Google+ Followers

Sunday, 22 July 2018

Two White Racists Discuss Their Anti-Semitism and Contemplate their Navels as the Jewish Chronicle Declares War

To Jon Lansman and Owen Jones racism exists in your head – it has nothing to do with politics, society or power relations

The arrogant and narcissistic Lansman is the real author of the Jewish Chronicle heading - he has consistently failed to stand up to the false anti-semitism campaign

The Jewish Chronicle, which is a Zionist propaganda tract edited by the far-Right Steven Pollard, has declared war. In a front page Leader, over a picture of Jeremy Corbyn are the words ‘Anti-Semitic and a racist.’ Only  Momentum’s idiot fuhrer, Jon Lansman, still pretends that the anti-Semitic smear campaign is about anti-Semitism. To everyone with eyes to see and a brain to think it is obvious that the artificial anti-Semitism crisis of the past 3 years has but one target – Jeremy Corbyn. Anti-Semitism is a cynical weapon. According to the JC:
Moshe Machover Interviewed on Real News Network on Labour's New Antisemitism Code of Conduct
Dame Margaret Hodge’s confrontation of Jeremy Corbyn in a corridor of the House of Commons, calling him an “antisemite and a racist”, seems to have burst a dam.... there has been an understandable reluctance in some quarters to confront the appalling reality that the leader of the party, and our nation’s most likely next prime minister, is indeed as Dame Margaret describes him.

