I was Thrown out Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s Trade Union Conference
for Distributing Leaflets against the IHRA
Last
Saturday I attended PSC's trade union conference as a representative of my
union branch (UNITE).
Prior to
this I had written, as had Brighton
and Hove PSC, to Ben Soffa, PSC Secretary and Ben Jamal, PSC Director, asking
that the IHRA be placed on the agenda of the conference. I wrote that:
In the past
4 years there has been a massive attack on the Palestine Solidarity movement and
the IHRA has been Zionists
main weapon.
In that
time many people, myself included, have been expelled or suspended from the
Labour Party for our opposition to Zionism. In that time PSC has been
conspicuously silent.
PSC has
done the minimal amount possible. Sure
it made a submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry and helped commission the Opinion of Hugh
Tomlinson QC but it has failed to launch a campaign against the IHRA or treat
it with the seriousness it deserves.
In that
time we have seen mounting attacks on the right to free speech and the right to
organise by the Zionists see for example the attacks in 2017
alone. Over 150 local authorities have adopted the IHRA, which has led to
difficulties in holding meetings in some council authorities and the ban on Big Ride
for Palestine by Tower Hamlets council.
Yet this is
the tip of the iceberg. What the adoption of the IHRA by the Labour Party and
others has done is to chill free speech. It has given a shot in the arm to groups
like the far-Right Campaign
Against Anti-Semitism who attempt to demonise Palestine solidarity.
 |
| The CAA attack on Rebecca Gould which PSC of course has not even noticed |
One
particularly outrageous case was where the CAA attempted to get
Rebecca Gould, an academic at Bristol University sacked, because of an article she had
written ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’ on how
the Holocaust and ‘the spectre of
anti-Semitism’ is used to suppress discussion of Palestinian oppression. Even
Kenneth Ster, the person who drafted the IHRA, condemned this
attack as ‘McCarthy like’.
You would think that PSC would be eager to discuss the IHRA
at its Trade Union conference. After all the Labour Party wouldn’t have passed
the IHRA if the big unions, in particular Unite and UNISON, hadn’t supported it.
 |
| Corbyn has now surrendered to his accusers - all they want now is his resignation |
The IHRA gives as an example of anti-Semitism
‘Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a
behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’
Leaving aside that Israel is not a democratic state this example renders
support for BDS, which is the policy of most trade unions, ‘anti-Semitic’. The
German Bundestag in May condemned BDS as ‘anti-Semitic’. It presents a clear and present danger to BDS.
Why then has PSC confined its activities to making paper submissions and
press statements and letters? The answer is simple. PSC doesn’t want to offend the trade union
leaderships who have buckled under the ‘anti-Semitism’ offensive and supported
the IHRA.
PSC has refused to tackle the Israel lobby. The Jewish Labour Movement
and Labour Friends of Israel have had a free hand, together with the Israeli
Embassy in the Labour Party.
It is therefore no surprise that PSC has all but given up fighting the
IHRA. In its submission to Tower Hamlet’s Council it suggested, not that the
IHRA resolution be rescinded but that the Council add a ‘free speech caveat’ to
its existing policy. It doesn’t take a
genius to work out that since the IHRA is designed to prevent free speech, a
free speech caveat is a contradiction in terms.
The Labour Party passed such a caveat in 2018 when passing the IHRA
policy. Nothing has been seen or heard of it since.
Below is an open letter to Ben Jamal.
Tony Greenstein
The Fight Against the IHRA
Requires Determination & Courage not Timidity, Caution & Cowardice
19th October 2019
Dear
Ben,
Introduction
For
the past 4 years, in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s surprise election as Labour
leader, the Zionist movement, the British Establishment and their press have waged
an ‘anti-Semitism war’ against both Corbyn, the Left and the wider Palestine
solidarity movement.
Prior
to his election Corbyn was PSC’s main parliamentary sponsor. Yet despite this PSC, unlike Stop the War
Coalition, failed to defend him against the never ending Zionist attacks.
 |
| PSC Trade Union conference |
Lorna
Anderson recently reported
when visiting the West Bank, on the ‘enthusiasm
evinced for Jeremy Corbyn and the pro-Palestinian positions adopted by the
Labour Party conference’ by Palestinians.
Corbyn’s victory gave Palestinians hope but to PSC the attacks on him were simply
an internal Labour party affair. Silence was the order of the day.
