26 September 2021

Book Review – Labour, The Anti-Semitism Crisis and the Destroying of an MP

 It was the Betrayal of Chris Williamson by Corbyn, Formby and Lansman That Paved the Way to Starmer's Stasi

Lee Garratt, Thinkwell Books, 2021

The suspension and forcing out of Chris Williamson from the Labour Party was a watershed moment in the death of the Corbyn Project. Alone amongst Labour MPs, Chris understood that the Zionist 'anti-Semitism' campaign was not about anti-Semitism but the removal of Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership of the Labour Party. For anyone interested in how a popular Labour leader went from near victory in 2017 to humiliating defeat in 2019 this book is essential reading.

The book opens with a quote from Nietzsche, that ‘there are no facts, only interpretations.’ Why Lee Garratt opened with this post-modernist nonsense is unclear but the Nakba of 1948 when ¾ million Palestinians were expelled is a fact, regardless of the Zionist interpretation that they ran away. Likewise the holocaust is a fact. I can only assume that it was included as a reference to the fake evidence that was used to 'prove' that the Labour Party was overrun by anti-Semitism.

Tommy Sheridan, the former Scottish Socialist Party MSP, provides a foreword and makes the point that the ‘creation of a narrative during the last decade that casts (Corbyn, Livingstone and Williamson) as anti-Semites underlines the preposterous and perverse power of the billionaire-owned mainstream media.’ This is the basic political lesson that Formby, Corbyn and McDonnell forgot.

There is a preface on the origins of the word ‘anti-Semitism’ and the question of whether to hyphenate it. Garratt argues, in my view correctly, that to hyphenate ‘anti-Semitism’ is to forget the hidden intersections between Jews and Moslems and the history of the term ‘semite’. It also reminds us of how anti-Jewish racism became racialised in the latter part of the 19th Century.

There follows an interesting discourse on the definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ and the Zionists’ IHRA definition. Lee points to one of the illustrations of ‘anti-Semitism’

accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than the country they live in’.

arguing it is a fact that many Jews proudly declare that their first loyalty is to Israel. Indeed fundamental to Zionism is the belief that Israel is the nation state of the Jews which therefore demands their allegiance. This is a good example of how the Zionism and anti-Semitism coincide.

Unfortunately the book has a potted history of anti-Semitism that accepts the Zionist myth of an eternal 2,000 years of Jewish suffering. In fact Jews were both oppressors and the oppressed. As Abram Leon wrote in The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation:

 ‘Zionism transposes modern anti-Semitism to all of history and saves itself the trouble of studying the various forms of anti-Semitism and their evolution.[i]

Lee Garratt also argues that the Israeli state itself has changed since 1948 when it was ‘leavened with left, egalitarian views e.g. the kibbutz movement.’ In fact the Kibbutzim were the pioneers of Zionist apartheid. Arabs could not be members of a kibbutz. They were Jewish only stockade and watchtower settlements.

When Chris Williamson was suspended, after his speech to Sheffield Momentum had been twisted and distorted to mean its exact opposite, I wrote that ‘The Suspension of Chris Williamson MP is Shameful – This May Be the End of the Corbyn Project.’

The suspension of Williamson and the refusal to support him when under attack by Tom Watson and the Right was perhaps the most shameful aspect of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. More shameful even than the suspension and expulsion of Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth, Ken Livingstone and myself.

It is to the discredit of John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Laura Pidcock, Dianne Abbot and the other members of the Socialist Campaign Group that not only did they fail to offer any solidarity with Chris but Pidcock told him not to come to SCG meetings anymore. Richard Burgon’s excuse was ‘What can 10 MPs do against 100?’ It was an attitude of utter defeatism.

Ian Lavery as a former President of the NUM knew better than anyone what the meaning of solidarity is yet he too failed to utter a single word of support to Chris Williamson. The sole exception to this scabbing by the SCG being Laura Smith, the MP for Crewe and Nantwich, who unfortunately lost her seat at the last election.  And ironically Fabian Hamilton, the Leeds NE MP who is also a Zionist! (p. 67)

When Corbyn was suspended the SCG ‘released a few ambiguous, wishy-washy faux solidarity statements to the media.’ They expressed regret at Corbyn’s suspension whilst at the same time wanting him to issue another apology. Garratt is right when he says that:

‘it has been these erstwhile supporters that have done the most damage to the left. It is much easier to deal with one’s enemy when he or she is out in the open. Right-wing bully boys such as Ian Austen can easily be seen for who they are and their comments are taken as such. But when people like John McDonnell express support, yet saddle it with further conditions, one would be better off without that support in the first place; their crocodile tears and misplaced concern serving only to give further credence to the lies and calumnies.’

Garratt gives as an example of the complicity of the SCG in the witch-hunt, the attack by Alliance for Workers’ Liberty supporter Nadia Whittome MP on Nottingham East CLP for having the temerity to discuss the EHRC report. One Jewish Zionist left the meeting after having made false allegations against another member. Other Jewish members supported the motion. The Chair, Louise Regan, quite rightly refused to rule the motion on the EHRC out of order. Instead of supporting the democratic rights of CLPs, Whittome condemned them for not obeying David Evan’s dictat. Ms Regan was suspended almost immediately. Unfortunately the SCG has no procedure for suspending or expelling scab members.

In the Kafkaesque atmosphere of the Labour Party, merely challenging accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ ‘denialism’ is deemed proof of anti-Semitism. Just as in 17th century Salem, denying that you were a witch was proof of being one.