Jackie Walker has been one of the principal victims of the anti-semitism witchhunt
It gives me no pleasure to say that I was right. I have repeatedly argued that the real target of the witch-hunt is not Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth or myself but Jeremy Corbyn. On my Scottish tour last month in Scotland I had but one message. I have repeatedly emphasised that ‘Myself, Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth are just collateral damage. The target is Corbyn and the Left, whether he realises it or not.”
This time around there isn’t even the pretext of a long-forgotten mural, or a Facebook post. It is about removing Corbyn. The ostensible reason is the refusal to adopt wholesale, undigested, the bogus IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism which Hungary’s anti-Semitic leader Viktor Orban is quite comfortable with.
Right-wing Labour MP, Margaret Hodge, who was accused by Alan Johnson, the Blairite Cabinet Minister of echoing BNP propaganda and who, when leader of Islington Council deliberately covered up the rape and abuse of children in care, accused Corbyn of being ‘a fucking anti-Semite, a racist.’ 
If all you read or heard was the press or BBC you would get the impression that Labour’s failure to adopt the IHRA meant that Labour supports anti-Semitism. It is implied that the IHRA is a universally accepted definition of anti-Semitism which only the political equivalent of flat earthers or anti-Semites reject. All opposition to a ‘definition’ whose sole purpose is to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is simply erased.
This is anti-semitism - Netanyahu joining in the anti-semitic attacks on George Soros
Supporters of Israel don’t even pretend that this is not their object. Stephen Pollard, the Jewish Chronicle editor, accused Labour of being ‘institutionally anti-Semitic’ because it had failed to adopt the entire IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. 
‘instead of adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies, Labour has excised the parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic.’
Zionists throw up their hands in horror when you suggest that the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations are about Israel! Oh no these liars argue, it is about anti-Semitism but then, at the first opportunity, they revert to Israel and Zionism like dogs returning to their vomit.
Jon Lansman, the unelected dictator and owner of Momentum is perfectly well aware of the racist nature of the Israeli state.  In an article Labour’s antisemitism code is the gold standard for political parties he made it clear he spoke of Israel’s ‘racist state policies, not just in relation to the occupation and settlements, but also within Israel itself – the segregation of housing, education, employment, and systematic economic disadvantage.’  
This is real racism - hundreds of Israeli Jews demonstrate against an Arab having a house in the all-Jewish city of Afula
Lansman has a very good understanding of Israel but he is a Zionist, a Jewish supremacist. Lansman is fully aware of the demonstrations in the northern city of Afula where hundreds of Israeli Jews took to the streets to protest against the sale of a house to an Israeli Arab, yet he is incapable of drawing the conclusion that it is Zionism, the imperative for a Jewish state, that is responsible. 
Israel is the equivalent of Apartheid South Africa or the Deep South at the time of Jim Crow. If there was any political depth or integrity, to either Lansman or Owen Jones, then they would question Israel’s claim that it is a democracy. A state which demolishes Arab villages in order to replace them with Jewish settlements and towns, is an ethnocracy. Yet the whole of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, is predicated on the idea that Israel is a liberal democracy.
Nowhere has Lansman or Owen Jones, mentioned that the IHRA is based on the idea that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’ How can criticism of Israel mirror that applied to liberal democracy when Israel is a Jewish supremacist state? Which other European state shoots down unarmed demonstrators or maintains a starvation siege of 2 million people?
In his recent Guardian article Lansman accepts that one of the IHRA illustrations of anti-Semitism, ‘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’ can only be an attack on freedom of speech, given that Israel is undoubtedly a racist state.  Lansman even has a dig at the Zionist Board of Deputies:
I don’t think these organisations, many of which failed to come out against the Blackshirts marching through Cable Street, or those that welcomed the presidency of Donald Trump have the credibility to criticise a political party’s robust, thorough and far-reaching code of conduct. 
However the article as a whole was dire.  Instead of pointing out that the IHRA ‘definition of anti-Semitism’ is more concerned about Israel than anti-Semitism, Lansman bent over backwards to argue that Labour’s new Anti-Semitism Code incorporates all bar one of the IHRA illustrations.
Lansman never bothers to ask what kind of definition is it that requires 11 arbitrarrily drawn up, barely literate illustrations? Corbyn’s fatal mistake was in ever adopting the IHRA. Corbyn should have rejected it out of hand. The Right have adopted it because it is a stick to attack the Left with and Lansman thinks he’s being clever in joining in. Former Court of Appeal judge Sir Stephen Sedley, who is himself Jewish made the obvious point that the IHRA ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite.’
Lansman and Owen Jones seems incapable of making the connection between Israel’s racist policies and the allegations of anti-Semitism. They seem to believe that the latter are genuine despite the fact that there has been no credible evidence for them. Those making the accusations, such as Jonathan Arkush, the Trump supporting Tory who headed the Board of Deputies, even accused Jewdas, a Jewish group, of being a source of virulent anti-Semitism’.
There is a simple question that puts matters into perspective which is: ‘If Jews in Britain experienced the racism that  Palestinians undergo would they have genuine grounds to complain about anti-Semitism’.
People like Jonathan Freedland suggest that because most Jews identify with Israel (Freedland quoted 93% but he ignored the Yachad survey The Attitudes of British Jews to Israel that show 31% of Jews declare they are not Zionists and that only 59% of British Jews define themselves so). Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem
But even if a majority of British Jews identify with Israel so what? Challenging an identity is not racist. What if a majority of Muslims in this country had identified with Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Would that have meant you were anti-Muslim to oppose it? Or if a majority of Africans were to identify with FGM? Would it be racist to oppose FGM? If British Jews support Israel then that is reactionary and racist.  Opposing Jews as Jews is anti-Semitic but not opposing the ideas that Jews hold.
