, no one else alive who had Dylan as their first name.

The use of the name was a unique coinage and especial to Dylan’s family.  Thomas’ father, David John Thomas, known as ‘D.J.’, had chosen it with a scholarly care.  D.J. had noted his new-born son’s likeness to the Dylan ail Don, the “curly-haired boy” mentioned in the epic poem, ‘Mabinogion’.  The mother of the Dylan ail Don, Arianrhod, gives birth to Dylan through magical means – through a wand that bestows life.

D.J. was, in other words, giving his son a name that, outside its passing mention in an obscure piece of 12th century Welsh literature, had, in fact, been unused.

Florence Thomas, Dylan’s mother, had her doubts about her husband’s choice since the correct Welsh pronunciation of the name was “Dullan” and Florence was worried that other children would tease him by calling him “dull one.”

However, despite his wife’s reservations, D.J. had had his way and the aptness of his choice was later borne out in what Dylan Thomas referred to as “that bloody cherub picture”, namely the curly-haired portrait of Dylan by Augustus John.


‘Dylan’, D.J felt, was his son’s ‘soul-name’ – something that tied him to the soil of Wales. It was what T. S. Eliot, in ‘Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats’, called a “deep and inscrutable, singular Name”.

Dylan’s father had read him poetry as a child – some said he’d even read it to him in the womb – and two thirds of Dylan’s entire life-time’s output was written at 5, Cwmdonkin Drive, Swansea the house which D.J. had purchased from his modest earnings as a schoolteacher and to which Dylan would often return for the cwtch(meaning his safe place; his place of affectionate hugs). Dylan’s soul-name would, like a fairy blessing, serve to bestow upon him a kind of ancestral familial magic.

The reason that at the beginning of the 1960s Robert Allen Zimmerman decided to adopt Dylan’s name was patently to help himself to some of Dylan Thomas’ poetic stardust. No reason why not to, some might say, but in an astonishingly short time, through a determined manipulation of the media, Robert Zimmerman aka Bob Dylan was able to make certain that, by the end of the decade, it was he whom people would think of at the mention of the name ‘Dylan’ and not Dylan Thomas.

Dylan Thomas, his body barely cold, was to be pushed aside by Bob Dylan although Bob Dylan’s chutzpah would be unable to save him from a satirical jibe from his song-writing rival Paul Simon:

“I knew a man, his brain so small/He couldn’t think of nothing at all/He’s not the same as you and me/He doesn’t dig poetry. He’s so unhip that/When you say Dylan, he thinks you’re talking about Dylan Thomas/Whoever he was/The man ain’t got no culture/But it’s alright, ma/Everybody must get stoned.”

Obviously anyone in the world of entertainment is at liberty to call themselves whatever they wish and Penny Rimbaud of Crass and the Shakespeare Sisters, for example, have hardly dented the significance of either the French poet nor of the English bard but Bob Dylan’s case is perhaps different, if only because Robert Zimmerman’s helping himself to Dylan’s name, and to something of his cachet, has clearly sat so uneasily with the thief himself over the subsequent decades.

Furthermore, fans of Dylan Thomas have found the purloining of their hero’s name galling since there are several elements of Zimmerman-Dylan’s character that would make Dylan Thomas, were he alive, squirm with  righteous revulsion.

When Robert Zimmerman arrived in New York in January 1961 his driver’s license read “Zimmerman.” His birth name was something that he was self-conscious about; he didn’t want anyone to discover the truth. He was Bob Dylan. Nothing else. Once when Robert Zimmerman, aka Bob Dylan, was asked whether his assumed name was pronounced in the same way as Dylan Thomas, he retorted, “no, like Bob Dylan.”

The pilfering of the then much more famous poet’s name would bring Bob Dylan an immediate benefit but there was also to be an unforeseen cost.

Bob Dylan would find himself increasingly irritated by the amount of times Dylan Thomas’ name would be brought up by interviewers just as he was trying to build up his career and to establish himself as the only person called ‘Dylan’ who mattered – the only ‘Dylan’ whom, in Bob Dylan’s view, anyone should be paying any attention to.

In 1966 he was so riled by it that he allowed himself the pronouncement, “I’ve done more for Dylan Thomas than he ever did for me.”

It’s unclear quite how he could have believed this to be true since, apart from the fake Dylan’s stealing something of the real Dylan’s poetic kudos, the light-fingered Bob had also been feeling entitled to make free with some of Dylan Thomas’ actual lines. Dylan Thomas was doing rather more for Bob Dylan than the other way round.

For example the phrase, “the chains of the sea” in Bob Dylan’s 1963 song, ‘When the Ship Comes In’, matches the last line of Dylan Thomas’s Fern Hill: “I sang in my chains like the sea”, and in an article  ‘How Dylan Thomas influenced Bob Dylan’,  Alexander Poirer indicates other filchings and stylistic pilferings. He suggests that, “Lines from Thomas like “Under the windings of the sea/They lying long shall not die windily” sound like they could have been pulled directly from one of Dylan’s songbooks.” And on a record by Steve Goodman, Somebody Else’s Troubles, made in September 1972, Bob Dylan contributes some harmony vocals under the pseudonym Robert Milkwood Thomas, echoing the title of Dylan Thomas’s play. Bob Dylan’s parasitic relationship with Thomas was being hidden in plain sight.

Bob Dylan’s plagiarism is, of course, legendary: the melody for his winsome song “Blowing in the Wind” came directly from an old spiritual “No More Auction Block,” and the song’s central lyric notion was lifted from Shelley’s ‘Ode to the West Wind’.

His copyright infringements have been the subject of a remarkable number of lawsuits. There have also been allegations of musical plagiarism and it’s long been thought that Bob Dylan’s nasal twang was a pastiche of the great vocalist Carter Stanley – of the 1940’s Stanley Brothers bluegrass duo.

When challenged about plagiarism however Bob Dylan only says dismissively that “Wussies and pussies complain about that stuff.”

But Bob Dylan’s unrestrained kleptomania would prompt the folk singer Tim Hardin to say of him:

“He’s a cold motherfucker, man. He was thinking, he was listening to what everybody said all the time and going, “Uh-hummm, yup,” and writing it down in his little photo-fuckin-graphic memory, you know what I mean? Taking pictures of everything and reproducing the whole lick for himself. Then he learned to give somebody else a little credit, by having their picture on the album or something. Fuck him.”

In the case of his feeling free to dip into Dylan Thomas’ oeuvre in order to spice up his own work, it occurs that Bob Dylan’s misplaced sense of entitlement may stem from a kind of magical thinking: ‘I have a right to his work since I’ve  taken over Dylan’s name.’

In an early Playboy interview, where Bob is invited to discuss his nomenclatural plagiarism, the freshly incarnated ‘Dylan’ lets slip a striking admission:

“Sometimes you are held back by your name. Sometimes there are advantages to having a certain name. I wouldn’t pick a name unless I thought I was that person.”

When the legendary Woody Guthrie was at death’s door, young folk musicians would make a pilgrimage to see their hero and to sing with him before his death. Bob Dylan was amongst them and it’s been suggested that he borrowed his vocal style from the dying Guthrie – ghoulishly copying the singer’s slurred speech, the side effect of the illness, Huntington’s disease, that was taking Guthrie’s life.

But Sidney Carter (author of the cheerfully exuberant hymn ‘The Lord of the Dance’) who met Bob Dylan in London, concluded that, “Dylan Thomas had more influence on Bob Dylan than Woody Guthrie did, with an image of the bard who went forth as a kind of romantic prophet, doomed to an early death.” And it’s worth noting that Bob Dylan didn’t call himself Bob Guthrie and when he made his peculiar statement, “I wouldn’t pick a name unless I thought I was that person” he can only have been thinking of Dylan Thomas but did he really think that he wasDylan Thomas?

The flak which Bob Dylan has had to deal with on account of the name change could be thought of as inevitable blowback or even karma. In order to deal with it he has had to adopt a number of increasingly bizarre coping mechanisms.

He’s tried, for example, to give the impression that he’s outgrown Dylan Thomas; he’s implied that he’s a far greater poet than Dylan Thomas ever was, and then confusingly, and almost in the same breath, he’s insisted that there is no connection at all between him and Dylan Thomas. In one recorded comment he seemingly wishes to write Dylan Thomas out of history altogether. Dylan Thomas never existed. There was and there is only Bob Dylan.

In an interview with the Chicago Daily News in November 1965 Bob is asked:  “What about the story that you changed your name from Bob Zimmerman to Bob Dylan because you admired the poetry of Dylan Thomas?”

“No, God, no.” Bob Dylan says, “I took Dylan because I have an uncle called Dillion [sic]. I changed the spelling, but only because it looked better. I’ve read some of Dylan Thomas’ stuff and it’s not the same as mine.”

Like other bogus attempts to romanticize his past, namely that he was an orphan, that he jumped freight trains, that he was brought up on an Indian reservation, this was a blatant attempt at deception:  There was no “Dillion” in the Zimmerman family.

In a 1978 interview with Playboy magazine, Dylan repeatedly denied taking his stage name from the poet only to be undermined by Paul McCartney. McCartney gives the lie to Bob’s disingenuous denials that there was any connection between the two, “We all used to like Dylan Thomas. I read him a lot. I think that John started writing because of him. I am sure that the main influence on both (Bob) Dylan and John was Dylan Thomas. That’s why Bob’s not Bob Zimmerman – his real name.”

Hardest to swallow of all of Bob Dylan’s apologetics  and one that suggests that his identity theft has unbalanced him altogether is his contention that his original self (Robert Zimmerman) was actually killed thanks to a Hell’s Angel  (coincidentally called Bobby Zimmerman) and who was, according to Bob’s delusional narrative,  “transfigured in a religious way.”

In September 1977 the Soviet Literature Gazette dismissed Bob as “nothing more than a money-hungry capitalist” and when Bob Dylan displays his contempt for a poet whom he says he’s outgrown, and when he happily does what Dylan Thomas never did and that is to sell out to any and every commercial outfit and does so on an industrial scale, then perhaps it’s tempting to recall Norman Mailer’s harsh verdict on him: “If [Bob] Dylan’s a poet, I’m a basketball player.”

Joan Baez’s reward for fostering Bob Dylan’s career was betrayal and ridicule. She had introduced Dylan’s song “With God on Our Side,” into a performance of her own and she’d then recorded it on her 1963 album, “Joan Baez in Concert, Part 2.”

Her generous support gave him credibility in radical circles and the two of them would sing his songs together at the Monterey Folk Festival in 1963. Then in July of that year, she’d invite him on stage at the Newport Folk Festival. His biographer, Robert Shelton would write: “Baez, the reigning queen of folk music, had made Dylan the crown prince”. Despite this, Bob Dylan refused to allow her to appear on stage and cold-shouldered her out of his tour; and dumped her during the filming of D.A. Pennebaker’s documentary about him, “Don’t Look Back”.

Joan Baez however was cut from a different cloth. When her debut at the Newport Folk Festival in 1959 made her an overnight star, she would have the moral integrity to turn down a $50,000 offer to advertise Coca-Cola. Bob Dylan by contrast was eager to embrace every opportunity to sell out, to court American capital and to have the troubadour bow to Mammon.

Unlike Dylan Thomas who never once sold out – who never ‘shilled’ for anyone –his deadly Doppelganger would prove as keen as mustard to have his voice serve any and every American corporation.

Sidney Carter once said, “The word poet means different things to different people. Strange, you can talk about a commercial artist, but you can’t talk about a commercial poet. A poet has to have something holy as well to have genius.”

Dylan Thomas once said wistfully but cheerfully that he’d never earned enough from poetry “to feed a goldfinch” and he hadn’t. He left just under a hundred pounds upon his death. The fake Dylan has been voraciously, all-consumingly commercial.

Bob Dylan would sing “I Want You” for a commercial for Chobani yogurt; he would sing “Love Sick” for a lingerie company, Victoria’s Secret; he’d appear in an ad for the Cadillac Escalade and he’d be shown driving Cadillac’s gas-guzzling sport utility vehicle as he strums, and he’d sing what had been, once upon a time, his generational protest song, “The Times They Are A’Changin'” whilst the advertising company that had hired him projected seductive images designed to convey the virtues  of the Bank of Montreal. In Bob Dylan’s “Super Bowl Sunday” advertisement for Chrysler watched by 100 million people the singer rattles off an extraordinary concoction of jingoistic rhetoric devised to promote Chrysler – a company noted for building the M1 Abrams tanks that were used during the Vietnam war.

“So let Germany brew your beer,” Dylan tells the world. “Let Switzerland make your watch. Let Asia assemble your phone,” he pauses, “We will build your car.”

With stunningly meaningless gravitas he concludes, “Is there anything more American than America?”

Bob Dylan’s seemingly insatiable material appetite prompted Joan Baez, along with Pete Seeger and Country Joe McDonald the musical bedrock of the US peace movement – to enquire of him, “Have you forgotten what it’s like to be poor, Bobby?”

