Monday, 18 November 2019

Open Letter to Jennie Formby and the NEC – We Expected You to be Better not Worse than Iain McNicol

I demand that you revoke my expulsion – it’s time you expelled Labour’s genuine racists – such as Luke Akehurst, Luke Stanger - not anti-racists

Dear Jennie,
Two years ago we demonstrated outside the Labour Party conference with McNicol Must Go posters.  Little did we think that his successor would preside over a more streamlined and efficient process of expelling socialists and anti-racists?
Like Neil Kinnock you came from the Left and you have acted as a cheerleader for the Right. Everytime you have ratcheted up the disciplinary process the Israel Lobby and the Board of Deputies have demanded more. In the words of Len McLuskey ‘Corbyn Has Answered Concerns On Anti-Semitism, But Jewish Community Leaders Are Refusing To Take 'Yes' For An Answer’.
Has it never occurred to you that the reason they refuse to take yes for an answer is that their goal is the removal of Corbyn not anti-Semitism? Why should the Board of Deputies, which told Jews not to oppose Moseley’s fascists at the Battle of Cable Street, a body which represents Zionists not secular Jews, be concerned with ‘anti-Semitism’? It never has before.
I was suspended in March 2016 for comments I was alleged to have made. I only learnt what those comments were when I read The Telegraph and Times. Details had been leaked by Sam Matthews, Panorama’s ‘whistleblower’.
The Telegraph described my suspension as ‘the latest anti-Semitism controversy to hit the Party’. The Times made similar comparisons.
Apparently this was considered 'antisemitic'
The process of my suspension was so unfair that I had to obtain an injunction against the Labour Party preventing them holding my hearing. I had been suspended for 21 months and then given 6 weeks to prepare my case whilst in hospital. I was not given the identities of my accusers nor was any evidence submitted that was prior to my suspension.
I was held guilty of comparing Israel’s marriage laws the Nazis’ Nuremburg Laws. Hannah Arendt, the great Jewish political philosopher and herself a refugee from Nazi Germany also made this comparison.
I was also guilty of accusing the Israeli state of waiting for Holocaust survivors to die so that they could save money. Which was a quote from Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper.
The Labour Party barrister in my case stated, in his skeleton argument that:
The NEC's case is that Greenstein's use of the term "Zio" is antisemitic, but the NEC does not otherwise allege that Mr Greenstein's conduct was antisemitic.
Well ‘Zio’ is short for Zionist and the only people who think Jews and Zionists are the same are anti-Semites (or Zionists). There is nothing anti-Semitic about it.
I was accused of Offensive posts and comments’ in particular in relation to Louise Ellman MP. The main Charge was ‘accusing Louise Ellman MP of being a "supporter of Israeli child abuse" Yet in two Parliamentary debates (6 January 2016 and 7 February 2018) Ellman repeatedly intervened and spoke in support of the Israeli Military’s abuse of children - arresting children as young as 12 in the early hours of the morning, blindfolding them, beating them and refusing access to parents or lawyers.
My description of Ellman as a wretch of a woman’ was extremely mild. At the hearing conducted by witch-finder general Maggi Cosins I was told I had ‘shamed’ Ellman, to which I replied that she had no shame.
Certainly my description of Owen Jones as a ‘Janus faced whore who bears the impression of the last person who sat on him’ was strong but it was entirely merited.  I was being prosecuted for free speech.
Likewise my description of Chuka Ummuna as ‘White politically" was a statement of fact. He was labelled as such by Black activist Marlene Ellis.  In other words a collaborator with White racism or an Uncle Tom.
The above are just a sample of Douglas Fairbairns social media posts (his tweets are now protected) yet he sat on panels expelling others for abusive behaviour
What made the decision to expel me even worse was that one of the 3 Panel members was Douglas Fairbairn. Fairbairn makes a habit of posting sexist comments on line such as ‘Go to bed you silly woman’ ‘Big Minge’ and ‘what a Bitch’. Has Fairbairn been disciplined yet?
Just over a year ago the Labour Party adopted the IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ which conflates anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The result has been that a whole wave of supporters of the Palestinians have been disciplined and people like Colin Monehen have been removed as parliamentary candidates.  Others, like the Jewish anti-Zionist Jo Bird have been prevented from standing for Labour.
When one comrade protested about the way you were privileging anti-Semitism above all other forms of racism she was suspended and now expelled. Yet this is exactly what you have done.  This ‘anti-Semitism’ nonsense isn’t about anti-Semitism but about Israel.
If ‘anti-Semitism’ is not being privileged why it is that you turn a blind eye to any other forms of racism?
The current Deputy Leader Tom Watson is a prime example of the hypocrisy you are presiding over. He can’t rest easy whilst ‘anti-Semites’ are in the party but he doesn’t mind any other form of racist.
Tom Watson 'loses sleep' over racist MP Phil Woolas
In 2010 the High Court removed racist Labour MP Phil Woolas from parliament. He ran an election defined by an email from his Agent that said ‘we must get the White folk angry’. Watson’s reaction was ‘I’ve lost sleep thinking about poor old Phil Woolas and his leaflets.’
This is the same Tom Watson who as Campaign Organiser in the Birmingham Hodshrove by-election issued a leaflet ‘Labour is on your side, the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers."
John Mann should never have been allowed to resign. This scoundrel issued an Anti-Social Behaviour Handbook that treated Travellers as a problem of anti-social behaviour. In case you are not aware, not only Jews but Gypsies too died in the Holocaust. Mann was even interviewed by the police under caution for a potential hate crime but he wasn’t interviewed by your staff. Why?
Akehurst justifies Israel's murder of unarmed protesters as a paid shill of the Zionist BICOM
It wasn’t just Mann and Watson. In the past year Israel has murdered over 200 unarmed demonstrators in Gaza including 78 children. Imagine the uproar if a Labour member had supported the killing of 78 Jewish children? Yet racist Luke Akehurst openly defended Israel’s tactics of shooting unarmed demonstrators on the grounds that they were members of Hamas. According to this racist scumbag children are also valid targets yet you have done nothing to put him on the fast track to expulsion. Why?
Or are you saying that Israeli Jewish lives are more important than Palestinian lives?
Stanger is Still not expelled
Luke Stanger was suspended on March 6th. Among his many offences of sexism and racism is his description of Travellers as a ‘nasty blight’ on society. Imagine that someone said that of Jews. Now that would be anti-Semitism. So why has Stanger not yet been expelled? He is still abusing people on Twitter with impunity. We understand that he has been given the protection of Tom Watson’s office.
Stanger informs people that he is going to be readmitted. Is this what your commitment to fight racism amounts to?
Now that we are in a General Election campaign the Zionist gloves are off.  The Jewish Chronicle has been waging a vitriolic campaign against Corbyn.
On November 1st they described Corbyn as ‘Britain’s most prominent antisemite’. On November 7th they said that ‘Throughout his career’ Corbyn ‘has allied with and supported antisemites’ However much you fought ‘anti-Semitism’ there was nothing you or Corbyn could have done to stop these lies because it was never about anti-Semitism. It was always about Israel. That was your fatal mistake.
Your decision in September 2018 to adopt the IHRA was utterly stupid. You played into the hands of the Zionists. 7 out of its 11 examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ concern Israel. Even the person who drafted it, American academic Kenneth Stern described it as ‘chilling’ free speech in his testimony to the US Congress.
You made a rod for your own back. And despite throwing Chris Williamson et al. to the wolves you have still been viciously attacked by the Zionists. You suspended him unlawfully and instead of reinstating him you resuspended him on trumped up charges.
You are responsible for Chris  standing as an independent socialist for Derby North.  Chris resigned from Labour to spend more time fighting for socialism. It should have been Margaret Hodge who was suspended. Chris should have been a Labour candidate.
Finally, I have used the term Zionist throughout this.  Zionism is a political ideology based on Jewish supremacy and its creation the State of Israel is a Jewish supremacist state. The idea that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic is the opposite of the truth.  Anti-Semites have always welcomed Zionism as a means of getting rid of their Jews as even liberal Zionist Peter Beinart admits.
I hope that Labour will do well in the Election however I fear the worst. If Labour does not do well one reason will be the fact that you and the NEC accepted the Zionist narrative of Labour ‘anti-Semitism’. The faster you worked to eliminate it the more vicious the attacks became.
There is an old saying that appeasement only encourages the aggressor, as Chamberlain demonstrated at Munich.  It is a great pity that you have learnt nothing from history.
I look forward to not only my readmission but the reinstatement of all the anti-racists expelled or forced out in the past few years - Marc Wadsworth, Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone and all those who have been vilified by a Compliance Unit that can’t wait for the day when they see the back of you and  Corbyn.
Kind regards
Tony Greenstein

Sunday, 17 November 2019

A Grilling? If Prince Andrew was a piece of meat then Emily Maitlis’s interview would give us food poisoning