Owen Jones - The Guardian's token leftist  and a complete airhead
Below is an extract from an interview that Owen Jones conducted with Lansman. It concedes everything and accepts that ‘anti-Semitism’ is a problem.  Not once do these airheads consider that when you are defending Apartheid, the best form of defence is to malign your opponents.  Not once do they ask why, if the real concern is about anti-Semitism, that Israel has the closest relations with anti-Semitic regimes such as Hungary and Poland (the Visigrad 4). 
Since the purpose of Momentum is to defend Jeremy Corbyn, it is an outrage that Lansman, as its Chair, is legitimising the anti-Semitism attack on Corbyn.
Below is the transcript of Jones interview with Lansman. Jones makes cheesiness into an art form and sycophancy into a badge of honour. He doesn’t try to probe Lansman’s clichés. 
Jones starts off by asserting that anti-Semitism is a ‘big problem’ on the Left and this is an assumption throughout. The problem is the repeated assertions by the Zionist, Labour’s Right and the mass media of this problem.  Evidence of anti-Semitism is thin.
Lansman says that people are in denial about anti-Semitism. Why is this strange? Should they admit to something that doesn’t exist?  He says anti-Semitism is different from other forms of discrimination whilst never saying how it is different. He then defines anti-Semitism as something people ‘have within them.’
This is the liberal explanation of racism. Racism is not something that arises from the psyche. Peoples’ prejudices arise from the society they live in. Racism is the justification for imperialism and colonialism. Refugees come here as a result of what we have done in their countries and then racism rears its head in opposition to immigration. This racism does not affect Jews who are White in this society. Anti-Semitism has all but died out.
It is sickening that at a time when Black British citizens have been deported to the West Indies, after 50+ years living here, that people like Lansman go on about an almost non-existent form of racism, a prejudice at worst.  This blindness to real racism, against Black and Asian people, Roma and Gypsies, is itself racist.  It is ironic that only 8 Labour MPs voted against the 2014 Immigration Act which created a ‘hostile environment’ that led to Windrush scandal. When Uncle Tom Chuka Ummuna goes on about ‘anti-Semitism’ we should remember that he supported the 2014 Immigration Act.
It is no accident that the right-wing press, the Sun and the Mail who employed Katie Hopkins as she compared refugees to vermin, are full of headlines attacking ‘Labour anti-Semitism’.
Let us be clear. Jews do not suffer deaths in custody, stop and search, deportations, economic discrimination etc. This is an exercise in false victimhood. The right-wing assertion that anti-Semitism is a major problem when it is not is in itself a form of racism. The false anti-Semitism campaign is about false victimhood.
Jones is particular facile when comparing male feminists who deny they are sexist to those who deny they are anti-Semitic. The relationship of men to women is not comparable to the relationship of Jews to non-Jews. Sexism exists both on a personal and societal level. Men have relationships with women in an entirely different way from that between Jews and non-Jews. Jones and Lansman also omit non/ anti-Zionist Jews who have been the target of the false anti-Semitism allegations and who have borne the brunt of the witch-hunt.
Lansman says anti-Semitism is a prejudice in ourselves’. If that is all it is then it’s not much. Elsewhere he describes it as ‘unconscious’. If you aren’t even conscious of it then it doesn’t exist.
Jones suggests the problem is education which gives Lansman the excuse to suggest that supporting the Palestinians leads people to believe that Jews are ‘bad people’. This is an example of how Lansman can’t distinguish between Israel, Zionism and Jews. Support for the Palestinians has nothing to with hostility to Jews anymore than opposition to Apartheid in South Africa was about hating Whites. This statement demonstrates that Lansman is an entrenched Zionist. If people need education it isn’t about anti-Semitism but about Britain’s colonial and imperial past, including Zionism.
Lansman gives two examples of anti-Semitism. Someone accused him of being a member of the chosen race. Lansman is a Zionist, he believes that Israel was recompense for the Holocaust and he has justified Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948 to create a Jewish state. Clearly he accepts the Zionist notion of a chosen people or a master race which is entitled to dispossess the natives.
Lansman’s second example of anti-Semitism is even more absurd. Someone said to him that they hate Israel for pretending to speak for all Jews. It is obvious that that person referred to the Israeli state and Zionism. Israel says it is a Jewish state, it has just passed the Jewish Nation State Law which means that it speaks not only for its Jewish citizens but for all Jews. When Netanyahu spoke to the US Congress he claimed to speak as the Prime Minister not just of Israel but the whole Jewish people. This is the basis of the Jerusalem Programme of the World Zionist Organisation. Why is this anti-Semitic?
Lansman also stated that there was a remarkable level of agreement’ on the NEC about anti-Semitism. If so that is extremely worrying. It means that virtually the entire left of the NEC, bar Peter Willsman, has been fooled into accepting the right-wing narrative that Labour is an anti-Semitic party. Their failure to understand that anti-Semitism is being weaponised is pathetic. This is testament to the remarkably low level of political consciousness of Momentum NEC members.
Finally the reason why I describe Lansman and Owen Jones as racists is that according to their own self-indulgent and transparently superficial conversation, they are both racists since they themselves hold that everyone is infected with racism.
Racial prejudice reflects society and when society changes people change. Zionism however treats anti-Semitism, in the words of Leo Pinsker’s Autoemancipation, as an inherited disease, a pathology. In so far as Lansman and Jones are Zionists they are racists.
Part of the problem is that both Lansman and Jones, because they reject any Marxist understanding of class and racism in favour of a petty bourgeois idealism and empiricism, are both susceptible to Zionist identity politics which portrays the supporters of Israel as victims. That is the depths to which these two have sunk. They are playing into the hands of Generation and Identity, Europe’s new fascists.  They too claim they are victims, of migrants. Zionists and Jewish supporters of Zionism are not victims.  That is why Trump and Breitbart, Bannon and Richard Spencer all support them.
What is remarkable about these two is despite their own self belief, how crude and simplistic their understanding of racism really is.
OJ:   How big a problem is anti-Semitism because it does exist on the Left and it strikes me that there is a broader pool of people on the Left who are in total denial?

JL:     I think it is a problem that people are in denial of it. I think that is very different from other forms of racism and other forms of discrimination, sexism, homophobia etc. which people recognise that they have within them, they  have to overcome. Why is it that people recognise those things in themselves but do not recognise the possibility even of anti-Semitism?
I also think an overglossy portrait of the Labour Party is painted by people who say that the Labour Party has always been an anti-racist party.  Well yes it has always been anti-racist for the most part but there have always been problems, there have always been examples of racism within the labour movement.
OJ:    Do you think one of the problems is for example you’ll come across the type of man who will go I’m a feminist so I can’t possibly be sexist. In the same way you get people who are left-wing who say I can’t possibly have any bigotry or racism because I’m left-wing so they then don’t interrogate their own prejudices.
JL:     Every single one of us has grown up in a society which is racist, which is sexist, which is homophobic and every one of us is bound to have some of that within us. There is no one free of that and we should all be looking for signs of those things in ourselves in order to ensure that we do not act on the basis of. Our anti-racism has to involve searching for examples of anti-Semitic prejudice in ourselves at this moment, in the Labour Party, when we have clearly lost the support of the Jewish community.
OJ:    Socialism has been very weak as a mass political force certainly in this country for so long and what happened in 2015 is that it dramatically changed very very quickly and hundreds of thousands of people got involved interested in politics, often for the first time or certainly for a very very long time in many cases but there wasn’t the political education there. There’s a crisis of political education on the left of the labour movement. How was that addressed and do you think that Momentum is part of that?
JL:     I think it is a systemic problem. If you come into politics for the first time and you haven’t got a framework into which to put issues of racism or anti-Semitism then you are likely to think of people as good people or bad people and thinking of some people as bad people or in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict might lead you, if you support Palestinian rights, to thinking of Jews as bad people. And that becomes a problem. So we do have a lot of education to do. I think we need to do direct education about the roots of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and discrimination but specifically in the short term anti-Semitism.
OJ:    There are some who argue that the Labour leadership has just failed to grasp the nettle on anti-Semitism what do you say to that and what do you think they have to do now?
JL:     I think we’ve all failed to act sufficiently quickly, deeply and the problem is bigger than I used to think. I’ve seen it. It appears on my own Facebook feed.
OJ:    Can you give examples?
JL:     There’s been the more overt things like someone the other day who said ‘I suppose you think you are a member of the chosen race’ which is overtly anti-Semitic. But there are other people who’ve said things like ‘I hate Israel for pretending to speak for all Jews.’ And I thought you are saying Israel the State says that or the Israeli government? Or do you mean all Jews?  Hate Israel?  That’s something you hate Jews for or Israelis for?  It seems to me that’s an overreaction.
It may well be that Israeli politicians don’t speak for us. They don’t speak for me. I’m a British person they don’t speak for British Jews actually.  Not on matters of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They might speak for Jews in Britain if they were making statements about the oppression of Jews in another country. In Hungary for example. Then they might speak for other Jews but they don’t speak for me on all matters. Of course I have strong disagreements with all Israeli governments over at least the last 2 or 3 decades.
And yet someone says this who appears to be a socialist who’s hating people or a country for that reason. That can only be seen I’m afraid as anti-Semitic. Inadvertent or not.
OJ:    There was this story about leaked minutes from the National Executive Committee suggesting you and others actually hadn’t, in some cases had suggested actually these aren’t anti-Semitic or whatever. That had caused divisions and that had been leaked.  What do you say about that?
JL:     Well I haven’t actually had the benefit of seeing these leaked minutes and I am a member of the National Executive so I can’t really comment on what I haven’t seen. But I do remember the meeting pretty well and it wasn’t like that at all. Actually on anti-Semitism there was a remarkable level of agreement. I proposed because of the problems that we have been experiencing that we review the whole process by which we consider cases of anti-Semitism that are brought to our attention. From the point that the charges are brought to what the rules say through how they are investigated to how they are brought to the NEC, if they are passed on to the National Constitutional Committee which is the final court if you like, how that handles them. And has taken much too long to process them up to now. So that was a fantastic level of unity.
OJ:    What is your message then to people who say about the NEC of the Labour Party which is now a majority of people on the Left that it isn’t going to deal with anti-Semitism properly.
JL:     There isn’t one single person on that NEC who doesn’t want to deal thoroughly with anti-Semitism. And not only that we are more united on anti-Semitism than we are on pretty much anything else in the Party in wanting to eradicate it. I can assure you that Left and Right and everything in between, on the National Executive will deal with this issue. 
We note with dismay and outrage the front-page headline in today’s Jewish Chronicle, which uncritically quotes Labour MP Margaret Hodge’s description of Jeremy Corbyn as ‘antisemitic and a racist’. This is a deeply offensive and very likely libellous statement. It is extraordinary that these accusations are being hurled at a time when, contrary to much public reporting, the Labour Party is in fact engaging very carefully and sensitively with the issue of antisemitism, on which it has accepted the core IHRA definition.
This inflammatory and insulting rhetoric, seemingly supported by many leading Anglo-Jewish institutions and voices, risks bringing our community as a whole into disrepute, and consequently fuelling real antisemitism. We strongly urge all Jews in Britain, whatever their political allegiances and views, to join us in repudiating the misuse of this very serious allegation, which imperils the norms of reasonable and civil discourse that we must all uphold.