When he was fourteen Dylan Thomas wrote a poem entitled Clown in the Moon, “I think, that if I touched the earth,/It would crumble;/It is so sad and beautiful,/So tremulously like a dream.”

By contrast, the raddled Bob Dylan in his ten-gallon cowboy hat and in his open-topped Chrysler limo stuffed with cash gives the finger to climate change and fondles Chrysler’s remunerative defense contracts as he rides roughshod over that same shared earth, for money.

Aldous Huxley once introduced a Stravinsky composition based on a poem of Dylan Thomas’ by quoting a line from Mallarmé which says that “poets purify the dialect of the tribe.”

Thomas’ namesake would seem now to be determined that poets should be desacralized and that the language of the tribe be reduced to a money-grubbing sales pitch.

Robert Zimmerman’s cultural theft is to be copyrighted: ‘Dylan’ is to become a brand, set in Wall Street stone.

Goldman Sachs, in association with a company called SESAC, have issued bonds in Dylan Inc., bonds that are backed up by the artists’ royalties. You could hardly sell out or be sold out more definitively.

Shares in the megastar are to be quoted on the New York stock exchange – here is the ultimate copper-bottomed proof surely that Bob Dylan writes blue-chip poetry.

He’s established ‘Dylan’ as a brand and without a shred of irony, Bob Dylan even took Apple to court over their projected use of the name ‘Dylan’ to indicate dynamic language  (DYnamic LANguage).

Apple had been devising DY-LAN as an application, or App, but Bob Dylan would have none of it. The irony of Bob Dylan being upset by someone else adopting a name which himself had purloined was not lost on the press and neither have rock critics and fellow artists been slow in showing their contempt:

“After decades of carefully manicured deification by Columbia Records,” wrote the music critic Jonny Whiteside, the time has come “to flout indoctrination and examine Dylan’s track record as a Grade-A phony.”

Further disdain would come from his fellow songwriter, Lou Reed of the Velvet Underground, “Dylan’s songs are marijuana leftovers. Dylan is the type of person you’d want to punch out at a party.”

Bob Dylan started his career at the Gaslight Café in Greenwich Village; its Manager, Sam Hood, a close friend of Phil Ochs, permitted himself the succinct: “He [Dylan] was such a prick.”

Bob Dylan assumed Dylan Thomas’s name but he took on nothing of Thomas’s character, and far from his possessing Dylan Thomas’s magnanimity towards his fellow poets, as attested by Vernon Watkins, it would seem that the fake Dylan was so envious of his rock and roll rivals that, given the opportunity, he’d sadistically torment them.

He once reduced the emotionally fragile Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones to tears in Max’s Kansas City. Bob, backed up by his roadie, cornered Brian for Bob to tell him that his voice was crap; that his band was no good and that Brian (who’d admired Bob) had no musical talent.

When Bob felt that his fellow folk singer Phil Ochs was threatening to overtake him thanks to Phil Ochs’s rather more trenchant, more issue-based and more radical songs such as ‘Draft Dodger Rag’ and ‘I Ain’t Marchin’ Anymore’, with lines such as, “Even treason might be worth a try/The country is too young to die”, Bob threw Phil Ochs out of his limo in a fit of pique saying ,” I can’t keep up with Phil. He just gets better.” Happily for Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs’ suicide would end the competition that was causing Bob such discomfort.

Did he supply John Lennon with heroin out of a sadistic and envious desire to destroy him? Who knows? But Bob Dylan’s coolness and hipsterism is surely no more than a euphemism for a kind of grunting, self-regarding nihilism. Dylan Thomas was most certainly more fun.

Years later the myth of Bob Dylan as a counter-cultural icon would finally be exploded. ‘The business of America is business’ declared US President Calvin Coolidge and few would deny that the US’s most successful business is war.

Those maintaining that the countercultural values of the sixties had something of the eternal verities about them gulped to see Bob Dylan accepting the Congressional Medal of Freedom from a drone-wielding President who’d just passed the largest defense budget in US history, nay world history.

So much for Dylan Thomas’s pacifism, Bob Dylan was now joining the Masters of War club with all the imperial baubles to prove it: the medals and the money and the share portfolios.

Such misjudgments and sell-out moments can perhaps be attributed to excessive drug use, and maybe that explains the weird paths that his endless identity quest have led him on – a noted low point being his embracing of the racist eliminationist murderer Rabbi Meir Kahane, and his telling Time magazine, “He’s a really sincere guy. He’s really put it all together.”

Nonetheless the trahison des clercs still does its best to establish this charlatan grotesque as the US Empire’s national treasure. Here is the distinguished US novelist Joyce Carol Oates on Bob Dylan at sixty:

“Dylan” was a self-chosen name in homage to the great, legendarily self-destructive Welsh poet Dylan Thomas, whose lush, lyric, over-the-top poetry presumably influenced many of Bob Dylan’s songs.”

Joyce Carol Oates comments that it must have “seemed an act of extraordinary chutzpah” for Robert Zimmerman “to anoint himself with the poet’s internationally famous name” but now, forty years later,” Bob Dylan’s fellow American declares with a triumphal and patriotic pride, “Dylan is an American classic whose fame far surpasses that of his namesake, who seems to have entered an eclipse.”

The roaring sound of the sea as it rushes up the mouth of Afon Conwy, the River Conway in North Wales, is known as “Dylan’s death-groan” and the name refers to the hero of the Mabinogion who drowned, but for a while it could also be taken to refer to the drowning out of Dylan Thomas,  “The boisterous broth of a boy” with a voice of gold; the “Rimbaud of Cwmdonkin Drive”, Swansea’s “man of words”.

It was drowned out for several decades by a mercenary American: sneering, scowling, spiteful, and self-regarding; a supreme sell-out with an ugly, grating, amphetamine-fuelled voice and the values of Wall Street.


Now, mercifully, things may have come full cycle.

During Dylan Thomas’s centenary year it’s been proposed that, much like the Scottish Burns’ Night, there should be a Dylan Day. Should that happen it will be Dylan Thomas who’ll be associated with it rather than Bob Dylan.

Dylan Thomas’s namesake was invited to Wales to join in the centenary celebrations due to be held in the Liberty Stadium in Swansea. Apparently Bob Dylan’s staff expressed polite interest but then, for reasons best known to His Bobness, as he’s known to his more devoted followers, the invitation was declined.

No reason was given but Bob Dylan might have had a certain apprehension at the thought of being overshadowed by an inconvenient revenant in the shape of Dylan Thomas, given Thomas’ now revived and much enlarged stature.

There is nothing so constant as change and who knows that it’s not Bob Dylan’s turn to suffer an eclipse whilst Wales’s boy of summer steps back into the sunlight, free from the irksome shackles of lladron enaidiau or soul stealers.

Heathcote Williams

This was first published in a limited edition of 36 copies by Gerard Bellaart of Cold Turkey Press and as an e-book by Wales Arts Review, 2016.

Copyright ©2016 by Heathcote Williams 

Why Zionism is important & why we must reject attempts to sanitise it

$
0
0
This is an important article in Israel's online +972 Magazine that is required reading for anyone who wishes to understand Zionism, the movement that dispossessed the Palestinians and now rules over 6 million of them.

Ephraim Mirvis, Britain's Chief Rabbi, argues that Zionism and Judaism are inseparable.  His predecessor Rabbi Herman Adler was an anti-Zionist
This is because there is a pressure building up from the Zionist movement and Israel lobby in this country to equate the use of the word ‘Zionism’ when used in a pejorative context, to anti-Semitism.  The Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Anti-Semitism [HASC] of 14 October 2016 recommendedthat: [para. 32]
For the purposes of criminal or disciplinary investigations, use of the words ‘Zionist’ or ‘Zio’ in an accusatory or abusive context should be considered inflammatory and potentially antisemitic. This should be communicated by the Government and political parties to those responsible for determining whether or not an incident should be regarded as antisemitic.
Likewise the Jewish Labour Movement, which has teamed up with the Right and Progress in the Labour Party in order to unseat Jeremy Corbyn, proposed a rule change to the Labour Party’s disciplinary code, whose Supporting Argument and Rationale statesthat:
Zionism is no single concept other than the basic expression of the national identity of the Jewish people, a right to which all people are entitled. This rule change would recognise that it is not acceptable to use Zionism as a term of abuse or to substitute the word Zionist for where the word Jew has been commonly used by antisemites, such as alleging Jewish political, financial or media conspiracies and control
Theodor Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism found his main opponents were Jewish and his main supporters were anti-Semites such as Edoard Drumont
As the following article shows, this is nonsense.  There is a very specific meaning and definition to Zionism.  Zionism is the settler colonial movement formally established in 1897 by Theodor Herzl at the 1st Zionist Congress at Basel.  It was originally scheduled to have met in Munich but the Jewish community there objected fiercely to what they saw as an anti-Semitic conference whose purpose was to tell them that they didn’t belong in Germany.  As the Jewish Virtual Library explains:
The first Zionist Congress was to have taken place in Munich, Germany. However, due to considerable opposition by the local community leadership, both Orthodox and Reform, it was decided to transfer the proceedings to Basle, Switzerland.
This why the idea that Zionism is the ‘national identity’ of the Jewish people is nonsense.  There is no Jewish people, since Jews are members of all nations and given the extent of opposition to Zionism among Jewish people, historically and today, the idea that it is synonymous with being Jewish is not only absurd but anti-Semitic.  It is the fascists and anti-Semites who use the term ‘Jew’ and ‘Zionist’ interchangeably. 
The Chief Rabbi of Britain, Ephraim Mirvis, a man who it should be said isn’t particularly well endowed intellectually, came out with the absurd statement that:
One can no more separate it [Zionism]from Judaism than separate the City of London from Great Britain.
Likewise Mick Davies, who was Chair of the Jewish Leadership Councillor, gave evidence to the HASC (para. 21) that ,criticising Zionism is the same as antisemitism, because:
Zionism is so totally identified with how the Jew thinks of himself, and is so associated with the right of the Jewish people to have their own country and to have self-determination within that country, that if you attack Zionism, you attack the very fundamentals of how the Jews believe in themselves.
It has to be  stressed that when Zionism first arose as a political movement it was opposed by not only socialist and revolutionary Jewish parties but by both the Reform and Orthodox wings of Judaism.  If in fact it had been part of the Jewish religion for millennia then why should they oppose it?  The reason was that the idea of a Jewish state was of recent origin.  It was born in the age of colonialism and it sought to achieve its objectives through an alliance with colonialism, which it did in 1917 with the issuance by the Lloyd George War  Cabinet of the Balfour Declaration.
But according to today’s Zionist propagandists, if you attack someone’s identity you attack them as a person and that is racist.  It is a very curious definition of racism.  Presumably it is racist to criticise those for whom female genital mutilation is bound up with their religion?  Or criticising the Niqab/Burka, which is seen by many as integral to the Islamic faith is anti-Islamic?  This conflation between Zionism and Jewish identity and the argument that it is racist to criticise or attack the former is part of the pernicious nonsense that identity politics has brought forth.
It is also an example of the dishonesty of Zionist propagandists and the Home Affairs Select Committee (though in the latter case stupidity may also play a part) that they accepteda definition of anti-Semitism from the International Holocaust  Remembrance Alliance which states that ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’ is an example of anti-Semitism.’ (para. 17) whilst simultaneously accepting that Zionism and being Jewish are synonymous.  So you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t.  Whatever you do you are anti-Semitic!
If it were true that being Jewish and being a Zionist is one and the same thing then clearly Jews worldwide are responsible and answerable for the actions of ‘their’ state.  This is the same with any people.  British people are responsible for the actions of the armed forces  abroad and the war they waged against Iraq unless they take steps to dissociate themselves from the actions of their state.  But the Board of Deputies of British Jews, far from dissociating Jews from Israel’s actions does its best to claim that Jews support Israel’s barbarous and genocidal attacks on Gaza.
Published October 22, 2016
Zionism today is the fence that encircles the Jewish people, granting it supremacy over the other people of this land. 
By Noam Rotem
A man holds an Israeli flag during a march in support of the city of Jerusalem at the Western Wall, Jerusalem’s Old City on October 22, 2015,
  following a wave of attacks by Palestinians. (Mendy Hechtman/Flash90)
The State of Israel is a Zionist state. All of us graduates of the Israeli educational system know this. Israel’s first prime minister said it, Ehud Barak said it, even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said it. This declaration can be found in our educational curriculums, and even in the IDF’s educational curriculum. That is all good and well, but nowhere have I been able to find a formal definition for the term “Zionism”put forth by the Israeli government.
Is the goal of Zionism to ensure a Jewish majority in the State of Israel, as former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon claimed? Is Zionism “Israel’s heritage over the generations,” as Netanyahu stated. Or perhaps it is a political goal, as the prime minister argued elsewhere? Or maybe Netanyahu was right when he said that “Zionism is the return to Judaism, which preceded the return to the Jewish state.”
Or maybe Zionism is the “outlook that believes in the Jewish people’s sovereignty in the Land of Israel and the obligations of the believer to take part, all while working toward the common good,” as is written in the IDF’s educational curriculum?
Or perhaps Zionism is actually a race, as members of Knesset Yuri Stern and Esterina Tartman claimed?
Or maybe “the essence of Zionism,” according to Netanyahu, is loyalty to the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state? Or is a Zionist, according to the Education Ministry, a person who believes that we are growing ever closer to redemption?
Even the Jewish Agency, the oldest Zionist establishment in the world, which was founded at the behest of the “father of Zionism,” Benjamin Ze’ev Herzl, admitsthat, “it is difficult to define Zionism, but in general one could say that Zionism is the love of the Land of Israel, loyalty to the state, and an aspiration to live in it.”
An empty slogan
Zionism began as a national awakening of Jews in Europe, part of the same awakening that was taking place in other nations. The leaders of this national awakening anchored it in religion, thus tying a modern national liberation movement to ancient, theological traditions. Everything was fine until that point: Zionism, like other national liberation movements of its time, called for establishing a nation-state for the Jewish people. The problem began with its implementation, and the pesky problem that the promised land was already populated by hundreds of thousands of people.
The very fact that the Zionists declared that the land belongs to one nation, despite it being populated by another people, is an expression of privilege on the basis of religion and nationality. The very fact that the state is based on Zionism means that it excludes large portions of the population, whether or not they are Jewish — and whether or not they are Zionists.
Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism (the main ideology of the ruling Likud party), understood the problem. Thus he decided that the term “Jewish state” is clear: a Jewish majority. These ideas were not just empty rhetoric — they are quoted still today by the heads of the Israeli government. Only through the establishment of a Jewish majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean does Zionism have a right to exist. 
Prime Minister Netanyahu takes part in the annual day to commemorate Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Revisionist Zionist movement, in the Knesset, August 3, 2016. (Kobi GIdeon/GPO)
A state that privileges one nation among its population over another nation is not one based on equality. A state that views some of its citizens as a demographic threat is not a free state. A state that grants rights on the basis of religion is not a democratic state.
Modern Zionism is a nebulous axiom so deeply rooted in Israeli society, that one could mold it into whatever fits the current political moment. Zionism today is the fence that encircles the Jewish people, isolating it, granting it supremacy over the other people of this land.
It is time to recognize that Zionism has become an empty slogan used only to grant Jews rights over non-Jews, and to say goodbye to it forever. Israel’s Zionist citizens’ fear of losing these privileges is, of course, understandable. But it should not be taken into consideration. We cannot continue to allow Zionism to deepen the discrimination against Palestinians.
As long as the Israeli Left continues to depend on Zionism for the sake of fitting into the consensus, it will continue to chase the Right, which only seeks to further entrench discrimination. The Left must reclaim Israeli identity and disconnect it from religious elements. Only then can it present a different vision — one that people can follow. A vision based in humanism, freedom, justice, and equality.
Noam Rotem is an Israeli activist, high-tech executive and blogger at Local Call, where this article was first published in Hebrew. Read it here.