When
the Zionist campaign had only just begun I wrote
an Open Letter (11.4.16.) to Ben Soffa, PSC Secretary, observing that ‘PSC is renowned for its caution and timidity but
there must be some limits to this’. I pointed out that:
The ceaseless political attack by
the Zionists on support for the Palestinians in the LP cannot simply be
ignored. They will not go away because
their campaign is linked with the determination of the Right in the LP to
remove Corbyn. ‘Anti-Semitism’ is their
weapon of choice. Until Jeremy Corbyn firmly rebuts his critics he will
continue to come under attack.
Appeasement rarely works.
Many recent attacks reflect the
strategy set out by the Israeli strategic thinktank the Reut Institute in their
2010 report,... I make
no apology for the fact that we do not engage in every debate some would wish
to involve us in. ... there is a plan to force us to 'play defence' on the
terrain chosen by those wishing to preserve the status quo in Palestine. We
must not fall into the trap of allowing our opponents to set our agenda,... In
this area there are numerous initiatives which may be superficially attractive
but the net effect of which would be strongly negative for our cause.... it is
also not necessarily most effective for PSC to be the organisation leading on
all aspects of this.
 |
| Former Lib-Dem MP David Ward was removed as a candidate by homophobic bigot Tim Farron |
The
consequences of ‘refusing to engage or
‘play defence’ was that Zionists had an open goal. The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign
has now gained such momentum that even denial that there is such a campaign is
equated with anti-Semitism. What began in the Labour Party has not stayed in
the Labour Party. For example the Lib-Dem Friends of Palestine have virtually been banned,
Jenny Tonge was forced to resign
and ex- MP David Ward was prevented from standing again
for parliament.
Destroying Free
Speech on Israel and Palestine
The
public narrative has changed from one of Palestinian oppression and rights to Jewish
rights and anti-Semitism. The fight for Palestinian liberation has been
redefined by the IHRA as a form of anti-Semitism. A host of meetings and events
have come under sustained pressure or being cancelled such as meetings for Tom
Suarez’s book State and Terror, Jackie
Walker’s film Witchhunt. Chris Williamson MP one of the most solid
Palestinian supporters as well as Israeli anti-Zionists such as Moshe Machover and Miko Peled have
become targets for the McCarthyites. All of this has met with a studied silence
by PSC.
This
has been led by the Board of Deputies. In the past week alone the Board has pressurised
2 churches, St Elizabeth’s in Eastbourne and St Annes in Soho, to apologise for
hosted Miko.
During
the Labour Party conference Zionist abuse and pressure forced Waterstone’s into
cancelling
the launch of Bad News for Labour by
5 distinguished academics, an investigation into the ‘anti-Semitism’
crisis. The book revealed
‘shocking findings of
misinformation spread by the press, including the supposedly impartial BBC, and
the liberal Guardian.
Despite
the support of the local store, Waterstone’s nationally cancelled
the book launch. Subsequently their CEO, James Daunt has admitted
“We made a mistake.”This was not
because of anything PSC said, because again it said nothing, but because of
adverse customer reaction and our own campaign. In Brighton we staged the book
launch at extremely short notice at our Free Speech Centre where Greg Philo
described how banning books was but one step away from book burning.
The IHRA and
PSC’s Trade Union Conference
The
IHRA has been adopted by over 150 Councils and used to prevent a rally by Big
Ride for Palestine in Tower Hamlets. It has resulted in at least one suspension
of a worker who called Israel a racist endeavour and the dismissal of another. It
has also led to a chilling of debate on Palestine and Zionism on campus. In 2017
alone it was used in Manchester, Leeds, Central Lancashire, UCL, Exeter, Sussex
and Liverpool Universities either to close down Israel Anti-Apartheid week or
to severely restrict meetings. Today the IHRA is being used to force a book launch at UCL The Responsibility of
Intellectuals: by Noam Chomsky and
others to accept restrictions which would prevent any criticism of how the
Zionist lobby operates.
On 23rd July I sent
you and Ben Sofa a letter asking that the PSC Trade Union Conference on 12th
October include a session on combating IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism
on the agenda. I sent a follow-up
to Ben Sofa but I received no response from either of you.
Brighton
& Hove PSC wrote to you earlier this summer concerning the lack of any
session on the IHRA at PSC’s Trade Union Conference and received an insulting email
on 18th September. You claimed that we ‘need to keep in mind that these attempts to delegitimise activism for
Palestine are global’ as if that was an excuse for your lethargy.