It’s not a carefully controlled, softball interview with the BBC but an interview under arrest which is required

It says something about our ‘justice system’ that Julian Assange is under lock and key in Belmarsh prison for services to journalism and revealing the truth about US war crimes whilst Andrew Windsor is giving an interview in the plush surroundings of Buckingham Palace.
This was an exercise in damage limitation though it is clear that such is Andrew Windsor’s shiftiness that he has raised more questions than answers.
He said he ‘let the side down’ meaning the Royal Family. Andrew Windsor didn’t mention letting down the hundreds of young girls that his friend Jeffrey Epstein was trafficking.
Apparently ‘randy’ Andy didn’t notice anything was amiss during his many visits to Epstein’s Florida mansion and during his stay at Epstein’s New York pad. He didn’t deny staying on Epstein’s island either.  If you believe his version of what happened you would believe anything.
In December 2010 Andrew went to stay at Epstein’s New York home in order to tell him he couldn’t see him again!  Not only that but he went for a leisurely walk in Central Park with him. It is bullshit. If in fact the only purpose of the visit was to cut off relations then a royal aide would have phoned Epstein. Clearly Andrew felt indebted to the monster.
Andrew with the boss of a Kazakh oil company
Not only that but he stayed for 4 days because it was ‘convenient’. This is from someone who has a range of hotels to stay in, for whom money is no barrier and who can stay at the British Ambassador’s residence. The obvious conclusion is that he stayed for reasons related to the child sex allegations for which Epstein was convicted and facing further proceedings. Allegations of sleeping with what were girls trafficked as sex slaves is rape.
Andrew casts doubt on the famous photograph with a 17 year old Virginia Roberts, suggesting that it is photo-shopped, that his fingers didn’t fit but he doesn’t categorically state that it is a forgery. Why? Because the negative might yet turn up. He is careful not to say anything which might prove a lie in the future.
Nothing Virginia Roberts has said, about having slept with him 3 times or knowing him has proven to be false. Andrew admits to a friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell who procured the girls for Epstein.  That in itself is damning enough.
By his own admission he gave a party during his 2010 stay at Epstein’s house for his host. He also invited Epstein to a ‘shooting party’ as opposed to a birthday party at Sandringham. Clearly it was a close relationship.
The wonder is that the bunch of parasites otherwise known as the Royal Family is able to do all of this courtesy of the tax payer. If ever there were a group of people who should stand on their own two feet it is the Royals.
Andrew is a particularly despicable specimen having previously acted as a conduit for arms deals with regimes that have atrocious human rights records such as Kazakhstan. He has hosted the King of Bahrain who had doctors who tended to the wounds of demonstrators tortured.
Sleeping with under-age girls who are sex slaves is on a par with this. It says something about Andrew Windsor that he kept up his friendship with a convicted sex trafficker because of a ‘sense of honour’ whose behaviour was merely ‘unbecoming’.
Even to this day he doesn’t regret his friendship ‘because of the people I met.’ Presumably he is referring to his arms dealer friends.  It would have been more honest if he said that he didn’t regret it because of the girls that he raped.
Piers Morgan describes Maitlis’s interview as ‘forensic’. I have another word, sycophantic. Maitlis failed to press Andrew Windsor at different times during the interview for example not on whether he could remember the photograph and being with Roberts but whether he denied it outright. She didn’t ask him whether it was a forgery.
She barely pursued the propriety of staying with a man guilty of using and exploiting dozens if not hundreds of girls.  She said of course nothing about his involvement with the arms trade and whether the amorality of dealing with the world’s dictators might rub off in his personal life.
In the circumstances she was deferential and restrained but that is how the BBC has long treated the Royals. Yet despite all of this, such was Andrew Windsor’s shiftiness and the implausibility of his explanations (‘I could kick myself’) whilst remembering small details of a Pizza Hut outing 18 years ago that will have done him and the Royals the very damage that he intended to avoid.
Tony Greenstein

Friday, 15 November 2019

Why Anyone Who is Jewish and on the Left Should Have no Problem Voting for Jeremy Corbyn