Why Israel is not a Liberal Democracy

$
0
0
Israel is the most racist and right-wing state on Earth


Introduction

The recent Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Anti-Semitism, [see Manufacturing Consent On ‘Anti-Semitism - Modern Day Alchemy - Home Affairs Select Committee Transforms Anti-Zionism into Anti-Semitism] whose primary purpose was to conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism, started from the basis that ‘where criticism of the Israeli Government is concerned, context is vital. Israel is an ally of the UK Government and is generally regarded as a liberal democracy, in which the actions of the Government are openly debated and critiqued by its citizens’. (para. 23)


However the Committee was happy to assure people that ‘It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.’  (para 24) In other words, as long as you treat Israel as you would say The Netherlands, then without further evidence you are probably not anti-Semitic.  But if you treat Israel for what it is, a racist settler colonial state founded on ethnic cleansing, you will be in danger of being classified as anti-Semitic and further you may be liable to prosecution for a hate crime if your criticism of Zionism is in an ‘accusatory or abusive context’. (paras. 5 and 32)


This myth that Israel is a oasis of liberal democracy in a Middle East of appalling dictatorships is just that – a myth – as this article will demonstrate.Israel a Settler Colonial State
The first and foremost reason why Israel is not and never has been a democracy is that it is a settler-colonial state.  In order to achieve the appearance of democracy, Israel had to expel, in 1948, ¾ million Palestinians in what was called the Nakba.  Thanks to research by Israeli historians such as Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe, who based their research on the opening of the haganah archives, the myth that the Palestinian refugees evacuated their villages in order to allow the Arab armies to conquer Israel are no longer tenable.  First hand witness testimony from those who took part in the destruction of Arab villages and the massacre of their inhabitants for example Liz Tcharansky’s On the Side of the Road are conclusive. 

Because Israel, unlike South Africa, was particularly dependent on political support in the West came up with the concept of a Jewish Democratic state.  For the Jews it was to a certain extent democratic, but for Israel’s Palestinians who spent the first 18 years of the state under military rule it has always been a Jewish state.  Whenever there has been a clash or contradiction between the two then the Jewish prevailed over the Democratic.  As the Jewish National Fund explained, after the Supreme Court ruled in Kadan in 2000, that the JNF and Israeli Land Authority could no longer refuse to allow Arabs to rent or lease land:
To the Jewish National Fund, which owns 13% of Israel's land and controls another 80% what is more important is a Jewish rather than a democratic state - 
'A survey commissioned by KKL-JNF reveals that over 70% of the Jewish population in Israel opposes allocating KKL-JNF land to non-Jews, while over 80% prefer the definition of Israel as a Jewish state rather than as the state of all its citizens'
Origins of Zionist Colonialism

The process of colonisation began in 1882 with the First Aliyah, (wave of emigration).  Although Zionists today are fond of describing Zionism as a movement of ‘national self-determination of the Jewish people’, when the first Kibbutzim were established, they were called colonies and those who lived in them were known as colonists.  [See Ben-Gurion’s Rebirth & Destiny] 
When Theodore Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, wrote to the white supremacist founder of Rhodesia, Cecile Rhodes, in 1903 he remarked:  ‘How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial… [Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.1194]

Today of course colonialism is not popular so Zionism adapts to the zeitgeist and adopts the language of the left to disguise its origins.  Herzl sought what Chaim Weizmann achieved in 1917, an alliance with British imperialism, the Balfour Declaration, which promised to sponsor a Jewish settler colony in Palestine against the wishes of the indigenous population. 

Zionist colonisation of Palestine first involved buying the land from a absentee landlords and then evicting the peasant population.  At first settlements like Petah Tikvah and Rishon Lezion which were established in 1878 and 1882 survived because of the support they received from Baron Edmond de Rothschild.  Later the Jewish National Fund, established in 1901, took over the purchase of land and the subsidisation of the colonies.

