Jeremy Corbyn never understood that the false ‘anti-Semitism’
campaign was designed to remove him not anti-Semites
Dramatis Personae
Iain McNicol (General Secretary)
Iain McNicol (General Secretary)
Sam Matthews (Head of Disputes and later Acting Head of the GLU)
Tracey Allen (Manager, General Secretary’s Office - GSO)
Julie Lawrence (Director, GSO)
Emilie Oldknow (Executive Director - Governance, Membership and Party Services)
Patrick Heneghan (Executive Director - Elections, Campaigns and Organisation)
Simon Mills (Executive Director - Finance).
John Stolliday (Director, Governance and Legal Unit - GLU)
Mike Creighton (Director of Audit, Risk and Property)
Claire-Frances Fuller (Head of Internal Governance)
Simon Jackson (Director of Policy, Research and Messaging, Briefing and Rebuttal)
Fiona Stanton (Regional Director, Labour North)
Neil Fleming (Acting Head of Press and Broadcasting)
Carol Linforth (Director of Conference and Events)
Sarah Mulholland (PLP Secretary)
Holly Snyman (Director - Human Resources)
Greg Cook (Head of Political Strategy)
Anna Hutchinson (Regional Director, Labour North West)
Tom Geldard (Director of Digital).
Tracey Allen (Manager, General Secretary’s Office - GSO)
Julie Lawrence (Director, GSO)
Emilie Oldknow (Executive Director - Governance, Membership and Party Services)
Patrick Heneghan (Executive Director - Elections, Campaigns and Organisation)
Simon Mills (Executive Director - Finance).
John Stolliday (Director, Governance and Legal Unit - GLU)
Mike Creighton (Director of Audit, Risk and Property)
Claire-Frances Fuller (Head of Internal Governance)
Simon Jackson (Director of Policy, Research and Messaging, Briefing and Rebuttal)
Fiona Stanton (Regional Director, Labour North)
Neil Fleming (Acting Head of Press and Broadcasting)
Carol Linforth (Director of Conference and Events)
Sarah Mulholland (PLP Secretary)
Holly Snyman (Director - Human Resources)
Greg Cook (Head of Political Strategy)
Anna Hutchinson (Regional Director, Labour North West)
Tom Geldard (Director of Digital).
Jo Greening, (Head of International
Affairs)
Karie Murphy (Chief of Staff, LOTO)
Seumas Milne (Executive Director - Strategy and Communication)
Seumas Milne (Executive Director - Strategy and Communication)
Introduction
In the first
of 2 articles on Labour’s
leaked report, I
detailed the vile abuse and racism of Labour’s senior officials, including Iain
McNicol. If Corbyn had adopted the advice of Tony Benn, that the first thing a Labour
Minister must do was to gain control of his own civil servants, then things
might have worked out differently. Instead Labour’s senior staff were working for
a Labour defeat.
If Part I dealt
with the good part then Part II is about the decidedly bad part of the Report.
It details how Corbyn’s Office, led by the nose by Lansman, bought into the
‘anti-Semitism’ narrative. Not once did they ask where it had come from or why.
‘Not once in its 851 pages did they
question the basis of a moral panic designed by racists and targeted on
anti-racists’
The
Report was written by those who took it for granted that the Labour Party was
riddled with anti-Semites and anti-Semitism. Not once in its 851 pages did they
question the basis of a moral panic designed by racists and targeted on anti-racists.
Despite
all the brilliant Oxbridge brains of his advisers, James Schneider, Seamus
Milne et al., no one worked out what the anti-Semitism attacks were really
about. Not once did the Report’s author(s) question why, if the Labour Party
really was overrun with ‘anti-Semitism’, it had only occurred when Jeremy
Corbyn was elected leader. Was this disinformation
paradigm really spontaneous?
That Andrew Neil Interview and
David Irving
Not
once did Schneider, Milne and Carrie Murphy ask themselves why, if the
‘anti-Semitism’ offensive was genuine, that it was the Right who were its most
ardent advocates? One of its most fervent supporters was BBC broadcaster Andrew
Neil. Neil crucified Corbyn in an election
interview in November 2019 when he asked whether Corbyn would apologise to
the Jewish community for Labour anti-Semitism.
It
was a predictable question and there was a simple response. ‘I have nothing to apologise for’. Corbyn
could then have gone on to condemn Labour’s genuine racism, against Black
people:
‘I do
however wish to apologise to Britain’s Black community for Labour’s previous
support for the ‘hostile environment’ policy and the Windrush scandal. Our
decision not to oppose the 2014 Immigration Act was scandalous.’
When
Neil responded, listing examples of Labour ‘anti-Semitism’, such as the
attempts to deselect Louise Ellman and Zionist diva Luciana Berger, there was a
very simple response.
Corbyn
could have told Neil that he had no intention of taking lessons on anti-Semitism
from someone who, as Editor of the Sunday Times had hired
a holocaust denier, David Irving, to examine the Goebbels Diaries which had
just been discovered in a Moscow archive! As Jewish historian David Cesarani commented:
‘David Irving denies the gas chambers. Anyone who deals with
him is tainted with that.’
Boris Johnson deliberately hired and supported anti-Semitic and racist columnists when he edited the Spectator |
And whilst Neil was spluttering
Corbyn could have mentioned the fact that when Boris Johnson was Editor of The
Spectator he hired
Taki, the owner of Takis magazine for
whom David Duke of the KKK wrote. Taki himself was no slouch when it came to
anti-Semitism. As his biography records:
‘He (Boris) could have dispensed with Taki... but
consistently chose not to, despite entreaties from many critics, including his
own father-in-law Charles Wheeler. It is down to Boris that Taki was able to
run columns on ‘bongo bongo land’, West Indians ‘multiplying like flies’ and
one on the world Jewish conspiracy, in which he described himself as a
‘soi-disant anti-Semite’.
Even
the right-wing owner of the Spectator Conrad Black, asked
Boris to dismiss Taki after he had criticised Black for marrying a Jewish
woman. Boris refused. Taki wrote for the Spectator for as long as Boris was
editor. And who was Chairman
of the Board of Press Holdings
Media Group which owns The Spectator? Andrew Neil!
Of course, having accepted the ‘anti-Semitism’
narrative, Corbyn had no response. Not once did he point
out the hypocrisy of Britain’s racist tabloids and the BBC for having ignored
the Windrush Scandal, in which Black British citizens were deported to their
death, instead concentrating on Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ which didn’t hurt a
single Jewish person.
Jeremy Corbyn Stabbing
himself in the back
The
purpose of the Report’s authors was to pin the blame for the failure to deal
with ‘anti-Semites’ on the Compliance Unit. It was all the fault of Sam Matthews and the rest of the Southside criminals.
We have the
absurdity of Corbyn’s office (LOTO) urging the Compliance Unit on to more
expulsions and pressurising them into expediting the expulsion of Jackie
Walker, Marc Wadsworth, Ken Livingstone and myself. It is a shocking tale of
treachery not made any better by the fact that the person Corbyn was really betraying
was himself.
It was my
fate to be the first of the ‘big four’ cases to be heard. Suspended in March
2016 I was expelled in February 2018. I
would have been expelled in December 2017 but for the fact that I obtained a
High Court injunction preventing
the hearing going ahead.
When I was
suspended I went on a speaking tour to Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. You can
read the speech I intended to deliver here. I had
fallen ill shortly before the tour and prepared a speech if I had to cancel my talk.
However the
antibiotics kicked in and I was able to speak in person! The one theme I
pursued throughout all the meetings I addressed was that the false
‘anti-Semitism’ campaign was not about anti-Semitism. Although Jackie, Marc,
Ken and I may be expelled we were collateral damage. The real target was Jeremy
Corbyn.
It is one
of the real tragedies of the whole affair that Corbyn never understood this. He
didn’t link the accusations against myself and others to the attacks on him. Yet
the Zionists are quite open about their belief that anti-Zionism and
anti-Semitism are one and the same. There isn’t a Palestine solidarity activist
in Britain who hasn’t been accused of anti-Semitism.
Corbyn and
his advisers never understood that Zionist accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are
the only defence they have to Israel’s incarceration of children, theft of land
and demolition of homes. It’s much easier to attack Zionism’s critics as
‘anti-Semites’.