A Response to Jonathan Freedland’s Latest Anti-Corbyn Tirade

I wrote the article below earlier in the week in response to Jonathan Freedland’s propaganda tract in The Guardian, Many Jews want Boris Johnson out. But how can we vote for Jeremy Corbyn?’ which falsely portrayed Freedland as an equidistant opponent of both Corbyn and Johnson. During the past 4 years, Freedland has devoted himself almost exclusively in one direction only – that of Corbyn.
Freedland’s only objection to Boris Johnson has been over Brexit, not his racism about Black people having ‘water melon smiles’.  Freedland, a Zionist, is quite prepared to countenance Israel using Gaza as a free fire zone and its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Johnson is a Zionist so he is an entirely different opponent.
On Tuesday the Guardian refused to publish 2 letters from over 50 Jewish people in support of Corbyn yet they had no hesitation in publishing a letter today from 24 assorted reactionaries, racists and Uncle Toms (Trevor Philips and Maajid Nawaz).
Joanne Lumley is a Green Party supporter.  Jimmy Swales of Wikipedia is a well known anti-Corbyn opponent. Fay Weldon is an Islamaphobe. But when needs must the Guardian is prepared to ignore genuine racism. The 24’s excuse is that they’ve listened to their Jewish friends and felt their ‘pain’.
What they haven’t done is listened to Jewish anti-racists and anti-Zionists. Instead what they have done is lent a helping hand to Boris Johnson and attacked the one party leader whose whole career is founded on fighting racism.
Corbyn is to blame for allowing the ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis to fester
Of course Corbyn is, to a large extent, responsible for what has happened.  He allowed the narrative about ‘anti-Semitism’ to develop instead of nipping it in the bud early on.
When Freedland and the Jewish Chronicle, the Daily Mail and the rest of the racist chorus began the anti-Semitism attacks back in the summer of 2015, Corbyn should have made it clear that:
a.     He condemned anti-Semitism unreservedly
b.    He condemned the weaponisation of anti-Semitism.
Instead what he did was to deny that he was an anti-Semite.  What he didn’t seem to understand was that when supporters of Israel and Zionism attack you as ‘anti-Semitic’ then what they mean is not hatred of or hostility to Jews as Jews but criticism of Israel.
There isn’t a single Palestine solidarity activist in Britain who hasn’t been accused of ‘anti-Semitism’. 
It is the stock-in-trade accusation of Israel’s supporters.