The difference between the first and subsequent aliyah was that the settlers behaved like traditional colonists and were content to sit back and let the Arabs do the work.  The Second (Labour) Aliyah from 1904-1914, spearheaded by the Ben-Gurion’s ‘socialist’ Poalei Zion, insisted that it was Jewish workers who were to do the work.  The colonies and the Kibbutzim were to be Jewish only. 
It was the Labour Zionists, not their Revisionist opponents who sought to create a wholly Jewish economy as a precursor to a Jewish state.  They campaigned on the policies of Jewish Labour, land and produce. 

David HaCohen, a former Managing Director of Solel Boneh, the wholly owned building company of Histadrut, explained what this meant:
‘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.63].
Unsuprisingly this caused mass resentment which culminated in the 1929 riots when some 100, mainly Orthodox religious Jews were massacred.  The Hope Simpson Report which reported into the causes of the riots was clear as to the reasons behind the riots.  It observed:
Haneen Zoabi is physically escorted from the podium of the Knesset because the Zionist members disapprove of what she is saying
The effect of the Zionist colonisation policy on the Arab.— Actually the result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that land has been extraterritorialised. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future. Not only can he never hope to lease or to cultivate it, but, by the stringent provisions of the lease of the Jewish National Fund, he is deprived for ever from employment on that land. Nor can anyone help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable. It is for this reason that Arabs discount the professions of friendship and good will on the part of the Zionists in view of the policy which the Zionist Organisation deliberately adopted. (para. 54)

Israel’s Open and Increasing Racism

It is the settler colonial nature of Israel and the definition of Israel as a Jewish supremacist state where Jews must always retain a majority of at least 80% that lies at the root of Israeli racism.  The ‘demographic question’ which is unknown in all western democracies, is ever present and manifests itself in the policy of ‘Judaisation’ of the Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem.  The Koenig Plan and the Prawer Plans are based on the need to secure Jewish majorities in both the former areas of Israel.  The fear that Arabs will one day become a majority is responsible for Israel being the most racist and right wing state on Earth. 

In Netanyahu’s governing coalition, Ministers are openly racist in a way that would be unheard of  in Europe.  For example the Deputy Defence Minister Rabbi Eli Dahan is of the opinion that Arabs are not human but beasts.  In an interview when asked what he would do if a law for single sex marriages was proposed in the Knesset responded‘“No, under no circumstances. A Jew and a goy [non Jew] can also not marry.”  He went on to explain the racial hierarchy of souls:  “We don’t recognize either of them. In any case, a Jew always has a much higher [level] soul than a goy, even if he is a homosexual’.

But lest it be thought that Dahan is an exception, we should remember that Prime Minister Netanyahu, when declaring that Israel was proposing to erect a fence all around itself, explainedthat its purpose was to keep the ‘“wild beasts” i.e. neighbouring Arabs out.  Racism is the handmaiden of colonialism and occupation.   Almost every government minister has made comments which would, in a liberal democracy, be considered beyond the pale. 

For example ‘Culture’ Minister Miri Regev, who spends most of her time threatening Israeli arts groups with a loss of funding if they don’t play in settlements, described the 60,000 African refugees who made their way to Israel in the past decade, as a ‘cancer’ in Israeli society.  When people protested Regev apologisedto cancer victims for comparing them to refugees!  Regev made these remarks at an anti-refugee rally in South Tel-Aviv and it resulted in a pogromagainst individual refugees.

When the Peace Index conducted a survey a majority of Israeli Jews (52%) supported Regev and 33% condoned anti-migrant violence.  [52% of Israeli Jews agree: African migrants are ‘a cancer’]  By way of contrast only 19% of Israeli Arabs agreed with Regev’s statement.

All Surveys of Israeli Jews find a Majority Adopt Overtly Racist Attitudes

Every opinion poll finds that a majority of Israelis display what in the West would be considered virulently racist opinions.  If a similar percentage of Britons had the same attitudes to Jews then anti-Semitism would indeed be a problem in this country.  Whereas people with what might be called anti-Semitic prejudices in this country number around 5-6%, in Israel a large majority of Israeli Jews are, to be  blunt, racist bigots.

In a survey earlier this year, Israel’ Religiously Divided Society by the Pew Research Centre, 64% of Arabs disagree with the statement that Israel can be Jewish and a democracy at the same time.  This rises to 72% amongst Christians with 20% disagreeing.
Just 8% of Israeli Jews identify with the Left compared to 37% for the Right and 55% for the Centre.  In practice Israel's centre is on the right and the Right is the far-Right
Amongst Jews 79% say that Jews deserve preferential treatment in Israel.  An overwhelming majority such as this can only be caused by the perception that Jews already receive preferential treatment.
When it comes to the question whether the respondents favour the physical expulsion of Arabs a plurality, 48%, agree and 46% disagree.  In 3 out of the 4 religious cohorts, there is majority agreement with this proposition.

This opinion poll is consistent with all other polls in Israel.  YNet, the online English version of Israel’s widest circulation paper, Yediot Aharanot found that ‘62 percent of Israelis want the government to encourage Arabs to leave Israel, according to the 2006 democracy index released Tuesday by the Israel Democracy Institute.’

A year later, YNet reportedthat ‘over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason’.  What is interesting about this is that people didn’t oppose it on national but racial/national grounds. 

The survey also found that over 75% of Jews did not approve of apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews. 60% said they would not allow an Arab to visit their home.  Inter-marriage diluted the dominant race.

About 40% of participants agreed that “Arabs should have their right to vote for Knesset revoked”. Over half agreed that Israel should encourage its Arab citizens to leave the country and over half said they would not want to work under the direct management of an Arab.  55% said “Arabs and Jews should be separated at entertainment sites”.

Israeli Jews hold views that, if they were expressed in Britain, would be attributed to the far-Right, the BNP and EDL. In Israel such views are mainstream.

Racism amongst young Israeli Jews is even higher than amongst their elders

Israeli Jewish school students in their segregated classroom - most Jewish youth will never meet or have an Arab friend
In Half of Jewish high schoolers say Arabs shouldn’t vote – poll, nearly half of Jewish Israeli high school students said they believe Arabs should not have the right to vote.

The poll asked Jewish Israeli high school students in grades 11-12 a variety of questions intended to probe their opinions on current affairs and political identity, among other issues. Nearly half (48%) of those polled answered “no” to the question: “Do you think Arab Israelis should be represented in the Knesset?”  The remainder, 52%, said yes.