Corbyn
seriously believed that relations with the Board of Deputies could be repaired
by throwing his comrades under the bus.
All the
publicity surrounding the Report has concentrated on the revelations about
McNicol’s band of criminals. What people have not done is to concentrate on the
fact that Corbyn and his advisers supported the very witchhunt whose purpose
was to remove him. Corbyn was adept at sticking a knife in his own back.
It
is clear that Matthews and co. were totally incompetent as well as serial
liars. What is so amusing is that Matthews owned up to the fact that he had no
skills apart from the ability to lie convincingly on TV for the benefit of John
Ware and BBC Panorama.
What
is also clear is that Matthews and his gang weren’t interested in genuine anti-Semites,
of whom there were very few. Their sole
interest was in pinning the label of ‘anti-Semitism’ on anti-Zionists,
supporters of the Palestinians and others on the Left.
Zionism has never fought anti-Semitism
just anti-Zionism
One
thing missing from any discussion of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign is that
Zionism has no interest in opposing anti-Semitism.
‘Maybe there was some kind of
fiddling of the figures by the oligarchs who ran the TV stations (and who were
mainly, as some lost no time in pointing out, of Jewish origin)
The above quote is
from Boris Johnson’s book 72 Virgins
published in 2004. As The Independent notes it
depicted Jews as controlling the media, amidst a torrent of racial slurs and
stereotypes. Yet the Board of Deputies and the Zionists said nothing. If their
real concerns were about anti-Semitism then they would surely have said
something?
Indeed when Boris Johnson became Prime Minister they fell over themselves to congratulate him.
Johnson’s previous record as a racist, anti-Semitism included, was ignored. He
was, after all, a strong supporter of Israel.
Imagine if Corbyn had
penned such a book? Corbyn was criticised
by the Zionists for not mentioning
anti-Semitism when reviewing Imperialism by John Hobson, a
standard academic textbook, because he didn’t mention that a few lines out of 334
pages were anti-Semitic. The hypocrisy of the anti-Semitism mongers is
breathtaking but the authors of the Report never seemed to notice these double
standards.
When
Theodor Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, wanted to hold the First
Zionist Congress in 1897 his choice of venue was Munich. The Jewish population promptly
rose
up in protest and accused the authorities of
anti-Semitism. Why? Because the Zionist proposition that Jews formed a separate
nation from other Germans meant that they were therefore aliens. This was exactly what the anti-Semites were saying.
Alfred
Rosenberg, Minister for Ostland and the Nazi Party’s main theoretician, who was
hanged at Nuremburg in 1946, wrote that
‘‘Zionism must be vigorously
supported in order to encourage a significant number of German Jews to leave
for Palestine or other destinations.’[Francis Nicosia, Third Reich and the
Palestine Question, p.25]
As author Francis Nicosia noted,
Rosenberg
‘intended to use Zionism as
a legal justification for depriving German Jews of their civil rights’ and he ‘sanctioned the use of the Zionist movement
in the future drive to eliminate Jewish rights, Jewish influence and eventually
the Jewish presence in Germany.’ [TRPQ, pp. 25-26]
Francis
Nicosia, the Raul Hilberg Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University
and himself a Zionist wrote that:
whereas today non-Jewish
criticism of Zionism or the State of Israel are often dismissed as motivated by
a deeper anti-Semitism, in Herzl’s day an opposite non-Jewish reaction, one of
support for the Zionist idea, might have resulted in a similar reaction. [Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi
Germany p.7]
When Herzl sought the support of the Grand Duke of Baden, the
uncle of Kaiser Wilhelm II, for Zionism the Duke’s
‘chief
misgiving was that if he supported the [Zionist] cause, people would
misinterpret this as anti-Semitism on his part.’ (Diaries of Herzl]
Captain Dreyfuss - the Zionist movement was indifferent to the fight to clear his name which was why Bernard Lazarre resigned from the Zionist Actions Committee |
Zionism was unique as a movement
amongst Jews because it accepted that anti-Semitism was the natural biological reaction
of non-Jews to the Jews in their midst. As Herzl wrote in his Diaries:
“In Paris... I achieved a freer attitude towards
anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon.
Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat’
anti-Semitism.” [The Diaries of Theodor Herzl,
London: Gollancz, 1958, p.6]
This was in the middle of the Dreyfus
Affair which culminated in the triumph of Emile Zola and the Republicans and a
defeat for the clerical and military caste that wanted to restore the monarchy.
This cartoon was attacked as 'antisemitic' until it was pointed out that it was an old WW1 anti-war cartoon - not every rich person is Jewish as the Zios suggest! |
It was the Zionist acceptance of anti-Semitism
as something that was natural, which could not be fought and only utilised,
that was the basis of the collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionists.
When German Jews and world Jewry were aghast at the assumption of power by the
Nazis in January 1933 and instituted a boycott, the Zionists only saw a golden
opportunity. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister saw Hitler’s rise as:
a rare opportunity to
achieve the “Zionist solution”, the only true solution to the problem of the
Jewish people.’ [Yechiam Weitz, Jewish Refugees and Zionist Policy during
the Holocaust, p.355, Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Volume
30, 1994 - Issue 2]
Dr Noah Lucas, a critical Zionist
historian wrote that:
‘As the
European Holocaust erupted, Ben Gurion saw it as a decisive opportunity for
Zionism... Ben Gurion above all others sensed the tremendous possibilities
inherent in the dynamic of the chaos and carnage in Europe... In conditions of
peace,… Zionism could not move the masses of world Jewry. The forces unleashed
by Hitler in all their horror must be harnessed to the advantage of Zionism. ... (The Modern History of Israel, pp. 187/8)
Ben Gurion’s deputy, Berl Katznelson was
even more explicit. The rise of Hitler was
an opportunity to build and flourish like none we
have ever had or ever will have [Nicosia,
ZANG, p.91]
Nor was this attitude to
anti-Semitism confined to the pre-State days. When there arose in Argentina in
1976 a neo-Nazi Junta, the first in the post-war era, it targeted Jews. The
most famous victim was Jacobo Timmerman, Editor of La Opinion. He was released and deported to Israel after having
been savagely tortured. With the advent of the Lebanon War, Timmerman fell out
of love with Israel.
The Argentina Junta murdered up to
3,000 Jews. According to Juan Pablo Jaroslavsky of the Barcelona-based
Commission of Solidarity with Relatives of the Disappeared
"Jews
represented more than 12 per cent of the victims of the military regime while
constituting under 1 per cent of Argentina's population," See Jews targeted in Argentina's dirty war,
What was Israel’s reaction? There
wasn’t one. Instead it took the opportunity of the United States’s decision to
cut off arms sales to this vile regime to increase its own arms sales. During
the Falklands/ Malvinas war Israel became the Junta’s main arms supplier.
retired Argentine pilots and
military figures who testified that in 1982 they secretly flew to Israel, where they met with
representatives from the military and defense manufacturers and returned with
their plane loaded with light arms, mortars, air-to-air missiles and anti-tank
weapons.
Not once did Israel condemn the anti-Semitism of the Junta. Zionist
organisations in the United States instead defended the Junta, minimising its
atrocities. The Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires refused to help or grant visas
to Jews that the Junta declared were subversives. The Knesset refused to
discuss what was happening in Argentina during the 7 year life of the Junta.
An article in
Ha’aretz, Argentine-Israelis Urge Israel to Disclose Past Junta Ties describes
how Wanda Clara and Marcus Weinstein appealed to Israel concerning the arrest
and disappearance of their son Mauricio. Weinstein said he felt the Israeli
diplomatic representatives
“cared little interest about
the disappeared Jews, including his son and a second Israeli citizen.”
This is the bastard ‘Jewish’ state that Lansman and the Momentum authors
of this Report defend with the sterile accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’.
Were there
anti-Semites in the Labour Party?
In
a party of half a million it would be a surprise if there weren’t. There have
always been anti-Semites in the Labour Party but up till Corbyn’s leadership
there was no campaign against this miniscule fringe. There are also paedophiles
in the Labour Party too. No one however suggests that the Labour Party is
‘overrun’ with paedophiles. As Daniel Finn wrote (Corbyn
Under Fire)
‘A narrative can still be false even if it contains truthful elements:
in fact, there are very few that don’t.’