Saturday, 21 July 2018

Israeli Holocaust Survivors Protest Against the Visit of Hungary's Antisemitic Prime Minister to its Holocaust Propaganda Museum, Yad Vashem

As soon as Labour Takes a 4% Lead the ‘Anti-Semitism’ Campaign Returns - If Corbyn Doesn’t Grow a Backbone and Fight Back the ‘Anti-Semitism’ Smears will devour him

In the very week that Israel passed the Jewish Nation State Law which ‘constitutionally enshrined discrimination against its Palestinian population’, making Israel an officially apartheid state, the false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign returned. 
The Jewish Nation State Law defines Israel as a state, not of its own citizens, but of Jews wherever they may live in the world. I have more rights, as a Jewish person living in Britain than a Palestinian citizen of Israel. If that is not racism then the word has lost all meaning. According to Bradley Burston, a senior editor of Ha’aretz,
In the dead of night early Thursday,  Netanyahu led the government in passing the Nation-State Bill, a law which effectively repealed and superseded the equality and democracy provisions of  Israel's Declaration of Independence as a guide for the future of the country. Gone is any mention of equality. In its place, directives that veer Israel towards genuine apartheid, including a downgrading of the status of the Arabic language and therefore of Arab citizens of Israel.’
Orban's election campaign consisted of anti-Soros posters
Arabic is no longer an official language. Although a clause explicitly allowing the creation of Jewish only communities was replaced with one supporting Jewish settlement in Arab areas this was just a matter of words. What it meant was a continuation of the policy of Judaisation of areas like the Galilee or the Negev, i.e. the creation of Jewish only settlements in places where there are too many Arabs.
But also this week we had the visit of Viktor Orban, the anti-Semitic Prime Minister of Hungary. Eva Balogh describes in Hungarian Spectrum how ‘In the last eight years the Hungarian government has made a serious effort to rewrite the history of the Holocaust and many other aspects of Hungarian-Jewish history.’ The form this takes is Orban’s rehabilitation of Admiral Horthy, Hungary’s wartime ruler who formed a pact with Nazi Germany and who presided over the deportation of nearly ½ million Jews to Auschwitz.
Israelis demonstrate in June in Afula, a northern Israeli city against the sale of a house to an Arab - according to the IHRA definition of  antisemitism, to call this racist is antisemitic
It is strange that in all the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, Margaret Hodge and the other Zionist rubbish in the Labour Party don’t criticise the visit of a Holocaust revisionist, Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, to Israel despite Philip Stephen’s observation that Orban described Horthy as amongst Hungary’s exceptional statesmen”.
Orban arrives to a hero's reception in Israel
Orban waged an anti-Semitic election campaign against Jewish billionaire George Soros employing all the old anti-Jewish stereotypes. The silence of the Jewish Labour Movement and the Hodges has been deafening. This was a campaign not only approved by Netanyahu but the subject of an anti-Semitic cartoon by his son Yair, a cartoon which neo-Nazis like David Duke openly praised. In an election speech in March Orban declared:
“We are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open, but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the whole world.”
Both the antisemitic Orban and the fascist Netanyahu agree on hatred of Soros
This includes virtually every anti-Semitic dog whistle you can think of.  Speculation, usury, doesn’t believe in working, crafty, dishonest, doesn’t have a homeland i.e. no loyalty and yet Yad Vashem Zionism’s Holocaust propaganda museum laid down the red carpet to welcome this man.
Today we learn that ‘Dozens of demonstrators, including Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors, block Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s convoy outside Israeli Holocaust museum. ‘He is a danger to humanity.’ Attorney Eitay Mack, one of the organisers of the protest was quoted as saying that:
The useless IHRA publicises statements against 'antisemitism by the antisemitic Hungarian government