Joint (Arab) List members Jamal Zahalka (left), Basel Ghattas (center) and Hanin Zoabi (right) at the weekly Joint (Arab) List meeting at the Knesset, on February 8, 2016. On January 2, the trio met with the families of Palestinian terrorists, prompting a political outcry. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Reuven Harari, the CEO of pollster New Wave, told Army Radio that the research had two important implications. First, youth in Israel are more right-wing than their parents. Secondly, while the trend around the world is for youth to be more left-wing than their parents, in Israel we are special in that our youth is more to the right of their parents.”

According to Israel Hayom, a newspaper allied to Benjamin Netanyahu, the poll also found that 59% of 11th- and 12th-graders identified as politically right-wing, 23% identified with the center and only 13% said they considered themselves left-wing.

When asked whether Elor Azaria, the soldier who shot and killed an incapacitated Palestinian  in Hebron should be prosecuted, some 60% said the soldier should not be prosecuted, 30% said he should be prosecuted, while 10% said they had no opinion on the matter.  According to Hariri, 60% of those polled also said they believed medical treatment should not be given to an injured terrorist.
In 2010 a Ha’aretz article Poll: Half of Israeli High Schoolers Oppose Equal Rights for Arabs quoted Prof. Daniel Bar-Tal that "Jewish youth have not internalized basic democratic values,".  The question is why?  The answer is obvious.  In a Jewish state where Arabs are marginalised, education, land and much else is segregated and where there are real economic differences between Jews and Arabs, then of course young people will internalise this.

Ha’aretz noted that ‘The results paint a picture of youth leaning toward political philosophies that fall outside the mainstream.’  It would seem however, on all the evidence, that the views of Israeli high school students fall squarely within Israel’s mainstream.  That is the problem!

In response to the question of whether Arab citizens should be granted rights equal to that of Jews, 49.5 percent answered in the negative. The issue highlighted the deep fault lines separating religious and secular youths, with 82 percent of religious students saying they opposed equal rights for Arabs while 39 percent of secular students echoed that sentiment.

When students were asked whether Arabs should be eligible to run for office in the Knesset, 82 percent of those with religious tendencies answered in the negative, 47 percent of secular teens agreed. In total, 56 percent said Arabs should be denied this right altogether.
While an overwhelming majority (91 percent) expressed a desire to enlist in the Israel Defense Forces, 48 percent said they would not obey an order to evacuate outposts and settlements in the West Bank.  "This poll shows findings which place a huge warning signal in light of the strengthening trends of extremist views among the youth," said an Education Ministry official.
The survey, which indicates "a gap between the consensus on formal democracy and the principles of essential democracy, which forbid the denial of rights to the Arab population," the official said.
"The differences in positions between secular and religious youth, which are only growing sharper from a demographic standpoint, need to be of concern to all of us because this will be the face of the state in another 20-30 years," said Bar-Tal. "There is a combination of fundamentalism, nationalism, and racism in the worldview of religious youth."
The Erosion of Even the Most Minimal Democratic Rights in Israel
In an editorialWho Needs The Courts in Israel?’Ha’aretz describes how ‘A government-sponsored bill that would expand the defense minister’s powers to restrict the freedom of Israeli citizens constitutes another step in an unbridled campaign whose goal is to deal a death blow to human rights and the sacred fundamental principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers.
The bill would grant the Defence Minister the authority to detain individuals without trial or to issue a restraining order with minimal judicial oversight, and even that sometimes only after the fact. The minister would have the authority to exclude an individual from working in a certain trade or profession, from entering or leaving defined locales, from leaving the country or having contact with certain people.  In what other democratic country would the Minister of Defence have the power to detain anyone or issue such powers?

There is a myth that Israel’s Supreme Court has been a block on the Likud government.  This is not so.  Although it has tended to favour the secular against the religious in Israel, when it comes to Israeli Arabs it has been nearly always ruled against them.  In terms of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories the courts has been even worse, repeatedly ruling that Israeli law trumps international law.  They have consistently turned a blind eye to land theft and confiscation using a variety of legal pretexts.  The Supreme Court is now stuffed with judges who live on settlements in breach of international law.  Israel's High Court Rules Residents of Settlements Can Serve as Justices
For Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, a member of the far-right HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) settler party, even the present limited freedom of the Supreme Court is too much to bear.  Shaked is on record as advocating the genocide of Palestinians, putting on her Facebook a quote from a settler leader that "They [the Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."  Shaked  is Israel’s Justice Minister!

The Attack on Human Rights NGOs

On particularly favourite target of the Zionists in recent years have been Israel’s human rights groups, notably B’tselem and the soldier’s group, Breaking the Silence.  They have been repeatedly accused by government ministers of supporting ‘terrorism’.  The result has been the ‘Transparency Law’.  Ha’aretz describedhow this Bill ‘demands that NGOs which receive funding from foreign governments specify that in all their official publications, along with the names of the countries that contribute.’  Israeli human rights NGOs  receive most of their funding from abroad because there is little support for human rights amongst Israel’s Jewish population.  Right-wing NGOs  and Likud, also receive foreign funding, but this is  from private not public groups therefore it doesn’t have to be disclosed.

When Btselem’s Director Hagai el-Ad recently appeared before the UN Security Council saying that without international pressure, Israel would never abandon its settlements in the West Bank,  he was threatened with loss of his citizenship, called a traitor and attacked by all sections of the Zionist movement.  The Times of Israel describes how:
Zionist Union MK Itzik Shmuli said the group was helping to advance “the libel and demonization of Israel.” A Labor party activist even lodged a police complaint for alleged treason by the organization.
The Zionist Union is the parliamentary group that is dominated by the Israeli Labour Party.  These are the ‘moderate’ alternatives that the Labour Party’s affiliate the Jewish Labour Movement would have people believe are a principled opposition to Likud and Netanyahu.

Administrative Detention

In Israel it is possible for someone to be administratively detained without trial for up to 6 months at a time and for that detention to be renewed indefinitely without someone ever being brought before a court to face a charge.  The Jerusalem Post described how ‘In Israel, the administrative detention of Jews and Palestinians is different by any measure, including length of detention, and number of detainees.’ At the time when the article was written there were three Jewish detainees all of whom were due to be released, meaning that there would be no Jewish prisoners detained compared to some 700 Palestinian detainees.’  The three Jewish prisoners were only detained because they were suspected of having firebombed the Dawabshe family home in Duma village, in which 3 people including an infant died and a toddler barely survived.