How do you defend the murder of 220 unarmed Palestinian in Gaza in the past 18 months if you don’t attack the messenger?  Supporters of Apartheid in South Africa used to do the same.  Corbyn  had no excuse for not knowing what was happening.
Even this racist ex-Home Office Minister attacks Chris Williamson - the only Campaign Group MP with the guts to call out the fake 'antisemitism' campaign
Instead Corbyn apologised for Labour anti-Semitism and repeatedly promised to do better but he didn’t question the assertion that Labour was plagued by anti-Semitism. Racism is about actions, such as the deportation of Black people by New Labour Ministers like Tony McNulty, not social media posts about Rothschild banking.
The whole nature of the fake anti-Semitism accusations was that however well he did he would never satisfy his critics. The more Corbyn and Jennie Formby presided over the expulsions, the more the attacks.  You could never get off the ‘anti-Semitism’ treadmill.
Tom Watson vowed not to rest easy until all the anti-Semites in Labour were expelled. Why did Corbyn not ask him if this applied to all racists and if so when he was resigning? Tom Watson defended racist Labour MP Phil Woolas and as Campaign Organiser in the Birmingham Hodshrove by-election put out a leaflet: Labour is on your side, the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers.’
Likewise the notoriously anti-Gypsy racist John Mann who is now our ‘anti-Semitism Czar’.
But instead Corbyn sulked, temporised, promised and apologised to his accusers. At no time did he seem to recognise that the attacks on him had to be state inspired. Instead of talking about the real racism and asking why the Tories sit with anti-Semites in the European Parliament and were the only Conservative party to defend Hungary’s anti-Semitic Prime Minister Orban. Corbyn should have made a speech setting out why supporting Palestinians is not anti-Semitic and rejecting the idea that Labour is an anti-Semitic party.
Corbyn instead promised to do better.  He adopted the IHRA definition and then under pressure the added examples and was criticised for taking so long. What he did was to enable the witch hunt of anti-racists and socialists to be stepped up.  The harder Corbyn tried to please the Zionists the more vicious their attacks.
Close comrades of mine in Brighton and Hove Labour Party have come under attack. One has been expelled on the basis of calling on people to protest at Israel’s influence on the British political system.  Something documented by Al Jazeera’s The Lobby.
According to Brighton Queens Park Secretary Sim Elliot, this post is 'antisemitic' - nowhere does it mention Jews just Israel - Israel is now a Jew apparently!
Another, Paddy O’Keefe, a long standing anti-racist and peace campaigner, has been reported, by former Corbyn supporter Sim Elliot to Southern Region for asking who is funding Ian Austen, the scab former Labour MP who is now supporting the Tories.
Yet I don’t blame Corbyn entirely. He has an adviser Seamus Milne, who is from the heart of the British Establishment, the son of a BBC Director General. Milne went to Winchester and Oxford before ending up as Associate Editor of The Guardian. He is known as a Stalinist. However his abysmal performance as adviser, when he must have known what is happening, suggests that MI5 might have a presence in Corbyn’s entourage.
What is clear now, if it wasn’t clear before, is that ‘anti-Semitism’ has become the principle weapon of the British Establishment in the battle against Corbyn.  This could not happen if British Jews had not moved substantially to the Right in the past 60 years. Opposing the Zionist identity of most Jews is not anti-Semitic anymore than supporting The Satanic Verses which most Muslims opposed is anti-Muslim.
How strange it is that John Bercow's testimony about Corbyn's 'antisemitism' has been comprehensively ignored?
And evidence such as that of John Bercow, the Jewish former Speaker of the House of Commons who said that there isn’t a ‘whiff’ of anti-Semitism in Jeremy Corbyn is disregarded by the Freedlands and their errand boys and girls at the BBC.
Below is my article which was published today at Mondoweiss.
Tony Greenstein
A Response to Jonathan Freedland’s Latest Anti-Corbyn Tirade
Twelve years ago the late Georgina Henry, who began Comment is Free, suggested that I write for the Guardian’s new blog. We met at the founding meeting of Independent Jewish Voices at Hampstead Town Hall in February 2007 and discussed my first article, The Seamy Side of Solidarity, which appeared two weeks later. I wrote it because of the growing support for a genuine anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon, which existed within the Palestine solidarity movement.
Since that time, and especially since Matt Seaton took over, Guardian Comment has moved away from the original concept of a forum for genuine debate, certainly on Palestine. Zionist groups set up CIF Watch to wage a war against any such debate on CIF.  I was one of the first casualties. CIF Watch later changed their name to UK Media Watch because they had achieved their original aims.
No serious editorial process could have approved Freedland’s article if it wasn’t for the fat that he was a senior Guardian editor.  He plays fast and loose with facts, deliberately omits context and rests his arguments on assertion alone.
Following my original article we waged a five year battle against those who argued that being Jewish and Zionist were synonymous or that Israel was a racist state because it was a Jewish state. We argued that Israel was a settler colonial state and its treatment of the Palestinians was no different to how ‘Christian’ South Africa had treated its indigenous population.
At the 2012 Conference of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a holocaust denier and supporter of Atzmon was expelled from PSC. Following this Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada and over 20 Palestinian activists, academics and leaders of BDS issued a statement Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon.
From that time on the anti-Semitic element in the Palestine solidarity movement has been miniscule compared to the number of anti-Semites and White Supremacists who support the Zionist movement. Not once has Freedland condemned the growing collaboration between supporters of Tommy Robinson, a self-declared Zionist and large numbers of Zionist activists, including Paul Besser of Britain First.  At the Al Quds demonstration in June these activists later joined up with the Board of Deputies main demonstration in Trafalgar Square.