“Every dictator, every murderer who wants to buy weapons from Israel must come and lay a wreath at Yad Vashem. We saw the head of the junta in Myanmar come here for a visit, only to carry out a genocidal campaign months later. We saw the prime minister of Kenya, who is suspected of crimes against humanity. Yad Vashem has turned into an institution that whitewashes the crimes of these regimes — as long as they do business with Israel.”
Yael Weiss-Reind, whose family was murdered in Hungary during the Holocaust, said that Yad Vashem was granting legitimacy to these regimes when it accepts leaders who carry out policies and ideologies that are very similar to what we saw decades ago.”
“My family is from Hungary,” she says, “my grandfather was murdered in Auschwitz, and the prime minister of Hungary, who is being welcomed here with respect, has previously expressed his admiration for the leader who helped carry out the annihilation of 564,000 Jews. I am disgusted by the fact that the State of Israel is hosting him.”
The dark side
According to the Zionist ‘definition’ of anti-Semitism, Yael Weiss-Reind, despite being a Holocaust survivor, and Attorney Mack are both anti-Semites.  They dared to compare the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis. 
When Ken Livingstone mentioned the fact that the Nazis supported Zionism all hell broke loose even though it was factually true. When Netanyahu praises and invites as an honoured guest a man who is rehabilitating Horthy, who dispatched Jews to Auschwitz, Hodge, Berger, Smeeth and the rest of the cacophonous ‘anti-Semitism’ brigade remain silent. Such is the hypocrisy of the Zionists.
What is tragic though is that Corbyn, McDonnell and their supporters don’t call this hypocrisy out.  The Zionists latest complaint is that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism hasn’t been adopted lock, stock and barrel by the NEC. All 500+ words of it. 
Yair Netanyahu's antisemitic cartoon - widely admired by neo-Nazis like David Duke ex-KKK
There have been numerous critiques of this bogus definition of anti-Semitism, a definition that 31 states including Hungary’s anti-Semitic government have happily signed up to. Critiques such as that of the Jewish former Court of Appeal judge Sir Stephen Sedley in ‘Defining Anti-Semitism’, Hugh Tomlison QC’s Opinion and Anthony Lerman’s Why turning to Jewish exceptionalism to fight antisemitism is a failing project.
The IHRA, whose only purpose is to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is intellectually threadbare. It consists of a 38 word definition and then 11 ‘illustrations’ of anti-Semitism, 7 of which refer to Israel. For example it holds that criticism of Israel as a ‘racist endeavour’ is anti-Semitic which is absurd.  If it is true that Israel is racist how can that be anti-Semitic?
The IHRA holds 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’ is anti-Semitic.  In other words Israel is the product of Jewish self-determination, i.e. it is, as it claims, a Jewish nation state. But that is an anti-Semitic concept because it implies that Jews aren’t nationals of the states they live in. 
Another illustration says that Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’ is anti-Semitic!  Well if Israel is the product of Jewish self-determination then it is right to hold them responsible for Israel’s actions. In other words the IHRA, by its own definition, is anti-Semitic!
Yet instead of making these simple arguments and rebutting the allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ Corbyn and his advisers continues to act as if their accusers were acting in good faith.  It should be abundantly clear that Hodge, Pollard, Smeeth and co. have all the attributes of a hungry pirhana fish.  They are vultures hovering over their prey. Lansman’s Momentum is paralysed because its owner, Jon Lansman is a Zionist.
It is time for supporters of Corbyn to fight back because there is one overriding reason for this anti-Semitism campaign – it isn’t to get rid of Tony Greenstein, Ken Livingstone, Marc Wadsworth or Jackie Walker.  The target is Jeremy Corbyn and until Corbyn is removed then the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign will continue unabated. That is a good reason why people should join Labour Against the Witchhunt and our Facebook page.
I also recommend watching this short Interview with Moshe Machover on the new Labour Anti-Semitism Code