The Post described how ‘Justice’ Minister Shaked explained ‘why the state routinely demolishes Palestinian terrorists’ homes, but never Jewish terrorists’ homes. Shaked explained the much wider need to deter Palestinian terrorism justified applying the law differently.’  In other words, Jewish terrorism against Palestinians isn’t really terrorism.

Addameer, the Legal Rights group that provides representation and legal services to Palestinian detainees, in an article On Administrative Detention describes how since thebeginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967, Israeli forces have arrested more than 800,000 Palestinians, almost 20% of the total Palestinian population in the occupied Palestinian territories. About 40% of male Palestinians in the occupied territories have been arrested.


Addameer itself and its workers have been repeatedly harassed by the Israeli army subjecting some to administrative detention.  Human Rights Watch issued a statement Israel: Military Harassing Rights Group Staff in which it called on Israel’ military to

stop harassing members of Addameer, a rights group that provides legal services and advocates for the rights of Palestinians in detention. The Israeli military has imposed severe restrictions and penalties on Addameer’s staff, either without even alleging any violent activity, or without due process.

The Mistreatment of Palestinian Children

Perhaps the most abominable of all practices is the arbitrary detention, beatings and torture of Palestinian children.  This in itself is proof that Israel’s claims to be a liberal western democracy is a sham.  In The Palestinian children – alone and bewildered – in Israel's Al Jalame jail the Guardian described how in Al Jalame prison in northern Israel, ‘Palestinian children are locked in solitary confinement for days or even weeks. One 16-year-old claimed that he had been kept in Cell 36 for 65 days.’
‘The only escape is to the interrogation room where children are shackled, by hands and feet, to a chair while being questioned, sometimes for hours....
‘Most say they are threatened; some report physical violence. Verbal abuse – "You're a dog, a son of a whore"– is common. Many are exhausted from sleep deprivation. Day after day they are fettered to the chair, then returned to solitary confinement. In the end, many sign confessions that they later say were coerced.’
These claims and descriptions come from affidavits given by minors to an international human rights organisation and from interviews conducted by the Guardian... Since 2008, Defence for Children International has collected sworn testimonies from 426 minors detained in Israel's military justice system.  Their statements show a pattern of night-time arrests, hands bound with plastic ties, blindfolding, physical and verbal abuse, and threats. About 9% of all those giving affidavits say they were kept in solitary confinement, although there has been a marked increase to 22% in the past six months.

Minors are rarely questioned in the presence of a parent, and rarely see a lawyer before or during initial interrogation. Most are detained inside Israel, making family visits very difficult.
Most children maintain they are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused, despite confessions and guilty pleas, said Gerard Horton of DCI.
Torture
Israel is one of the few countries where torture is not illegal.  In May 2016  UN official Jen Modvig, of the UN Committee Against Torture toldIsrael: ‘You must criminalize torture.’
Israel has argued before the committee in the past that treaties like the Convention against Torture are applicable only in areas of the country in which Israeli law fully applies. Surprise, surprise, that doesn’t include the West Bank or Gaza, except for Jewish settlers of course!

Israel’ new law to expel Arab MKs from the Knesset

Israel’s main claim to being a democracy is that Arabs have the vote.  This too is deceptive.  In Israel most voters vote for either Arab or Jewish Zionist parties unlike in western countries where people vote according to their political allegiance.  The result is that the Jewish majority consistently dominates the Israeli Palestinian minority.

Even so there are constant attacks on both the Arab parties and individual parliamentarians.  The latest move to restrict the freedom of manoeuvre of Arab members of the Knesset is an Expulsion Law.  Jonathan Cook writes how ‘Critics fear the new legislation is designed to empty the Knesset of its Palestinian parties’

Writing from Nazareth Cook describes how ‘The Knesset, awarded itself a draconian new power last week: A three-quarters majority of its members can now expel an elected politician if they do not like his or her views.’

The expulsion law has no parallel in any democratic state. Addameer noted that it was the latest in a series of laws designed to strictly circumscribe the rights of Israel’s Palestinian minority and curb dissent.  The four Palestinian parties in the parliament, in a coalition called the Joint List, issued an open letter warning that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government “want a Knesset without Arabs”.After Stormy Debate, Bill Allowing Knesset to Expel Lawmakers Passes First Legislative Hurdle Ha’aretz 29.2.16.

Even Likud’s Attorney General warned that the Bill ‘frustrates the will of the voters’.  Joint Arab List head Ayman Odeh said he would  resign if Balad MKs are ousted.   Another Arab MK Tibi described the Bill as 'The parliamentary translation of the phrase 'Death to Arabs,'' a favourite slogan of the Israeli Right.

Elor Azaria – the Soldier Murderer as National Hero
At the demonstration for Azaria in 'liberal' Tel Aviv, one banner said 'My honour is my loyalty' the SS slogan
Other examples of Israeli democracy include the case of  Elor Azaria, an Israeli soldier who was filmed executing a gravely wounded Palestinian as he was lying comatose on the ground.  He instantly became a national hero. Poll: 62% of Israelis favor closing Hebron shooting case.

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 called the killings war crimes and noted the complicity of Israeli medical workers 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.
If an Israeli Palestinian had held this banner they would have been instantly arrested and placed in administrative detention and then charged - but in Israel Jewish racism is openly displayed without legal consequences
In an article “Death to the Arabs” rally draws thousands in Tel Aviv Electronic Intifada described how, at a demonstration held in Tel-Aviv on April 19th 2016 there was a banner ‘Kill Them All’.  The ‘all’ can be taken to ‘mean Arabs, leftists, critics of the IDF….)Another independent reporter, Dan Cohen, tweeted that many in the crowd chanted “Death to Arabs,” a frequently heard rallying cry at anti-Palestinian demonstrations.

Times of Israel reporter Judah Ari Gross tweeted that 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.”

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.

“It doesn’t surprise me that people in Israel harbour 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.”
Dan Cohen wrotethat ‘Also in attendance were members of El Yahud, a loose network of Jewish supremacist thugs who organize mob violence against Palestinians and anyone they deem “leftists” that sprouted during the last assault on Gaza – a group journalist David Sheen compared to the Ku Klux Klan.

There are many other reasons why Israel is not a democracy.  It has a pervasive censorship that extends even to Israel’s archives.  Rewriting History – First the Holocaust now the Nakba – Netanyahu style.  It has a permanent state of the  emergency despite that fact that Israel is a military superpower that is under no military threat from its neighbours.  It has certain democratic rights, for its Jewish citizens but even they, if they challenge the Zionist status quo are in danger of falling foul of the security apparatus.  It however serves western interests well to pretend that Israel is some beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

Tony Greenstein

Viewing all 2415 articles
Browse latest View live