In my article I issued a warning. ‘Like the boy who cried wolf, the charge of "anti-semitism" has been made so often against critics of Zionism and the Israeli state that people now have difficulty recognising the genuine article.’ This is precisely what has happened. With his latest broadside against Corbyn Freedland has drained ‘anti-Semitism’ of any meaning. Instead of a serious analysis of anti-Semitism he has substituted a series of guilt-by-association anecdotes.
If Corbyn were anti-Semitic then one would expect the Jewish former Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, to realise this yet Bercow stated, in an interview with Alistair Campbell, that after 22 years knowing Corbyn ‘I've never detected so much as a whiff of anti-Semitism.’
Even stranger are the views of Professor Geoffrey Alderman, a Zionist and historian of the British Jewish community. Alderman is a longstanding Jewish Chronicle and now Jewish Telegraph columnist. In the  Spectator Alderman described how Corbyn has an impressive record of supporting Jewish communal initiatives’.  He gives as an example how in 1987 Corbyn led the campaign to save the cemetery of the West London Synagogue from the developers, whom Margaret Hodge’s Islington Council had sanctioned!
Freedland gives three examples of Corbyn’s ‘anti-Semitism’. They have more holes than a colander.
i.                   The mural of ‘Jewish bankers’.  Contrary to Freedland’s assertion just two out the six bankers were Jewish. None of them had hook noses. Even neo-liberal Harry’s Place’s Lucy Lips admitted that I’ve seen more obvious stereotypes of Jews deployed in antisemitic art.’ Back in 2012 it passed unnoticed.  Corbyn was defending freedom of speech not anti-Semitic art.
ii.                 The incident concerning ‘English irony’ is even less convincing. The two Zionists intent on disrupting a Palestinian speaker were told by Corbyn that unlike someone who wasn’t even born in Britain, they didn’t understand English irony. What has that to do with anti-Semitism?
iii.              The third example alleges that Corbyn kept company with Raed Salah, an Israeli Palestinian whom Theresa May was trying to deport. Freedland alleges that Salah was ‘found by a British tribunal to have peddled the medieval and lethal myth of Jews feasting on the blood of gentile children’. This is simply untrue.  Freedland ‘forgot’ to mention that the Upper Immigration Tribunal overturned May’s deportation order precisely because it found that there was no basis to the allegation of racism. What the Tribunal did find was that
‘there is no reliable evidence of the appellant using words carrying a reference to the blood libel save in the single passage in a sermon delivered five years ago.’
Even in this disputed passage no reference was made to Jews. (paragraph 78) In a passage cut out of a subsequent article for the Guardian Salah explained that
‘I don't believe in the “blood libel” against Jews and I reject it in its entirety. What I was really referring to in my sermon was the killing of innocents in the name of religion, including children, from the time of the Inquisition to as recently as Bosnia and elsewhere in Europe whose governments support Israel's action’.
Freedland completely omits the context which is that Raed Salah has been the recipient of horrific violence and racism by the Israeli state. He has been gaoled on a trumped up charge five years after the alleged incident, when not one Israeli has been gaoled for anti-Arab racism.
Freedland refers to last summer’s Panorama programme Is Labour Anti-Semitic? which has been the subject of a record number of complaints. Presented by John Ware, someone who considers Islamaphobia ‘rationale’, it presented 7 victims of Labour ‘anti-Semitism’.  It provided no names or background information about the ‘victim’s, all of whom were officers of the Jewish Labour Movement, a Zionist organisation which is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation. The WZO, according to Ha’aretz has a ‘Land Theft Division’.
You wouldn’t hang a cat on Freedland’s ‘evidence’ against Corbyn. It is a melange of the trite and trivial.  Guilt by gossip. If this is the best Freedland can come up with after 4 years of non-stop Corbyn bashing then it shows just how thin the gruel is.
Freedland’s last sideswipe is at Chris Williamson’s ‘penchant for egregious Jew-baiting’. Chris Williamson is a working class MP who has physically swapped blows with neo-Nazis on a building site. I dare say Freedland has never fought for anything other than a decent seat in a restaurant.
There was a time when ‘Jew baiter’ was reserved, not for anti-Zionists but for anti-Semites who went beyond the call of duty. It wasn’t even used about Oswald Moseley and his Blackshirts. It was used to describe pathological anti-Semites like Arthur Leese of the Imperial Fascist League and Julius Streicher, editor of Der Sturmer. By using this term about a genuine anti-racist Freedland once again devalues the currency.
Freedland rests his case on a dubious poll according to which 87% of Jews believe that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Even were this poll is accurate is that the end of the matter?  Surely the first question to ask is why 87% of Jews believe this? Does it have anything to do with the 5,497 articles that have appeared in 8 national newspapers from 15 June 2015 to 31 March 2019 according to Bad News for Labour about Labour ‘anti-Semitism’?  Or the fact that the broadcast media operates under the assumption that there is an anti-Semitism problem in the Labour Party? But Freedland isn’t interested in the ‘why’.  What this poll is really measuring is the effectiveness of the mass media’s propaganda.
In my article I quoted Israeli poet and novelist A B Yehoshua that
‘Anti-Zionism is not the product of the non-Jews. On the contrary, the Gentiles have always encouraged Zionism, hoping that it would help to rid them of the Jews in their midst. Even today, in a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist." (Jewish Chronicle 22.1.82.)
The people who are cheering Jonathan Freedland on, the Daily Mail and the baiters of George Soros are the genuine anti-Semites. Historically friends of Zionism such as Arthur Balfour have also been the enemies of Jews. What Freedland is doing is making ‘anti-Semitism’ into a form of cheap political abuse.  As Brian Klug observed, “when anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing–the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance.”
No greater service could be performed on behalf of those for whom anti-Semitism is not opposition to Zionism but opposition to Jews as Jews.
Tony Greenstein

This article was first published on Mondoweiss