Yes there were anti-Semites in the
Labour Party but that was not what this campaign was about.
For
example Sydney Webb, founder of the Fabians, New Statesman and Minister for the
Colonies in Ramsay MacDonald’s 1929-1931 Labour Government was pleased that there were “no Jews in the British Labour Party”
whereas “French, German, Russian
Socialism is Jew-ridden. We, thank heaven are free”. The reason for this
happy state of affairs? There was “no
money in it”.
The worst example of Labour
anti-Semitism was that of Herbert Morrison, the wartime Home Secretary. After
the Allies had issued a declaration on December 17 1942 that the Nazis were
exterminating Europe’s Jews public support for admitting Jewish refugees rose
to 80%. Morrison’s reaction was to set his face against the admission of any
more than a token number of Jews. The Zionists who by then controlled the Board
of Deputies made no complaint because they too opposed the admission of Jewish
refugees.
If
there was a genuine problem with Labour anti-Semitism there would have been no need
to redefine anti-Semitism. The Oxford English Dictionary gives a very simple
definition of anti-Semitism: ‘hostility to or discrimination against Jews.’ This wasn’t
acceptable to those who wanted to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
But
why this obsession with a definition of anti-Semitism? When my father took part
in the Battle of Cable Street
against Oswald Moseley’s fascists on October 4 1936 he didn’t need a definition
of anti-Semitism. The only reason that the Zionists fought for Labour to adopt
the IHRA
‘Definition’ of Anti-Semitism was that they wished
to define criticism of Israel and Zionism as anti-Semitic.
Israel
defines itself as a Jewish State and claims that it represents all Jews
wherever they live. Netanyahu even described
himself as the Prime Minister of the Jewish people. It is not
surprising therefore that many people associate Jews with Israel. The
responsibility for this lies firmly with Zionism. This is not anti-Semitism as
it’s historically understood. They are not ascribing to Jews the blame for the
ills of capitalism or engaging in a world Jewish conspiracy theory or as an
alien racial element. People draw what are quite reasonable conclusions from
Zionism’s own propaganda.
The Rothschilds
One
of the most common features of much of Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ is reference to
the Rothschilds. It is true that historically the Rothschilds played a major
part in the pantheon of Jewish villains. They were at the epicentre of a
conspiracy to benefit from the Napoleonic wars. The Nazis even made a film The Rothschilds.
However
most people who refer to The Rothschilds know nothing of this. Some people
don’t even know the Rothschilds are Jewish still less their role in anti-Semitic
conspiracy theories!
It
is also true that at the beginning of the Israeli state the Rothschilds were heavily
involved in for example financing the building of the Supreme Court building in
Jerusalem. It is also the case that the Balfour Declaration pledging the land
of Palestine to the Zionists was written to James Rothschilds.
The
use of the Rothschilds meme is a consequence of the false anti-Semitism campaign
which has prevented a debate on the origins of Zionism and political education
as to why Israel came into existence and why it is an Apartheid state. People
who raise the issue of Zionism are accused of ‘anti-Semitism’. It is almost a
banned word. Is it any wonder that such people search for simple explanations?
The
invocation of the Rothschilds can be
anti-Semitic if it also betrays a hostile intention to Jews. But if it is
simply at the level of poor political understanding of the roots of Zionism and
Israel’s foundation it is not anti-Semitic.
The Israeli
State
The
existence of an armed settler state in the Middle East, a bastion of opposition
to revolutionary movements, is in the interests of Western imperialism. As
Reagan’s Secretary of State Alexander Haig once declared,
Israel is America’s largest unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Israel’s
alliance with Saudi Arabia against Iran demonstrates the role Israel plays in
supporting reactionary Arab regimes. Zionism is the cutting edge of Western
imperialism. As Daniel Finn wrote:
‘Israel’s supporters are not
an external force that has bent the British ruling class to its will. They are
the outriders of that class.’
Jews are the ruling class’s moral
alibi, at least for the moment.
The
Leaked Report Does NOT Challenge the ‘Anti-Semitism’ Campaign – It merely Attempts
to Shift the Blame from Formby and Corbyn to McNicol
In the Executive Summary the Report states that ‘anti-Semitism’
‘has caused great pain to the Jewish community in this
country, including Jewish members of the Labour Party. The Party must take all
possible steps to repair this damage, and apologise for failing to take the
necessary action to tackle the problem sooner. (11)
It goes on
to say that
‘This report
thoroughly disproves any suggestion that antisemitism is not a problem in the
Party, or that it is all a “smear” or a “witch-hunt”
This is one
of many lies. What it does show is that whilst anti-Zionists, especially if
they were Jewish, were targeted, genuine anti-Semites were left alone. All with
the complicity of the JLM who were unconcerned about genuine anti-Semitism.
David Collier - a fascist and a Zionist - but no one is too right-wing for Lansman's cronies |
Glynn Secker
The
Governance & Legal Unit [GLU] used David Collier’s dossier
on the Palestine Live FB group to target Labour members. Both the witch-hunters
and the Report’s authors have ignored the fact that Collier is a far-Right
Zionist who works with fascists and supporters of Tommy Robinson. However he is
kosher both for the Zionists and the Report’s authors. In a debate
with Melanie Phillips he denied
that the Palestinian refugees existed, referring to them as ‘it’, as if they weren’t human beings.
This is what colonisers have always done, denying the humanity of their victims
and the authors of this Report have endorsed this.
Of
all the examples of ‘anti-Semites’, the GLU preferred to single out Jewish
candidates such as Glyn Secker, the Secretary of JVL. Even Collier’s report did
not allege any antisemitic comments by Secker.
GLU
found posts on Secker’s social media and used these to justify his suspension, even
though the posts weren’t even anti-Semitic, not even by the distorted IHRA definition.
Normally they would not normally result
an investigation, let alone suspension.
There
are also suspicions that the ‘evidence’ in Collier’s Report has been doctored, cut
and pasted from other sites. As the Report
observes:
Of all the examples of extreme
antisemitism in the report, GLU picked Glyn Secker, even though the report did
not contain allegations of antisemitic comments by Secker and the report stated
“Glyn Secker has had minimal interaction
on the site”. GLU listed Secker as “not
in breach” of the rules. (428)
Quite laughably, one
of the pieces of ‘evidence’ GLU used was Secker sharing an article from “Forward”,
the main journal of American Jews! It demonstrated ‘GLU's complete lack of understanding about what constitutes
antisemitism’. Unfortunately this is equally true of those who wrote this
report. (440)
The
only person who came out of this with any credit in Corbyn’s Office was Andrew
Murray, who wrote:
I've looked
at it and really there is no way it stands up a remote case of anti-Semitism...
It is so offensive for Jewish socialists to be accused of anti-Semitism.
Corbyn was like the 3 wise monkeys – he said, saw and heard nothing. Indeed it was Corbyn who
first adopted the 38 word IHRA definition in order to play catch-up with
Theresa May.
There are repeated instances of the
Report confusing anti-Semitism and
pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist comments. For example one Labour Party member, Terry
Flanagan, comments about “Israeli Mossad…
orchestrating the attack on… Jeremy Corbyn” or Alex Allardyce writing about
“THE ZIONIST CONTROLLED USA”, and
calling Bill Clinton a “ZIONIST BASTARD”.
[259]
One
is left wondering what it is about the above comments that is anti-Semitic?
They may be right or possibly wrong but anti-Semitic? AIPAC (the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee) boasts of how powerful it is and claims
that its mission is
to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel
relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.
lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch[3] of the United States.
It
goes on to describe AIPAC activities as including removal of political
candidates from office:
AIPAC scored two major victories in the early 1980s
that established its image among political candidates as an organization
"not to be trifled with" and set the pace for "a staunchly
pro-Israel" Congress over the next three decades
Wikipedia
was referring to the defeat of Democrat Congressman Paul Findlay and Republican
Senator Charles Percy for not towing the Zionist line. As Mehdi Hassan wrote
in the New Statesman (before that rag became a Zionist house journal):
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac)
that brags on its website about being “the
most important organisation affecting America’s relationship with Israel” -
has a financial stranglehold on both main parties. According to William Quandt,
a former adviser on the Middle East to the Nixon and Carter administrations, “70 per cent to 80 per cent of all members
of Congress will go along with whatever they think Aipac wants”.
