Google+ Followers

Sunday, 8 July 2018

Jewish Chronicle Editor Stephen Pollard Compares Jeremy Corbyn to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis


Comparing Israel & Zionism to the Nazis is ‘anti-Semitic’ but comparing the opponents of Israel and Zionism to the Nazis is alright!



 Earlier this week the Labour Party produced a new Code of Conduct on Anti-Semitism. [See Labour’s Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct – Be careful of what you wish for] on how it is unlikely to defuse the fake anti-Semitism campaign that has been waged against Jeremy Corbyn and pro-Palestinian Labour Party members for the past two years.
Nick Cohen's usual bile - this is from the person who predicted Corbyn would get under 100 seats at the General Election

The concern of the media over 'antisemitism' is in sharp contrast to their lack of concern over Islamaphobia and racism against Gypsies
The Code has produced an apoplectic reaction from the usual culprits.  Nick Cohen, the Guardian’s Islamaphobic columnist, writes that Labour cultism fools members, who never had a racist thought before Corbyn became leader, into believing accusations of antisemitism are Zionist “smears”.’ Sky News reports that ‘Labour's new anti-Semitism code of conduct slammed as 'toothless'.
The letter which I have sent to the Jewish Chronicle - I don't expect it to be published!
The shadowy Labour Againt Anti-Semitism group, which consists mainly of people who are actively hostile to the Labour Party and in one case an outright fascist, has described it as ‘a racists charter.’
What is the objection to the Code of Conduct?  In essence that the Labour Party has refused to adopt the complete International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism which conflates anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
Mike Katz and Adam Langleben of the Jewish Labour Movement argue that the Labour Party should have adopted the IHRA definition in totality, despite it having been severely criticised by eminent legal scholars such as Hugh Tomlinson QC and former Jewish Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley (Defining Anti-Semitism). Of course Katz and Langleben had a problem in so far as their Chair, Ivor Caplin, had given his assent to the new definition!
The JLM's new Chair, Ivor Caplin, got the line wrong - he forgot that the whole purpose of the fake antisemitism attacks is not to solve the 'problem' but to continue the war until Corbyn is removed
The arguments attacking Labour’s Code of Conduct are fatuous, shallow and outright dishonest.  Langleben and  Katz argue that the IHRA should be supported because it was created by a body consisting of 31 countries, 24 of which are EU member countries.  Yes it is supported by the Polish and Hungarian governments as well as a host of far Right governments from the Czech  Republic to Slovakia, Austria and Italy.  Poland and Hungary are led by 24 carat anti-Semites. What kind of definition of anti-Semitism is it that anti-Semites support?
Katz and Langleben dishonestly argue that uniquely  ‘the party has directly contravened the practice established by the Macpherson report of allowing minorities to define the prejudice they face’.
This is of course utterly dishonest since it omits the small fact that Jews who are not Zionists disagree with the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.  In other words there is no Jewish consensus on what constitutes anti-Jewish prejudice.
The far-Right Pollard is only interested in anti-semitism when it comes to defending Israel
Although Jews are a minority, unlike Black and Asian people they are not oppressed.  On the contrary most Jews are white and privileged and what this demand is about is using Jewish identity as a stick to beat the genuinely oppressed with. It is utterly ludicrous to compare the Jews of Hendon or Golders Green to Black youth in Brixton.  Jews are not disproportionately gaoled or victims of police violence.  Jews do not suffer state racism or economic discrimination and that is why the demand that Jews can define their 'oppression' is in reality a demand that some Jews can define those who are genuinely oppressed as their oppressors because they insist on raising things like Apartheid Israel.
 It is in any case untrue that Macpherson established any such principle.  The JLM has repeatedly distorted and bastardised the MacPherson Report of the Inquiry into the murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence in order to defend the Israeli state.  Not once did the Zionist led Jewish community play any part in opposing the Police racism that led to the setting up of the MacPherson Inquiry.  The Report itself simply said that where people are victims of what they perceive to be a racist attack that should be recorded.  It said nothing about ‘defining’ racism not least because racism is an extremely easy thing to define.  It is discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or nationality.  Anti-Semitism is hostility to Jews as Jews.  The problem arises because the Zionist movement amongst British Jews wants to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
When it comes to someone who is a genuine anti-Semite Pollard is more than forgiving
However no critic has taken their criticism as far as Stephen Pollard, the far-Right editor of the Jewish Chronicle.  Pollard it was who defended Michal Kaminski, the Polish Law and Justice Party MEP who defended the ‘good name’ of the village of Jedwabne in Poland.  Jedwabne was the site of the murder of up to 1600 Jews, who were herded into a barn which was then set alight by fellow villagers in 1941.  Kaminski according to Pollard was ‘one of the greatest friends of the Jews’ because he also happened to be an ardent supporter of Israel.
According to Pollard, a member of the far-Right cold war Henry Jackson Society, it would be as ludicrous to ask Hitler or the Nazi party to define anti-Semitism as it would be to expect Jeremy Corbyn to do so. He didn’t explicitly name Corbyn as a Nazi but that was the unmistakable message.  After ruling out Hitler and the Nazi Party Pollard went on to ask ‘Ok, so who else would be on the shortlist of the least suitable people to draw up a definition of antisemitism? Perhaps you can tell where this is heading.’ 
Indeed it was quite obvious because Pollard then turned his attention to the Labour Party and Corbyn.
All this is somewhat ironic since the Zionists IHRA definition classifies comparisons between Israel’s policies and the Nazi anti-Semitic.  However it seems to be fine for Zionists to accuse their opponents of being Nazis!

At a time when the Palestinian village of Khan al Ahmar is under threat of forcible demolition with its residents being forcibly transferred to live next to a rubbish dump and after over 120 unarmed Palestinian demonstrators were gunned down in Gaza, the Zionists are more determined than ever to equate criticism of their bastard state with anti-Semitism. 

Although I have severely criticised the new Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct  because it is based on the IHRA definition, it remains to be seen whether or not Corbyn and Formby back down under the weight of the Zionist and MSM attacks.
If Corbyn and the Labour Party leadership had taken a principled position and rejected in toto the IHRA definition then it would have been easier to ward off their critics.  By adopting some of the IHRA definitions but not others they have lent credibility to the definition as a whole and have thus, once again, made a rod for their own back.
Intent 
The Zionists  don’t like requiring intent to be part of the new Code of Conduct.  This is perfectly understandable.   Far from being a free pass for racism it separates out those who are opposed to Zionism and those who are opposed to Jews.  To say, as Langleben and Katz do that the requiring proof of intent ‘goes directly against the Macpherson principle, which Labour wrote into law when it passed the Equality Act.’ is another absurdity.
Where there is no intent to discriminate the chances are that there is no discrimination.  Where there is clear evidence of discrimination then intent is normally assumed.  So it is with anti-Semitism.  If someone shouts anti-Semitic abuse then they can be assumed to have intended to cause offence. 
Pollard ludicrously claims that ‘you can feel free to go right ahead and scream “Zio” at any random Jew you encounter’. Not true.  Zio itself is not anti-Semitic but if you were to accuse any ‘random Jew’ of being a Zionist simply because they are Jewish then yes that would be anti-Semitic and the intent would be part of the act itself.  It really is that simple but the real intent is on the part of those who want to label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
Hence the shrieks and cries of Britain’s Zionist lobby amply aided by its racist media.

No comments: