Zionist attempt to make support for the Palestinians an expulsion offence fails
|The first allegations of 'anti-Semitism' were made against Corbyn himself and the Guardian joined in with the Mail and Express|
Ever since Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, Netanyahu’s friends in the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel have waged a false anti-Semitism campaign, whose purpose was to create the impression that anti-Semitism is rife within the Labour Party.
Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian’s house Zionist, led the way with articles such as Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem. Despite the BBC, Daily Mail and Guardian singing from the same hymn sheet, no evidence of anti-Semitism has ever been produced. What was remarkable about this furore about 'anti-Semitism' in the Labour Party was a complete lack of concern about State Racism, Islamaphobia and racism against Black people. Racism against a privileged white minority was seen as more important than Black deaths in custody, hostility to asylum seekers and violent attacks against Muslims and mosques.
|Jean Fitzpatrick was fitted up by anti-Corbyn MP, Joan Ryan, as an anti-Semite. The allegation was later shown to be without merit|
This more than anything demonstrated the contrived nature of this campaign. It was about Israel not Jews. In the third of the Al Jazeera undercover programmes ‘The Lobby’, the Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, Joan Ryan MP was filmed manufacturing a false allegation of anti-Semitism against Jean Fitzpatrick, a Labour Party conference delegate.
|Joan Ryan campaigned in the General Election as an anti-Corbyn candidate who stated that 'people have more confidence in Theresa May than Jeremy Corbyn'|
Ms Fitzpatrick had gone to the LFI stall and asked a question about their apparent support for a 2 States Solution. What about the Occupation and the Settlements she asked? She soon found out that ‘2 States’ was a slogan designed to cover up continuing colonisation. LFI and JLM have never opposed the Occupation or the Settlements.
The JLM’s real aim has been to criminalise support for the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism, an ideology of racial supremacy. It is hard to defend jailing and torture of children as young as 12 and , the administrative detention of Palestinians without charge or trial for 6 months at a time, the demolition of EU funded schools and clinics, homes and facilities. It is much easier to attack Israel’s critics as 'anti-Semitic' than to defend the practices of the Israeli state.
|Jeremy Newmark is seen in between Israel agent Shai Masot, who was forced to leave Britain earlier this year, and Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev, second from right.|
Prominent in this campaign has been the Chair of the JLM, Jeremy Newmark, an Israeli state agent and propagandist. Newmark was accused of perjury in an Employment Tribunal case Fraser v University College Union. A Zionist academic Ronald Fraser had argued that the UCU, by supporting the academic boycott of Israel, was anti-Semitic. He reasoned that support for Israel was an integral part of Jewish identity and therefore opposition to Israel was an attack on Jews i.e. anti-Semitic.
By the same ‘logic’ criticism of Apartheid in South Africa was anti-White racism. By this criteria, criticism of Burma could be considered anti-Burmese racism. The threat to free speech is obvious but Zionism has consistently sought to close down free speech for anti-Zionists and in Israel even Palestinian poets are imprisoned.
|Jeremy Newmark - The JLM's perjurer in chief|
The Employment Tribunal ‘rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark’. It described his evidence of the harassment of Jewish speakers as ‘false’ and described his claim that he was treated as a ‘pushy Jew’ as ‘preposterous’.
In ‘The Lobby’, which broadcast last January Newmark was filmed working hand in glove with Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev, a man whose previous role had been, as Netanyahu’s PR representative, to justify the murder of 2,200 Palestinians in Gaza in 2014, including over 500 children. [The real question is why Panorama, Channel 4 and the Guardian didn’t Investigate the Israeli Embassy's Political Destabilisation]
The JLM proposed a rule change last year which would outlaw ‘anti-Semitism’. Its purpose was made blindingly clear by the ‘Supporting argument and rationale’ which stated that ‘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...’
The Genesis of a False Allegation of Anti-Semitism Courtesy of Joan Ryan MP
The JLM decries the very thing it is proposing! What has Zionism to do with anti-Semitism? Nothing unless one considers Jews and Zionists are the same. The reality is that those who confuse Jews and Zionists are the same people who regularly state that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is one and the same thing. The Israeli state calls itself a ‘Jewish’ state. As for not using Zionism as a term of abuse, well Zionism is very abusive.
|Extract from Shami Chakrabarti's Report on Racism|
The heart of the JLM’s proposed Rule Change was its attempt to use the Report of the MacPherson Inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence in order to make anti-Zionism an expulsion offence. The JLM defined a ‘hate incident’ as ‘something where the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice’. If the JLM had had their way then anyone who claimed that criticism of Israel or Zionism was anti-Semitic could say they were a victim of anti-Semitism. Racists would be turned into ‘victims’. What MacPherson actually proposed was that where someone alleged that they had been the victims of a racial attack the Police must record it as such. What was not proposed was an allegation of racism was to be proof of guilt.