Notwithstanding
the above the Report complains that
‘between 1 November 2016 and 19 February 2018 GLU
staff initiated just 10 suspensions, 24 NOIs for antisemitism and 2 General
Secretary membership rejections for antisemitism.’ (282)
It goes on to complain
that
‘all of these actions were before April 2017. From 1
April 2017 to 19 February 2018 there was not a single antisemitism case that
received action (a suspension’ , NOI or membership rejection).’ (285)
Corbyn and Marc Wadsworth at the Chakrabarti press conference |
What the
Report doesn’t say is that of the 10 suspensions 5 of those, at least, were
anti-racists (Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone, Charley Allen, Marc Wadsworth,
Tony Greenstein), 3 of whom were Jewish and two Black. I suspect all of the 10
were anti-racists.
Despite
expelling anti-Zionists, especially Jewish anti-Zionists, for ‘anti-Semitism’
the irony is that both racist and anti-Semitic abuse was quite acceptable in
the GLU. Those named in the Report, all senior managers in the Labour Party,
indulged in vitriolic racist and sexist abuse whilst suspending and expelling
members for ‘abuse’.
In
a leak from Skwawkbox
(which has disappeared from their site, I assume for legal reasons) John
Stolliday and Julie Lawrence freely make anti-Semitic comments. This article is
a gold mine of information!
Lawrence
describes Jon Lansman as a ‘rat’.
Portraying Jews as vermin was common in Nazi propaganda. Stolliday referred to
Ed Miliband as ‘beaker’, a reference
to his nose and as the ‘runt of the
litter.’ It says everything about the corrupt political culture in UNISON that
neither Stolliday nor Oldknow have been suspended.
Stolliday
and Lawrence’s comments are further evidence of the hypocrisy that accompanied
the ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt. Genuine anti-Semitism was acceptable. It is no
surprise that the Jewish
Labour Movement and Starmer have been making
threats against those publishing the leaked report.
Corbyn
and his Office (LOTO) Threw Their Supporters Under the Bus in order to ‘rebuild
trust’ with the ‘Jewish Community’ and appease the Zionist/Israel Lobby
You
might have thought that Corbyn would have understood, given his long
association with the Palestine solidarity movement, that the first resort of
Zionists is to accuse their opponents of ‘anti-Semitism’.
Corbyn
never seemed to understand that the Zionists’ ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign was about
getting rid of him. It didn’t occur to his ‘strategic advisor’ Seamus Milne
that the more anti-Zionists they expelled for ‘anti-Semitism’ the more they
were confirming the false narrative that Labour was overrun by ‘anti-Semites’. (306)
Despite
doing everything the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies required of
them, Corbyn was met by increasing accusations of being an anti-Semite
personally. The leader of this Goebbels-style campaign was the
far-Right Editor of the now-bankrupt JC, Stephen Pollard, who wrote
in a letter to his readers on 31 October 2019:
Over the next 6 weeks we will discover
whether the British people are prepared to put an anti-Semite into Number 10.
Jonathan
Arkush, past President of the Board of Deputies made similar
accusations of anti-Semitism against Corbyn personally.
Instead
Corbyn treated former friends and activists as ballast to be jettisoned. Instead
of opposing the attack on Black and Jewish anti-racists and anti-Zionists,
Corbyn urged the witchhunters on. The Report makes pitiful reading. His ‘kinder gentler’ politics were reserved
for his right-wing opponents. The Report tells us that:
Jeremy Corbyn himself and members of his
staff team requested to GLU that particular antisemitism cases be dealt with.
In 2017 LOTO staff chased for action on high-profile antisemitism cases Ken
Livingstone, Tony Greenstein, Jackie Walker and Marc Wadsworth, stressing that
these cases were of great concern to Jewish stakeholders and that resolving them
was essential to “rebuilding trust between the Labour Party and the Jewish
community”. (306)
... LOTO (Leader of the Opposition’s
Office) was unhappy with the NCC panel’s decision to suspend Ken Livingstone
for another year rather than expel him.
Well
Greenstein, Walker and Wadsworth were expelled and Livingstone resigned. Did
this ‘rebuild trust’ between Labour
and the ‘Jewish community’ i.e. the Zionist Lobby? Like hell it did. It simply whetted their
appetite. And what was their thanks for Corbyn prostrating himself? At the
General Election they savaged Corbyn as an ‘anti-Semite’ with the Chief Rabbi leading
the charge.
The
Report details how (333), on 17 October 2017 Laura Murray, LOTO Stakeholder
Manager (Blairite language) responsible for relations with the ‘Jewish
community’, emailed Stolliday asking
could we have an update on the current
status of the cases of Ken Livingstone, Jacqui [sic] Walker, Tony Greenstein
and Marc Wadsworth and a clear timetable of when they will all be heard by the
NCC and when a final decision will be made on them. The Jewish Labour Movement
expressed frustration that these cases have taken such a long time to be heard,
as they feel that it is difficult to begin the process of rebuilding trust
between the Labour Party and the Jewish community whilst we have still not
dealt with these cases.
Prior
to the JLM’s 2019 AGM, the JLM had threatened to disaffiliate from the Labour
Party. What was Corbyn’s reaction? To welcome the prospect? To open a bottle of
champagne? No he begged
these racists to stay and they thanked him by passing
a motion of no confidence in him and refusing
to support the Labour Party in the General Election.
Laura
Murray, a Lansman protégé noticeable for having nothing between her ears, remarked
that Corbyn and Jeremy Newmark, Chair of the JLM “both are really keen that we deal with all these outstanding issues as
soon as possible”. (333) After the meeting Newmark emphasised
that ‘we do not have the luxury of another year to wait for all of this to
move forward’. (344)
Newmark refounded
the JLM in 2015 with the specific purpose of overthrowing Corbyn yet here was
Allende sitting down with his Pinochet and giving him everything he demanded.
The results of Corbyn fawning obeisance were predictable.
Were the Zionist) ‘stakeholders’ appeased? Was trust
restored? Did they thank Corbyn? On the contrary they stepped up their attacks
on Corbyn and used these very cases as ammunition against him.
Rather than showing gratitude for his betrayal of his
friends, the JLM’s Luciana Berger dug out a mural of 6 years vintage and then
held a demonstration,
with Norman Tebbit and the DUP, to protest against ‘anti-Semitism’. The purpose
was to destroy Labour’s local elections prospects. Before long they were openly calling
Corbyn an anti-Semite. Far from ‘rebuilding trust’ Corbyn’s actions simply
confirmed that their allegations were true.
Yet this pitiful Report doesn’t, even once, stop to
reflect on the futility of Corbyn humiliating himself in front of these racists
and Zionists. Karie Murphy, the Manager of LOTO was even telling Shadow Cabinet
members that Tom Watson had got his people onto the Livingstone panel ‘to make a soft decision in order to embarrass JC'. Talk about conspiracy theories!
When Ken Livingstone repeated what
the Report describes as ‘offensive
comments’ after his hearing in April 2017, Corbyn called for a new
investigation and reassured Newmark, who said:
When I spoke to Jeremy
Corbyn on Wednesday afternoon he told me that new complaints based upon Mr
Livingstone’s comments... would be taken forward by the NEC. (307, 344)
Jackie Walker case
In May 2016 Jackie Walker was suspended following a
private conversation on Facebook which was broken into by the far-Right Israel Advocacy Movement which has the endearing
habit of working alongside Tommy Robinson supporters in the
fight against ‘anti-Semitism’. In an
informal conversation with a friend, Jackie said:
My ancestors were involved
in both – on all sides… millions more Africans were killed in the African
holocaust and their oppression continues to this day on a global scale in a way
it doesn’t for Jews and many Jews, my ancestors too, were [AMONG] the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade… so who
are the victims and what does it mean . We are victims and perpetrators,
to some extent by choice. And having been a victim does not give you a
right to be a perpetrator.