You
stated bluntly that
‘To use the Conference to create a focus
on the IHRA – would not be right.’ Why not?
The IHRA is the principle weapon of the Zionists in Britain and
internationally. To ignore it won’t make it go away. In his keynote address to
the conference Mustafa Barghouti singled out the IHRA for condemnation. It is
clear to Palestinian activists that the IHRA is a weapon aimed at their
struggle. To you it is just an inconvenience.
You stated
that ‘A key challenge in the UK and
globally has been seeking to get agreement on a strategy of response.’ Despite
your claims about devising a strategy, in an email to Brighton PSC member Caroline O’Reilly that you
have ‘written a range of articles, social
media posts” etc. it is clear that your response has been fragmented, piecemeal
and ad hoc.
Yes
you sponsored a legal opinion by Hugh Tomlinson and
made submissions to various bodies, as well as writing to every councillor in
Britain – itself worthy initiatives – but what you have failed to do was adopt
any strategy for defeating the IHRA or indeed hold any discussion on how best to
meet this new IHRA challenge. You seem bereft of ideas and are content to
simply go through the motions.
For
example PSC organises regular lobbies of MPs. Why has PSC not organised one on the
IHRA? Why did PSC not support the lobby of Labour’s NEC on 4th
September 2018? Why has there been no attempt to fight the IHRA by UNISON or
UNITE. Why did you obstinately refuse to discuss the IHRA in PSC’s own trade
union conference.
It
was because of this refusal that I produced a leaflet for distribution. When I
attempted to give it out in the conference itself I was asked to leave. Not
because I was ‘verbally aggressive’
as you falsely claimed
but because you asserted that I had no right to distribute my leaflet in ‘our conference’. I had always been under
the illusion that PSC belonged to its members, however as one of the original
founders of PSC I apologise for my mistake.
Constructing a Coalition Against
the IHRA, the Trade Unions and the Witchhunt
The
trade unions are a crucial arena in the fight against the IHRA. The University College
Union already has policy opposing the IHRA which should be enormously helpful
in terms of opposing any attempt of the university authorities to impose it. You
could call a conference aimed at academics and students determined to resist
the New McCarthyism. At this very moment
the government is `pressurising universities to adopt the IHRA.
The
importance of reversing the decision of union executives to accept the IHRA lies
in the fact that it was trade union representatives on Labour’s NEC who ensured
that the Party adopted the IHRA. In
addition it is their members’ right to free speech which is affected and
without free speech there are no trade union rights.
Most
unions are affiliated to PSC but there seems to be a tacit understanding that
in exchange for affiliation you don’t criticise the policies of their
leaderships. The Executives of UNISON and UNITE have adopted the IHRA, without
discussion with their own membership. If the trade union movement were to
oppose the IHRA that would be a significant defeat for the Zionist lobby. However the politics of PSC’s leadership and
its Socialist Action leadership seem to dictate that you must not upset the trade
union bureaucracy.
There
is a burning need to construct a Free Speech coalition around the IHRA. We are
faced with a concerted Zionist attempt to close down meetings through threats
and abuse and ban books. Is it really so hard to construct a genuine coalition?
Have you tried?
For example Liberty
has passed policy opposing the IHRA. What approaches have you made to them?
What approaches have you made to the churches nationally to get them to take a
unified stand? A labour movement conference should also be called to oppose the
IHRA.
We have to get the trade union leaderships to
understand that there is no connection between support for the Palestinians , anti-Zionism
and anti-Semitism. Stating that Israel is a racist state (endeavour) is a fact
and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
It
would also be good if you didn’t keep claiming
successes that are not your own. The demonstration of support at Labour Party
conference in 2018 for Palestine and the sea of flags and the successful
motion, did not belong to PSC but the hundreds of Palestine activists in the
Labour Party itself. Labour Against the Witchhunt also handed out a 1,000
flags. Similarly the successful motion at this year’s conference owed nothing
to PSC, which has never raised the issue of the Right of Return in either the
Labour Party or trade unions.
What
makes this claim particularly outrageous has been your refusal to defend Labour
Party members who have been suspended or expelled. You stated that:
PSC has also made the strategic decision that we should not get publicly
involved in issues of Labour disciplinary processes against individual members
Where was
this ‘strategic decision’ discussed?