Friday, 20 July 2018

Just when Labour pulls ahead of the Tories, Margaret Hodge makes false allegations of antisemitism against Corbyn

According to Margaret Hodge an anti-Semite is someone who disagrees with her!

Given her cover up of Child Abuse, Hodge should never have been an MP let alone Blair's Minister for Children
Last week it was announced that Labour had taken a 4% point lead over the Conservatives.  In jest I remarked on Twitter that it was time to bring out the anti-Semitism allegations.  Little did I know that at that very moment Margaret Hodge, whose main claim to fame was covering up child abuse when Leader of Islington Council, was preparing to accuse Jeremy Corbyn of being ‘a fucking anti-Semite.’
The purpose of Hodge, Berger and Smeeth is to damage the Labour Party and give comfort to this woman
Of course there has been total unanimity in the media that Hodge was right to attack Corbyn.  From the Sun to the Guardian, the British press has spoken with one Orwellian voice.  It is like the days of Pravda and Izvestia and on BBC24 New’s What The Papers Say both journalists sang from the same song sheet. We are witnessing what Chomsky called the ‘manufacturing of consent’.
Simon Kelner in the 'i' repeats the same hackneyed arguments of the press - without an iota of originality
The Zionist argument was summed up by Simon Kelner in the ‘i’:
‘Who is, in fact, better qualified to judge? An understandably sensitised community on one side, or an apparently disinterested party on the o ther? Does the Chief rabbi believe that if a Jewish person feels he or she has been on the receiving end of anti-Semitic behaviour, that is – by definition – anti-Semitic behaviour?’
The argument is as attractive as it’s wrong.  Surely, the argument goes, any community or group should be able to ‘define’ what their oppression is?  In fact the answer is no.  Because all sorts of groups who are anything but oppressed can decide to define political criticism of them as a form of oppression.

I had an idea that antisemitism hadn't run its course!

Many lesbians are defining their oppression in ways that many people would say is transphobic. The Paedophile Information Exchange (with which it has been alleged Hodge had connections) used to define hostility to them as a form of oppression? How about anti-abortionists and the hunting brigade? The National Front and fascist groups define opposition to racism as being nothing more than anti-white racism as did the proponents of Apartheid.
Supporters of Israel, who are the real proponents of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, are not oppressed.  Jews in this country, many of whom identify with Israel, do not suffer from state racism.  They are not pulled over by the Police because they are Jewish, nor are there Jewish deaths in custody or deportations because they are Jewish.  The Jewish community in this country is a privileged White community. 
I had a feeling that antisemitism would rear its head
If members of the Jewish community choose to define their identity as support for Zionism and the oppression of the Palestinians then they should be criticised, called out not flattered.  If Jews in this country are racist they should be condemned not allowed to pass it off as opposition to anti-Semitism.
Hodge’s Attack on Jeremy Corbyn Demonstrates why the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism is not fit for purpose
No group should be allowed to define its own oppression.  That is precisely the pitfalls of identity politics in which you get competing oppressions and subjective definitions which lack all objective justification. Oppression is real, it isn’t a form of words or an international agreement.  As if the anti-Semitic Hungarian government endorsing the IHRA makes it somehow kosher.  And amongst British Jews many disagree with Zionism and the IHRA definition.  Are we to be ignored because Jewish ‘community leaders’ are in bed with Benjamin Netanyahu?
It's no accident that Sajid David and Chuka Ummuna say almost exactly the same - the time has come for Ummuna to be deselected
Zionists pray in aid the MacPherson Report which recommended that the victims of racial incidents be able to define what had happened.  However that was in the context of forcing the Police to record an incident as racially motivated.  It did not mean that the allegation was necessarily true or that the person against whom an allegation was guilty.
This week Israel officially declared itself an Apartheid state.  The Knesset passed the Jewish Nation State Law.  In the words of Bradley Burston, a Senior Editor on Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper, this is:
a law which effectively repealed and superseded the equality and democracy provisions of  Israel's Declaration of Independence as a guide for the future of the country. Gone is any mention of equality. In its place, directives that veer Israel towards genuine apartheid, including a downgrading of the status of the Arabic language and therefore of Arab citizens of Israel. 
This is the context of the attempts by the Zionists to impose the IHRA definition on the Labour Party.  No longer is there even any pretence that the false anti-Semitism allegations which have been made against the Labour Party for the last 3 years are about Israel.
In the Jewish Chronicle two weeks ago its editor Stephen Pollard berated the ‘institutionally anti-Semitic’ Labour Party for refusing to adopt wholesale the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.  Pollard complained that
‘instead of adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies, Labour has excised the parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic.’
This is the same Stephen Pollard who has not hesitated to defend genuine anti-Semites like Michal Kaminski because he is pro-Zionist. [see Poland's Kaminski is not an antisemite: he's a friend to Jews]
Anti-Semitism is hostility to or prejudice against Jews it is not disagreeing with the Chief Rabbi, Margaret Hodge or the Chief Rabbi

The argument that everyone has the ‘right to define’ their own oppression is an absurdity.  Anti-Semitism is not a difficult thing to define.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary it is ‘Hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ all of 6 words. The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is over 500 words.  In the words of Sir Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal judge, the IHRA  ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite’.