As is often the case when
discussing things informally Jackie missed out one word which I’ve highlighted
above. On the basis of one word
Jackie has been vilified and castigated as a racist, sent racist abuse calling
for her to be lynched and burned. Instead of defending Jackie and calling out
her accusers and abusers Corbyn and Milne took the cowards way out. See
The
lynching of Jackie Walker
The Report describes how, following an interview on 27
May 2016, Harry Gregson, SE Regional Organiser, emailed Stolliday and Creighton
recommending that Jackie’s suspension was lifted. What does the Report say?
This typifies the handling of
antisemitism disciplinary cases ... The investigations were left to regional
staff to conduct ... with no guidance on antisemitic discourse given to staff
conducting the interview and the outcome of almost all interviews was a
recommendation to lift suspension... No explanation was given as to why
Walker’s comments would not breach Labour’s rules. (362)
There
is no explanation as to why Jackie’s private conversation breached Labour’s
rules. The scribe(s) who wrote this Report are seeking to police peoples’
thoughts on behalf of the world’s most racist state. The Report states that
Crucially, on 19 May 2016, Dave Rich
from the Community Security Trust (CST) had emailed Iain McNicol with his
expert opinion on Walker’s comments (363)
The
CST is a Zionist charity with strong links to the Israeli Embassy and Mossad.
Dave Rich openly
believes that the anti-Zionism of the left is anti-Semitism.
(363) His expert opinion was based on something that Jackie hadn’t
said.
Even
Tracey Allen, Manager of the GSO commented: ‘I can't believe Momentum and
its supporters are throwing her to the wolves.’ (366) We couldn’t believe it either. The dishonesty and
treachery of Lansman was indeed unbelievable.
When
the JLM secretly recorded and distorted Jackie Walker’s comments at the 2016 Labour
Conference, the Head of Press asked “Is
she being suspended? LOTO briefing she's going to be...sigh...”.
In
other words Corbyn’s office were trying to bounce the witch-hunters into suspending
her. After Jackie’s suspension, LOTO and Formby chased for updates on her NCC
hearing date. It probably never occurred to Formby and Corbyn to offer Jackie
some solidarity when under attack by racists.
This
behaviour is indicative of the political collapse of Corbyn. He had adopted
wholesale the narrative of his enemies. Not once did he question the motives of
Israel’s supporters or where they were coming from, still less devise anything
approaching a strategy.
Here
you see how disastrous was the approach of Jewish Voices for Labour which
believed that all it needed to do was to provide ‘Jewish cover’ for Corbyn and
hold secret, unpublicised talks with his office. David Rosenberg of the Jewish
Socialists Group in particular symptomised this approach criticising anyone who
so much as whispered any criticism of Corbyn.
What this meant is that there was no corrective to Corbyn’s strategic
political mistakes.
It
was only with difficulty that I and others eventually ‘bounced’ Rosenberg and
the JSG into supporting Jackie. See The Strange
Silence of the Jewish Socialists Group
Other Cases
The
Report details how ‘GLU staff had intentionally
delayed Walker’s case to establish precedent through other high-profile cases’. Jennie Formby complained that Sam Matthews decision was ‘a delay for which Jeremy has of course had
to bear the blame.’‘ (306-308) McDonnell was even worse:
McDonnell said he favoured life-time
bans over antisemitism - “Out, out, out. If people express these views, full
stop they’re out” - rejecting the
suggestion that antisemitism issues were being used as a “convenient stick” to
beat the leadership: (330)
‘Moshe Machover was a rare example of LOTO directly raising concerns
about a specific case in this period’. (371) In every other case
where false allegations of anti-Semitism were made the victims of the Zionist
attacks were cast asunder.
Throughout
the Report the authors conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. For example David
Roger who ‘Compares Israel to Nazi
Germany’ is one of the cases submitted by Labour Against Anti-Semitism. His case was considered under the
rubric of anti-Semitism.(422) I know David. He is no anti-Semite. Comparing Israeli
policies to Nazi Germany is not anti-Semitic.
When
mobs in Israel chant ‘Death to the Arabs’
how is that different from mobs in pre-war Germany and Poland shouting ‘Death to the Jews’? What is the
difference between banning inter-racial marriages between ‘Aryans’ and Jews
under the Nuremburg Laws and banning inter-racial marriages between Jew and
Arab in Israel?
Presumably
the authors would have suspended Professor Ze’ev' Sternhell, a child survivor of the Nazi Ghetto
of Przemyśl
for writing an article
‘In Israel, Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism’ There are many valid comparisons
that can be made and it is the Zionists who make them. It would appear, according
to the authors’ Zionist ‘logic’ that something can be anti-Semitic and true.
There were some, very few, anti-Semites
but it most ‘anti-Semitism’ derived from Israel’s behaviour towards the Palestinians.
Israel claims to be a Jewish state so it’s not surprising that people who were
not anti-Semitic made ostensibly anti-Semitic comments.
Given the chilling effect of the Zionists’ ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign on any debate
on Zionism and Palestine, the only effect of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign was to
make some people into anti-Semites! The best way to deconstruct Rothschild’s
conspiracy theories is through debate not chilling free speech. Mark
Conway wrote that
"speaking
for myself i despise Jews i think they are vermin and the scum of the earth but
only those Evil Jews who think its acceptabble to steal palestinian land and
persecute them and so to those jews i would say fuck you you (422)
It is clear that his anti-Semitism
derives from his horror at ‘Evil Jews’ i.e. Zionists who engage in the
colonisation of Palestine.
There was nothing antisemitic about this cartoon - Corbyn called on the Police to remove it and thus bought in to the narrative designed to remove him |
Having never fought anti-Semitism
Zionism is now one of its main causes, something it then uses to prove that
they are right! It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Report boasts of how, at the 2019 Labour Party
Conference, Corbyn tweeted that:
I'm disgusted that this
banner was displayed near our #Lab19 conference centre. We asked the police to
remove it and I'm glad they did.
There was nothing even remotely
anti-Semitic about the banner, which contained a Latuff cartoon with a man representing
the Israel Lobby attacking Corbyn with missiles whilst proclaiming ‘anti-Semite, anti-Semite’.
Imagine if you had a debate in Britain 'is it racist to set aside land for non-Jews only? This should demonstrate the racism inherent in Zionism |
Zionism
The
Report is both deceptive and dishonest. It claims that ‘Anti-Zionism is not the
same thing as antisemitism.’(602) Not only does the Report fail to explain how anti-Zionism and
anti-Semitism are different but in
practice the Report conflates the two. That is why the authors of this
report support the IHRA misdefinition of ‘anti-Semitism’
The suggestion that ‘‘antisemitism is often
cloaked in rhetoric about Zionism’’ is untrue. It is very rare for anti-Semitism to be disguised
as anti-Zionism. What is far more common is for anti-Semitism to be disguised
by support for Zionism. There is a
long history of anti-Semites supporting Zionism. After all if you dont’ want
Jews in your country then Zionism, wanting them to live in Israel, makes sense.
Steve Bannon's anti-Semitism didn't stop the Zionist Organisation of America from inviting him as a guest speaker |
From Edouard Drumont, the leader of the
Anti-Dreyfussards in France, to Arthur Balfour, who introduced the Aliens Act
in Britain in 1905 to keep out Jewish refugees out, anti-Semites have been the
most ardent Zionists. From Alfred Rosenberg to Steve Bannon, Trump’s former
advisor and a self-declared Christian Zionist, people have combined anti-Semitism and Zionism.
Bannon told his wife that ‘he doesn’t like the way they raise
their kids to be ‘whiny brats’ and that he didn’t want the girls going to
school with Jews.”
The section Homogenising Jewish communities states that
‘Jewish
communities in Britain are incredibly diverse, but Jewish organisations are
often homogenised and reduced simply to “the Israel lobby” or “Zionist lobby”. (603)
This is what is called Chutzpah. It is the
Zionists who deny Jewish diversity and who demand that only the Zionist Board of Deputies represents Britain’s Jews. Those
who wrote the Report might care to recall the 8th of the Board of Deputies 10 Commandments which it demanded leadership candidates accept.
This stated that:
‘Thou shall
not speak to any ‘fringe’ Jews or Jewish organisations other than the Board of
Deputies and Zionist ‘representative’ groups.’
The JLM made it clear that their loyalty is to Zionism and Israel not the Labour Party |
The Report goes on to say that
‘Even Labour’s own Jewish affiliate, the Jewish Labour Movement,
have been labelled supporters of Netanyahu, despite their explicit criticisms
of his government.’
It’s a good job that the Report doesn’t detail what
these ‘explicit’ criticisms of Netanyahu are because they are very hard to find!
The JLM declares that the Israeli Labor Party is its ‘sister’ party. Just this
week their ‘sister’ party and its 3 Knesset members (down from 56 in 1969!) have
gone into coalition with Netanyahu. Part of the coalition agreement is that the
ILP will vote for the annexation of
the settlements. So much for their much
vaunted support for 2 states. I have yet to hear any criticisms of the ILP –
implicit or explicit.
The Israeli Labor Party have long been supporters of Netanyahu’s military occupation of the West Bank, the siege of Gaza
and his deportation of Black African refugees. In other words they are supporters of Zionism, the
ideology of a Jewish Apartheid state. Where they differ with Netanyahu it is
over tactics.
The Israeli Labor Party, which the JLM considers its 'sister party' has just joined a coalition with Netanyahu |
The Report is Dishonest and Self-Serving
The
Report states that Sir Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge
and Geoffrey Robertson QC both endorse the IHRA if it includes the Home Affairs
Select Committee caveats. This is a lie.
Neither of them endorse the IHRA. What Sedley did say in an article
was that:
freedom of expression is at the centre of this
debate. While the IHRA “definition” is not part of our law,... the right of
free expression is.
Sedley went
on to say that:
whatever criticism the IHRA’s “examples” may seek to
suppress, both Jews and non-Jews in the UK are entitled, without being
stigmatised as antisemites, to contend that a state that by law denies
Palestinians any right of self-determination is a racist state, or to ask
whether there is some moral equivalence between shooting down defenceless Jews
in eastern Europe and unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza.
Sedley
pointed out that Theresa May had disregarded even the free speech caveats that the
Home
Affairs Selection Committee Report into Anti-Semitism of
2016 said should accompany the IHRA.
‘the
official adoption of the definition... gives
respectability and encouragement to forms of intolerance which are themselves
contrary to law.... (the IHRA) also fails the first
test of any definition: it is indefinite... it bristles
with contentious assumptions about the racial identity of Jews, assumptions
contested by many diaspora Jews but on which both Zionism and anti-Semitism
fasten, and about Israel as the embodiment of a collective right of Jews to
self-determination.’
“it is likely in practice to chill free speech, by
raising expectations of pro-Israeli groups that they can successfully object to
legitimate criticism of Israel and correspondingly arouse fears in NGO’s and
student bodies that they will have events banned.’
‘would be well
advised not to adopt this confusing and litigation-prone definition, and – if
they need one – to use the Oxford Dictionary’.
The fact that this Report felt it
necessary to distort what two eminent jurists had to say, because it is
politically inconvenient to admit that the IHRA has no legal, intellectual or
moral justification says everything one needs to know about Labour’s fake
‘anti-Semitism’. The only conclusion one can draw from the Report’s sleight of
hand is that nothing it says can be taken on trust. These McCarthyists find it
impossible to admit that the IHRA, which is being used to witchhunt Palestinian
supporters, has no legal or academic credibility.
The Report Boasts of how Jennie
Formby increased the number of Expulsions and Suspensions
The
Report reaches a new sycophantic low when it boasts about how efficient Formby
is as a witchhunter compared to McNicol: (629)
In 2017, there were just 10 suspensions and 22 NOIs
(totalling 32 such actions). In 2018, this rose to 98 and 185 respectively
(totalling 283), and in 2019 it rose again to 296 suspensions and 283 NOIs (579
in total).
What
its authors don’t say is that this subservience to the Zionist agenda made not 1 jot of difference. Come the
General Election and the Zionist press and its tame rabbis attacked
Corbyn as an anti-Semite with added vigour. Accepting that the allegations of anti-Semitism
were bona fide led to an unmitigated
disaster.
As
Len McLuskey put
it ‘Jewish
Community Leaders Are Refusing To Take 'Yes' For An Answer’. Of course
they were. The only thing they were
interested in was the destruction of Corbyn.
Denialism
The
Report has a section on Denialism, a
fake word to match the fake anti-Semitism. If you deny that Labour has an anti-Semitism
problem and accuse the Right of weaponising antisemitism then that is proof
that you too are anti-Semitic! The Report quotes Corbyn as saying
‘denying that there is a problem of antisemitism
within the Party contributes to, and is part of, the problem. (775)
Which
is like saying that Defendants who plead not guilty are contributing to an increase
in crime. It is illogical. Evidence that Corbyn was politically not up to being
leader. Presumably when Corbyn denied he was an anti-Semite he too was part of
the problem?
Corbyn
and his Momentum buddies were incapable of engaging in critical thought still
less understanding or challenging the narrative framework of the Zionists’ attacks.
Simple
economistic demands for better conditions, more money for te NHS etc. were all
that the Corbyn leadership was capable of. They were not capable of an alternative political
narrative which is why te Tories won. Unfortunately Corbyn’s opponents weren’t
as stupid.
Those
who felt threatened by Corbyn’s attack on their privilege and power did not
defend austerity in its own terms. Rather they chose a topic, anti-Semitism,
which would be much more difficult terrain on which to fight. Unfortunately
wrapped up in identity politics Corbyn and Momentum were incapable of challenging
the argument that Jews in Britain, although a minority were are not an oppressed
minority.
The
Report says that:
One area that has, from 2016 onwards, been
particularly challenging for GLU to determine the appropriate course of action
for, has been “denialism”. (774)
But
why should this be a concern? Denying that anti-Semitism is a problem in the
Labour Party is a point of view which is held by a majority of members. A YouGov poll of Labour Party members in March
2018 found that 77% of respondents agreed that reports
of antisemitism had been “exaggerated”
or “hyped up” to undermine the Corbyn
and prevent criticism of Israel. 30% denied that there was any problem at all.
If Lansman and the authors of this
Report believe that disciplinary measures are a valid response to what they
term ‘denialism’ then it demonstrates that they have contempt for free speech
and don’t even believe their own propaganda since they are unable to defend it.
The
logic of ‘denialism’ is the ‘logic’ of the 17th Century Salem
Witchhunt when women and men were hanged for witchcraft in
Massachusetts. As Elizabeth Purdy wrote:
Those who publicly questioned the guilt of a
defendant were likely to be accused of witchcraft themselves.
Margaret Tyson
Among
the many bogus accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ that the Report endorses is that
of Margaret Tyson. Her offence? She posted
‘an offensive picture of Watson next to
the Israeli ambassador with words overlaid stating: “I represent a foreign power, not my constituents.”
This was fair comment. Watson’s office was funded by
some of Britain’s main Israel lobbyists, Sir Trevor Chinn and Sir David
Garrard. Watson has combined visceral
anti-Black racism, supporting
the racist Labour MP Phil Woolas and demonising
asylum seekers, with slavish devotion to the Zionist cause. Tyson had commented
“Watson, what a complete and utter
badturd. Judas, sold out for 30 pieces of silver.”
Tyson’s only crime was her reference to 30 pieces of
silver. Watson’s price was far higher. He received
£90,000 from Chinn and Garrard for his private office though, as Bob Pitt
points out, he also received over half a million pounds from Max Moseley, an
open racist and supporter of his fascist and anti-Semitic father Sir Oswald.
Nonetheless Tyson is not wrong to draw a connection between the donations from
Garrard and Chinn and his pro-Zionist politics.
Asa Winstanley
and Free Speech
Perhaps
the most disgusting aspect of the Report is its defence of the party’s
suspension of Asa Winstanley in March 2019 following complaints about tweets
accusing JLM of being an “Israeli embassy
proxy”. One can only assume that telling the truth is now an offence. The
JLM’s Director Ella Rose came directly from the Embassy.
Former
Chair Jeremy Newmark
Israel undoubtedly funds
the organisation. The Report says that Asa was ‘suggesting that JLM displays dual loyalty’. In other words you can’t
say something, even if it is true, because racists may take offence The JLM is
not only affiliated to the Labour Party but to the World
Zionist Organisation whose Jerusalem
Program, speaks of:
The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its
historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality
of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation;
The
Jerusalem Program is stating that the Israeli State is central in the life of ‘the (Jewish) nation.’ What is this if
not dual loyalty? Zionism is based on the assertion that Jews owe their prime
loyalty, not to where they live but to Israel. That is why Jewish anti-Zionists
are accused of being ‘traitors’.
I
realise that those wrote this report are not the brightest sparks but if you
are saying that something can be true and
anti-Semitic then that is anti-Semitic. The whole point about anti-Semitism is
that it is not true and that it is a
false portrayal of Jews.
Zionism,
which argues that Jews form a separate nation to those among whom they live, is
based on the concept of dual loyalty. However it is unfair to accuse the JLM of
dual loyalty. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that they are loyal to anything
but Israel!
According
to the Report, Asa’s other crime was saying that Livingstone’s comments about
Hitler and Zionism were “stating a
historic fact”. So debating history is now anti-Semitic in the eyes of these
pathetic McCarthyists. This is political book burning.
Asa
is quite correct. Zionist collaboration with the Nazis is a historical fact. Whereas
most Jews were boycotting German goods the Zionists were negotiating a trade
pact with Hitler. The German Zionist Federation comprised only 2% of German Jews,
the most right-wing part.
What
this Report is saying is that free speech on Zionism is anti-Semitic and a
disciplinary offence. This is where the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign has led. What Lansman
and Momentum have done is to introduce Israeli notions of free speech and
censorship into the Labour Party. This is the democracy of Lansman’s and his cronies.
The Report defends the
denial of a press pass to Asa for the Labour Party conference which was taken
up by the NUJ. This factional Report ends up supporting a denial of basic press
freedoms.
Chris Williamson
In
the case of Chris Williamson the Report is even worse. It endorses Jennie
Formby’s comment that it was ‘“completely
inappropriate”: to show the film Witchhunt in the House of
Commons. Why? Jeremy Corbyn was Secretary of Labour Against the Witchhunt in
the 1990’s. His legacy is a witchhunt far worse than that of Neil Kinnock.
The
film isn’t anti-Semitic but it constructs an alternative narrative to that of
the Zionists. Formby’s actions and the approval of the authors demonstrates the
contempt their contempt for freedom of speech. Lansman and Momentum have become
miserable McCarthyists. They are no different from McNicol’s henchmen. (825)
The
Report resorts to lies about Chris
Williamson, saying that the reason for his suspension was that
‘Williamson
had told a Sheffield Momentum meeting that the Party had been “too apologetic”
about antisemitism.’
“I have got to say I think our
party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion…
we've backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we've been too
apologetic...
“We've done more to actually
address the scourge of anti-semitism than any other political party.... And yet
we are being traduced.”
“the way the
@peoplesmomentum twitter account has been pushing the “Labour antisemitism
crisis” smear campaign recently, it may as we’ll rename itself to “Momentum
Friends of Israel”.
The
question people should ask is why
the authors of this Report need to lie so brazenly?
This
Report is correct to highlight the laziness and incompetence of McNicol, Oldknow
and the other criminals. When faced with genuine anti-Semitism Sam Matthews was
not bothered. It was only when the accused persons were on the left that they were
suspended. In other words their targets
weren’t anti-Semites but anti-Zionists.
Deliberately Equating Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism
In
May and July 2017 complaints were submitted about Brian Lovett-White. He had
previously been suspended after suggesting that “Coke [was] clouding [Matthews’] thinking.” It is a reasonable
suggestion given Matthews’ record. It is difficult to understand why this was a
disciplinary offence.
On
19 July 2017 Withers-Green forwarded evidence
of ‘anti-Semitism’ to Matthews, which included Lovett-White saying “Zionism IS antisemitism” and alleging
Zionist-Nazi collaboration. (259, 273/274)
The allegation that Zionism is a form of Jewish anti-Semitism
was the position of most Jews pre-WWII. To brand it as ‘anti-Semitic’ is
indicative of the intellectual bankruptcy of Lansman’s cronies. Having nothing
substantive to say they simply label anything they disagree with as
‘anti-Semitic’.
Lucien
Wolfe, Secretary of the Conjoint Foreign Committee in 1917, effectively
British Jewry’s Foreign Secretary, wrote that the
Zionist suggestion that British Jews were part of a separate nation:
‘I have spent most of my life in combating
these very doctrines, when presented to me in the form of anti-Semitism, and I
can only regard them as the more dangerous when they come to me in the guise of
Zionism. They constitute a capitulation to our enemies.’
This was the main accusation of Zionism’s Jewish critics.
According to the intellectually bankrupt ciphers who wrote this Report, most of
the Jews who died in the Holocaust were anti-Semites!
The original shared post - Alan insists that he also included a comment making clear his own opposition to holocaust denial |
The Case of Alan Bull and ISIS
Alan Bull was a candidate in the local elections in
Peterborough. He was suspended in 2018 preventing him from standing. His case
is undoubtedly a difficult one as he is erratic and prone to conspiracy
theories. Unfortunately the Report is inaccurate.
On 24th March 2018 I wrote a blog ‘MORE FAKE ANTISEMITISM Alan Bull, Labour candidate in Peterborough suspended as a result of malicious allegations of anti-Semitism’.
Alan has vehemently denied that
he is anti-Semitic, i.e. he hates or dislikes Jews as Jews or that he is a
holocaust denier. I believe him but it is understandable why others have
reached opposite conclusions. He clearly has a very poor understanding of what
Zionism is. Unfortunately that is equally
true of the authors of the Report. The effect of the ‘anti-Semitism witchhunt
is to ensure that education about what Zionism is has been deflected into
tackling false allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’.
The leaked Report refers to
complaints about posts from Bull which ‘alleged
links between ISIS and included offensive comments about “Zionists” (461) What
is anti-Semitic alleging links between Israel and ISIS? True or untrue it’s not
anti-Semitic. Israel calls itself a Jewish state just as Apartheid South Africa
called itself Christian.
Israel
isn’t a Jew so why is criticising its founding ideology anti-Semitic? The
Report doesn’t explain. Zionism is a movement of racial supremacy and settler
colonialism.
Criticism
of Israel/Zionism can only be
anti-Semitic if it is seen as being synonymous with all Jews. If that is what the
authors of the Report believe then they are breaching the IHRA’s:
‘Holding Jews collectively responsible
for actions of the state of Israel’ If Israel represents all Jews then
clearly Jews are responsible for its actions just as British people are
responsible for the actions of the British state. In other words the authors of
the Report are anti-Semitic!
There
are strong reasons to believe that Israel did have links to ISIS and it’s also reasonable
to suppose that these links were both financial and material, including the
supply of arms and the purchase of oil.
An
article
in the Israeli financial journal Globes
is headed ‘Israel buys most oil smuggled
from ISIS territory’. An article How
ISIS Oil Reaches Israel in Oil
Price reported that ‘the
oil flows to Europe and Asia... implicates allies of the United States like
Turkey and Israel.’
‘It seems that
what the authors of the report don’t understand they bracket under the heading
‘anti-Semitism’
I
have concentrated on Bull’s allegation of ISIS-Israel links because the Report says
that this is anti-Semitic, true or not. What the authors of the report don’t
understand they bracket as ‘anti-Semitism’.
It
is no secret that the Israeli military opposed the West’s attack on ISIS which
it saw as part of the ‘Sunni axis’. Israel supported Saudi Arabia against the ‘Shi’ite
alliance’ of Syria and Iran. Saudi Arabia had both armed
and funded ISIS as US Intelligence acknowledged.
Those
who compiled this Report have no understanding of the intricacy of political
and strategic relationships in the Middle East. All these pathetic Zionist
apologists can only do is to cry ‘anti-Semitism’ as a cover for their own intellectual
inadequacy.
Ha’aretz’s
West
Making Big Mistake in Fighting ISIS, Says Senior Israeli Officer
explained how an ‘IDF Northern Command
officer’ i.e. the Head of Israel’s Northern Command, wanted to let it be
known that ‘the U.S.-led coalition
intervened too early against the Sunni militants, and 'not necessarily in the
right direction.'
There
is no disputing that Israel supported Al Qaeda against Hezbollah and the
Iranians. Israel’s Shin Bet (secret police) arrested a Golani Druze Sedki
al-Maket because he photographed the handover of weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra, Al
Qaeda’s franchise in Syria and then passed this information to UN observers.
See Israel
Secretly Arrests Golani Druze, Accusing Him of Exposing Rebel-IDF Collaboration
Israel
eventually admitted to having armed Jihadi Syrian rebels. Israel
Just Admitted Arming anti-Assad Syrian Rebels. Big Mistake
and UN
Reveals Israeli Links With Syrian Rebels
The
Report also says that ‘Holocaust denial
evidence was received’ concerning Bull
but provides no evidence. I have only seen one Facebook post to that
effect.(462) Alan’s behaviour was stupid but it wasn’t anti-Semitic.
He shared Holocaust denial posts in an internal Facebook discussion group although
making it clear that he wasn’t a holocaust denier. He wanted to promote
discussion.
Context
is everything. If Bull associated himself with what he distributed or if he failed
to make it clear that he disagreed with it, then clearly his motives are open
to question. However the proposition that no one should ever share Holocaust
denial material is absurd. How is one to counter Holocaust denial material if
you cannot read it?
The
greatest Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg, argued that we should read Holocaust
denial material because they force us to rethink and question aspects of the
Holocaust.
The
Report alleges that complaints were made that Bull had ‘allegedly’ made antisemitic
comments at a birthday party in April 2017 and a defence of Hitler’s actions at
a pub in June 2017. Not only are we not told what these anti-Semitic comments
or defence of Hitler consist of but they are flatly denied. (464)
The
Report alleges that
‘three
times Matthews had determined not to suspend him, ‘despite sharing Holocaust
denial, his alleged in-person antisemitic conduct’.
(465)
Alan Bull is not the man in the front row |
It
is also alleged that
‘other
Twitter users highlighted Facebook posts by Bull such as photos of him
protesting outside the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, in March
2017.’
The
problem is that Bull says he has never visited the United States! The photo
of the demonstration does not include Bull. In any case a picket of Washington’s
Holocaust Museum is not anti-Semitic.(465)
Matthew’s defence for not suspending Bull was that
‘The NEC last year agreed that suspensions should be used exceptionally
sparingly’. The authors of this Report are effectively
arguing that suspensions should have been more widespread! This is the logic of
the scabbing role that Momentum & Lansman played. They end up supporting a
campaign whose sole purpose was to destroy Corbyn.
‘this case proves that the claim LOTO
staff interfered to prevent action on antisemitism is entirely untrue. On the
contrary, when LOTO was involved swift suspensions were finally imposed.’ (467)
This
is not something to be proud of although it does, of course, contradict
Matthews lying testimony to the BBC’s pet racist, John Ware in last year’s Panorama.
Genuine Anti-Semitism as Opposed to anti-Zionism
4.4.3.vii.
Nasreen Khan
On
2 November 2017 a complaint was received about Nasreen Khan, reported to be a
council candidate in Bradford, for allegations including antisemitism. The
screenshots included her writing in 2012 that schools were
“brainwashing
us and our children into thinking the bad guy was Hitler. What have the Jews
done good in this world??”,
and
that “Jews have repeated the rewards of
playing victims, enough is enough!”. On 2 November 2017, Matthews advised
that
“I
think given the length of time that has passed since the evidence, it would not
be correct to administratively suspend at this moment.”(542)
The
obvious response is not expulsion but a history lesson in fascism. Clearly
Israel’s use of the Holocaust as a propaganda shield has played a part in her
abysmally ignorant comments.
4.4.3.ix. The Case of Christopher Crookes (277-281, 488, 546-547)
What
did the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign net in 4.5 years? One genuine holocaust
denier, Christopher Crookes, a member of Labour International. In August 2016
he was reported by a fellow member of LI and this was followed up in September.
The complaints were forwarded to Sam Matthews who did precisely nothing.
On
30 November 2016 Lorraine Hardy, Secretary of LI complained to Ann Black who
forwarded the complaint to McNicol and Julie Lawrence. Lawrence forwarded it to
Sam Matthews, who continued to do nothing. Hardy also complained that 15
members of LI were still suspended as part of the pro-Corbyn purge.
Stolliday,
UNISON’s new Gauleiter, queried whether this was the same person. Despite
further reminders Matthews still did nothing. On 11 October 2017,
Matthews promised that a Notice of Investigation (Note: not a suspension) would
be sent that day and a Report produced by the end of the month. Still he did nothing!
When Black
contacted Matthews on 29 October he told her that the investigation report had
not been completed as they were awaiting answers from Crookes. This was a lie.
Nothing had been sent.
In
February 2018 280 members of LI signed a petition demanding action and it was
not until 26 March that Matthews finally initiated a case. Between
August 2016 and February 2018 the case of Chris Crookes was raised directly
with Matthews 12 times, with Stolliday 4 times and with other GLU staff 4
times, as well as McNicol twice.
My letter of suspension - I was being suspended for 'comments you are alleged to have made' |
All this
was understandable. In February 2018 Matthews was busy attending the expulsion
hearing of Jewish anti-Zionist, Tony Greenstein. Clearly he was far too busy to
deal with a neo-Nazi. It was only on 26 March 2018 that
Matthews finally proposed a suspension “given
the nature of the [conduct]”. (547)
Fleur
Dunbar
In
April 2016 a CLP Secretary contacted Region regarding Fleur Dunbar, who the CLP
Executive believed should be expelled. Dunbar had recently been elected CLP
Political Education officer. Attached were screenshots of 40 Facebook posts displaying
a range of Islamophobic, antisemitic and far right content, including:
Ă˜ a “Britain
First” meme saying that Britain should “BAN
the burqa on security grounds”.
Ă˜ claims that
“Rothschilds” were behind the killing of Gaddafi.
Ă˜ a meme saying
ISIS was “created to protect the Zionist
entity”.
Regional
Director Fiona Stanton forwarded this to Creighton recommending suspension.
Creighton, however, advised that CLPs should deal with these issues themselves,
despite Stanton asking “Is it not a clear
cut suspension’? Oldknow’s response was:
It is a tricky one.... I think the
bigger issue is what she has said about Jewish people and pork but I am not
sure we can suspend over this (209)
On
3 May 2016 the CLP contacted Stanton again. Dunbar’s Facebook account now
carried two recent posts of overt Holocaust denial and rebuttal of “Lies about
Hitler”: which asserted that:
Ă˜ The Holocaust
did not happen and 6 million Jews were “all… well fed”.
Ă˜ Hitler put Jews
in camps “because they stabbed Germany in the back”.
Ă˜ It was Jews, not
Nazis, who believed they were a superior race.
Stolliday
responded:
This
is horrid. I don’t like acting on material that is just “shared” as it doesn’t
necessarily imply endorsement.
Stolliday
suggested she be asked to apologise. It was only when she refused to apologise
that Stolliday agreed to suspend her.
Merely holding an opinion hostile to the world's most racist state is enough to get you expelled under Corbyn |
However
if you mention the existence of the‘Israel
lobby’, as Anne Mitchell of Hove CLP did, then it is all but guaranteed
that you will be expelled without even a hearing. The fact that Israel finances
a range of lobby group from AIPAC to Labour Friends of Israel is
irrelevant. Telling the truth is now no
defence. [See A
Grave Miscarriage of Justice: the case of Anne Mitchell]
The
expulsion of socialists who have dedicated their life to the labour movement
and the Labour Party is having a serious detrimental effect on their health.
Pauline Hammerton died
of a brain haemorrhage a week after receiving her expulsion letter. Clearly the
Labour Party’s treatment of her contributed to her death. However such matters
are of no concern to the author(s) of this Report. Their only concern is
factional. They feel the need to rebut the suggestion that they were not equally as active in
expelling socialists and anti-racists as McNicol and Matthews. Not once do they consider that 'antisemitism' was carefully chosen as the weapon with which to decapitate Corbyn.
Tony
Greenstein
This second part of my Report on the Leaked Report can be downloaded here.