|Darren Williams Report of last week's NEC|
It is clear from reports of Labour’s National Executive meeting last week that the JLM’s attempt to make anti-Zionism an expulsion offence has been rejected. What has taken place since is a battle of spin. According to NEC member Darren Williams, a rule change was approved ‘that avoided the more draconian approach favoured by the Jewish Labour Movement’. Williams, like most NEC members, has a limited grasp of what the JLM were trying to do. It had nothing to do with being draconian and everything to do with an attempt to outlaw criticism of Israel and Zionism.
|Jeremy Newmark claims a victory despite the JLM Rule Change having been gutted|
The Zionists have since been trying to dress up their defeat as a victory. Ella Rose, the JLM’s Director, a free transfer from the Israeli Embassy, posted a press release: ‘We are heartened that the NEC has adopted our rule change.’ The Jewish Chronicle Report Labour executive gives backing to new measures on antisemitism talked up the JLM’s ‘victory’. Newmark claimed that “These constitutional amendments, if passed, will simply bring Labour’s rules to the place that should have been expected from a political party rooted in values of equality and anti-racism.’
|Jessica Elgot of the Guardian (& former JC journalist) was part of the Zionist spin operation|
The Guardian’s Jessica Elgot (who didn’t reveal that she was formerly a senior journalist on the Jewish Chronicle) was part of the same operation. She wrote an article which was little more than a JLM press release. Jeremy Corbyn will back change to allow tough line on antisemitism.
There is something sickening in the JLM, an affiliate of the World Zionist Organisation, which believes that world Jewry owes allegiance to the State of Israel, talking about combating racism. It is an organisation which funds Jewish settlements and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
The Israeli state defines itself as the State of all Jews, including those who live outside Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu has often stated that he is the Prime Minister of all Jewish people, not merely those living in Israel. The Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office, Eli Groner described Netanyahu as “by design, the leader of the Jewish world.” Is it any wonder that some people associate Jews with the actions of the Israeli state?
The JLM speaks of the openly racist Israeli Labour Party, a party of ethnic cleansing, as ‘our sister party’. For the Jewish Labour Movement to talk about racism is akin to the Yorkshire Ripper lecturing people about violence against women. It says something of the retreat that Corbyn has made since he was elected that the JLM was even given the time of day. There is little excuse for Corbyn’s behaviour. In his 30+ years working with the Palestine solidarity movement he was repeatedly criticised as anti-Semitic and when he first stood as Labour leader he was attacked as being an associate of Paul Eisen, a holocaust denier. See e.g. Jeremy Corbyn's 10-year association with group which denies the Holocaust
For all the huffing and puffing, the JLM have suffered a severe reverse. There is no sympathy in Labour’s ranks for their preposterous false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign. No one in the Labour Party seriously believes that there is an anti-Semitism problem. It is a hyped up campaign perpetrated by the Tory media and the BBC. With the excellent result of Labour in the General Election, the JLM's false anti-Semitism campaign has been sidelined. It has been demonstrated to have no effect on Labour's voters.
|Skwawkbox version of proposals before NEC - the proposal on the right was carried|
According to Ann Black, a right-wing member of Labour’s NEC the following proposal was agreed:
No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party. ... The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions.
According to Skwawkbox, Black is wrong. The phrase ‘was motivated by’ was removed. It has been replaced by ‘which in their view might be reasonably seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age...’. It is unfortunate because the key thing about racism is indeed the intent or motivation of the accused. It makes it easier to bring disciplinary charges. The previous rule, which allowed for ‘the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions’ has had added to it, the words ‘except in any instance inconsistent with the Party’s aim and values, agreed codes of conduct or involving any prejudice towards any protected characteristic.’ It has the fingerprints of Shami Chakrabarti all over it as it uses the objective test of reasonableness. However this is a far cry from the attempt to frame people for racism when they are clearly not.
Despite their bluster and spin, it is clear that the JLM has suffered a serious defeat. Their attempt to close down debate in the Labour Party about Palestine, using ‘anti-Semitism’ as the excuse, has been rebuffed. Articles in The Canary and Skwawkbox plus the willingness of people like Chris Williamson MP to speak out turned the tide against the JLM. What they are engaged in is face saving. What they wanted was the automatic expulsion of anti-Zionists on the say so of Zionists who posed as ‘victims’.
Jewish Labour Movement Original Proposed Rule Change
Add an additional sentence after the first sentence:
‘A member of the Party who uses antisemitic, Islamophobic, racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions in public, private, online or offline, as determined by the NEC, shall be deemed to have engaged in conduct prejudicial to the Party.’
Add at the end of the final sentence after “opinions”:
…” except in instances involving antisemitism, Islamophobia or racism”
Insert new paragraph E:
“Where a member is responsible for a hate incident, being defined as something where the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on disability, race, religion, transgender identity, or sexual orientation, the NEC may have the right to impose the appropriate disciplinary options from the following options: [same as D]”