However as I have also said Corbyn has made a rod for his own back.  His fatal mistake was in adopting the IHRA definition at all.  It isn’t about anti-Semitism but about conflating criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. Instead of stupidly going along with Theresa May and accepting the IHRA without any debate Corbyn should have had the courage to say no.
The false anti-Semitism allegations were never aimed at expelling me or Marc Wadworth or Jackie Walker.  That is why it was stupidity itself for Corbyn to give these bogus allegations the time of day.  Zionist MPs like Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth are in the forefront of the attacks on Corbyn.  Appeasing these racists has not helped his situation it has made it worse.   The more you appease racism the more it grows and the Labour Zionists have felt emboldened.
Now with Hodge’s false accusations she should not be reprimanded, she should have the whip withdrawn.  The electors of Barking are entitled to have a socialist, not a New Labour millionairess represent them.  She should never have been allowed to be an MP given her record of covering up child abuse in Islington.
Last week we had people like West Streeting MP calling for sanctions on Israel for the proposed demolition of the Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmer.  This week he does his usual bowing and scraping whenever the word ‘anti-Semitism’ is mentioned.
What Streeting and others refuse to understand, to put it charitably, is that allegations of anti-Semitism are used to undermine support for the Palestinians.  If Streeting was being genuine in his outrage over Israel’s actions then he and others should not be supporting an attempt to conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism. The same people who support Israel right or wrong are those who proclaim that they are victims of ‘anti-Semitism’.  False allegations of anti-Semitism enable the real anti-Semites to get off the hook by being able to say that people are only attacking them because of their support for the Palestinians.  Zionism historically has always seen genuine anti-Semitism as a force for good, but it has also tried to redefine anti-Semitism as hostility to their political project.
With a past like hers, Margaret Hodge might show a bit more humility. Margaret Hodge is perhaps the last person to go around throwing stones.  As Matthew Norman wrote in  The Independent
In the Eighties Hodge was aware of previous child sex abuse in the care homes for which she was responsible, and did nothing about it.
Hodge was
‘A local politician who had heard the gravest imaginable allegations about the maltreatment of children, refused to examine them on budgetary grounds, smeared a victim, attacked the newspaper that did its duty by investigating, and finally – after years of running for cover – offered the dismal excuse that people knew less about child abuse back then, became the national politician with responsibility for children.’
Of course this Uncle Tom is lying.  Hodge didn't 'raise concerns about racism' she accused Corbyn of being an anti-semite
We also had other Labour right-wingers jumping on the bandwagon such as Chuka Ummuna who is politically White inside a Black skin. He made the fatuous comment that because Hodge had lost relatives in the Holocaust she was therefore right to defame Corbyn.  By that logic I should be able to accuse Chuka Ummuna of being a racist because I too have lost relatives in the Holocaust.  A Black politician who supported the Immigration Act 2014, which led to the Windrush Scandal is in no position to lecture anyone on what racism is.  Ummuna is an Uncle Tom who is playing to the racist gallery.
For the benefit of those who don’t understand what anti-Semitism is, I print the following guide to anti-Semitism.

Tony Greenstein 

17-Point Guide To Anti-Semitism And Its Abuse

 by Eli Valley Jan 30, 2013 6:15 PM EST

1. This is an Anti-Semitic image. 
Image from 'Les 100 plus belles Images de l'Affaire Dreyfus' by Raymond Bachollet
Image from 'Les 100 plus belles Images de l'Affaire Dreyfus' by Raymond Bachollet

2. This is an Anti-Semitic image.
Scan from 'The Way Jews Lived: Five Hundred Years of Printed Words and Images,' by Constance Harris

3. This is an Anti-Semitic Image.
Image from 'Les 100 plus belles Images de l'Affaire Dreyfus' by Raymond Bachollet
 4. This is an image critical of Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies in the West Bank.
Gerald Scarfe, Sunday Times
  5. This is Jewish historical trauma.
Scan from 'The Way Jews Lived: Five Hundred Years of Printed Words and Images,' by Constance Harris

6. This is an exploitation of Jewish historical trauma.

7. This image will not lead to Anti-Semitism.
Gerald Scarfe, Sunday Times

 8. This image might lead to Anti-Semitism.
Eli Valley
9. This is excruciatingly painful Jewish memory.
AP Photo
10. This is abuse of excruciatingly painful Jewish memory.
11. This is a bewildering tweet.
12. This is an Anti-Semitic tweet.
13. This is what the leader of the ADL said about the image criticizing Israeli policies in the West Bank.
Ariel Jerozolimski, modified by Eli Valley
14. This is what the leader of the ADL said about an Oscar-nominated Israeli film criticizing Israeli policies in the West Bank.
Ariel Jerozolimski, modified by Eli Valley
15. This is Jewish horror.
AP Photo
16.  This is Jewish comedy.

17.  Meanwhile, this remains.
Eli Valley