When? Where was it reported? When Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman were
under threat the JLM, LFI and Board of Deputies rallied round them. Your
failure to support your own activists is a disgrace. To refuse to stand by your
own members is an act of political cowardice.
When Asa
Winstanley was suspended for having writen articles
in Electronic Intifada on how the JLM
was founded to get rid of Corbyn, it is clear this was no disciplinary process.
Yet once again you kept silent. You didn’t even protest when Asa was prevented
from having a press pass to Conference. Has
the cat got your tongue?
BHPSC has
written to you asking if Anne Mitchell, a prominent activist, is expelled, will
you issue a statement of support for her? She has been accused of the ‘derogative stereotyping of Jews and Israelis’.
The former is a lie but is calling Israel the most racist nation on Earth a
stereotype when over 75% according to an opinion
poll in Ynet News don’t want to live next door to an Arab and 60% wouldn’t have
an Arab in their house?
Perhaps your
most shameful act was your request, when Len McCluskey and Anne were pictured in
front of the PSC stall at TUC congress, that the photograph should not be
shared on social media because those who have been attacking her might use it
against McCluskey.
Two States
The
problem with your relations with the trade unions and the Labour Right is that
you go along with their support for the two state solution despite the fact
that no one seriously believes that it is feasible. Israel’s elections this
year made that clear beyond doubt. The only possible solution, besides a series
of Bantustans or the expulsion of the Palestinians is the creation of a unitary
secular state. There is no other democratic solution.
PSC
is frightened of saying out aloud what it knows to be true because of the
implications. If you support a unitary state you must, of necessity oppose a ‘Jewish’
ethno-nationalist state and that, according to the IHRA is ‘anti-Semitic’. This
is why everything that PSC does is just going through the motions.
Yes
Israel is an Apartheid state but when Apartheid in South Africa was in
existence did the Anti-Apartheid Movement call for 2 states - a White and Black
state? The time has come for PSC to abandon what is an Apartheid solution. That
is why the Board of Deputies, Labour Friends of Israel etc. support 2 states.
They know it can never happen.
Zionism
When
it comes to challenging the Zionist nature of the Israeli state you have
nothing to say. The IHRA does permit criticism of Israel ‘like any other democratic state’ but what it forbids is a critique
of the state itself. You believe that
you can fudge the Question of Zionism indefinitely. The Palestinian Question is
not primarily a human rights question as you assert but a political question.
The same was true with South Africa Apartheid.
In
your letter to Brighton and Hove PSC you state that
The fundamental challenge is how
do we ensure the space is defended without falling into the trap of making
every conversation about Palestine a conversation about antisemitism The risk
if we do that is we increase the “chilling effect”
That is
precisely the wrong approach, to counterpose a fight against the IHRA with
support for the Palestinians. The reason for the cry of ‘anti-Semitism’ is because
it’s not possible to defend Israel without attacking the messenger. Even PSC has
been subject to such tactics by Zionist ‘researcher’ and fraud David Collier.
It is in the
fight against false allegations of anti-Semitism that we can point to the oppression
that Palestinians experience. We can also reject the nonsense of identity
politics which equate Jews in this country with a people living under settler
colonialism. Not once has PSC called into question either the Board of Deputies
claim to represent British Jews or the JLM’s claim to represent Labour Jews. Particularly
disgraceful was your comment
that:
Many of our key Palestinian
partners have expressed to us the need to ensure that our line of response is
not the right of activists to say what they want but the rioghts of
Palestinians
What do you
think Palestinian activists do if not defend and support the rights of
Palestinians? You seem to be saying that activists should allow themselves to
be silenced. Yes we should be able to say exactly what we want without
interference from Zionists without PSC cowering in the corner.
You claim,
in the same letter, that it would have been ‘a
fundamental strategic error’ to have opposed a demonstration by the JLM at
the 2018 Labour Party Conference. Really? If the JLM hadn’t got cold feet then
it would no doubt have attracted massive press publicity. Remember the
Zionists’‘anti-racist’ demonstration
outside parliament in March 18 which was quite rightly opposed by JVL and
LAW? PSC of course did nothing then. To have refused to counter the JLM would
have been a fundamental mistake. Fortunately for the JLM they knew which way
the wind was blowing in Liverpool and it wasn’t for them.
In
Solidarity,
Tony
Greenstein
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below