What were the ‘crimes’ that Williamson was suspended for? There were two major offences:

1.           Chris’s speech to Sheffield Momentum of 23 February 2019.

2.           Booking a House of Commons committee room for a showing of Jackie Walker’s film ‘The Witchhunt’.

The first offence was a classic example of how the words of people were twisted and mangled to serve the Zionist agenda. It is proof of the poisonous nature of the British press and British politics. It was an example of Orwellian Doublethink. War is Peace or in this case Anti-racism = Racism and opposition to anti-Semitism = anti-Semitism.

After being suspended Chris was asked by Labour’s Thought Police about what he had said in Sheffield:

During this meeting did you say “The Party... is being demonised as a racist, bigoted party... I think the Party’s response has been partly responsible... we’ve backed off on too much, we’ve given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic?” (p.149)

If so please explain what you meant when you said this.

Chris’s response was that this 

‘selective and highly misleading quote above is without context and appears to have been provided maliciously and vexatiously... with the deliberate intention of my words being misconstrued.’

What then were the actual words which Chris had said?

We are not a racist party, are we? We’re not an anti-Semitic party. We are the party that stood up to racism throughout our entire history... It was Labour that was the backbone of the Anti-Nazi League in the 1970s when we confronted the anti-Semites, the racists, the Islamaphobes on the streets and we defeated those fascists, didn’t we? And now we – Jeremy, me and others – are being accused of being bigots, of being anti-Semites. And it’s almost as we’re living within the pages of Orwell’s 1984. You know the Party that’s done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party.

And I’ve 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’ve given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic. What have we got to apologise for?  For being an anti-racist party? And we’ve done more to actually address the scourge of anti-Semitism than any other political party. And yet we are being traduced. And grassroots members are being traduced.

Chris can certainly be criticised for giving too rosy a picture of Labour’s record when it came to fighting racism and fascism. It’s not true that the Labour Party mobilised for the Battle of Cable Street. On the contrary members were dissuaded from going just as Jews were urged by the Board of Deputies not to confront the fascists. It was the Communist Party and the Independent Labour Party and Jewish workers themselves who took the lead.

The record of the Labour Party from the Kenya Asians Act in 1968 to the Blair government’s hostile environment policy (Home Secretary Alan Johnson coined the phrase) was anything but anti-racist. Labour’s record on support for imperialism, from India to Africa to Palestine, is a shocking one.

There is nothing in what Chris Williamson said in his speech that was remotely racist or anti-Semitic nor did it criticise the Labour Party for fighting racism and anti-Semitism. What he was saying was that the Labour Party should have been done more to reject and rebut the false allegations of anti-Semitism. 

Yet what was the reaction to Chris’s speech? The Independent led the mob: ‘Chris Williamson: Labour MP filmed telling activists party is too 'apologetic' about antisemitism’. Matt Greene, also of the Independent chimed in with a particularly disgusting opinion piece: ‘Chris Williamson has given Labour the perfect opportunity to show it is serious about tackling antisemitism’ which compared Chris’s failure to apologise for Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ to the failure of the US Congress to apologise for its ‘maltreatment’, in fact extermination  of the native Indians or the failure of David Cameron to apologise for the Amritsar massacre when he visited India in 2013.

There were no depths to which the press wouldn’t sink in order to demonise Williamson. Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ was a contested allegation. 70% of Labour members believed it had been weaponised by the Zionists.[ii] A belief that has been thoroughly vindicated by Keir Starmer who in his mission to ‘root out the poison’ of anti-Semitism has expelled and suspended 5 times as many Jews as non-Jews.

Greene’s comparison of Williamson’s speech to the massacre of thousands of native Indians or the machine gunning of a peaceful crowd, of whom at least 400 died, to  Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ where not one single ‘victim’ was identified, was obscene. But it was no more obscene than Nazia Parveen’s article in the Guardian: ‘Chris Williamson: 'no place' in Labour for MP embroiled in antisemitism row’.

Lapsley, a member of the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement, was quoted as saying that 'There is no place for Chris Williamson in my Labour party’ despite the article pointing out that while he was leader of Derby Council ‘Williamson was instrumental in setting up Holocaust Memorial Day events in the city, and he also rescinded the medieval proscription of Jews living in Derby.

MI5’s asset at the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland, joined in: ‘Labour doesn’t have zero tolerance of antisemitism if Chris Williamson is an MP.’ In one continuous litany of lies Freedland, knowing that his assertions on Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ lacked merit, began his contribution with a sarcastic

‘Credit to Chris Williamson for originality. Not many have suggested that Labour’s chief problem with antisemitism within its ranks is that it has been too apologetic to the Jewish community, that it has shown an excess of concern and contrition.’

Freedland quoted that well-known anti-racist Tom Watson ‘who wasted no time in branding Williamson’s apology “long-winded” and “not good enough”, adding that if it were up to him, he’d have removed the whip from Williamson already.

This is the same Tom Watson whose reaction to the decision of the High Court to remove racist MP Phil Woolas from the House of Commons, after having fought an election designed to ‘make the white folks angry’ was that ‘I’ve lost sleep thinking about poor old Phil Woolas and his leaflets.’ And if anyone is under any doubt that this was a one-off, Watson was the campaign manager in the by election in 2004 in Birmingham Hodshrove when Labour issued a leaflet with the slogan ‘Labour is on your side, the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers.'

Garratt documents the onslaught of the media, especially the Guardian. On 9 July 2019 a letter from over 100 Jewish people to the Guardian protesting Williamson’s suspension was published. Immediately the Board of Deputies and Hope not Hate protested because two of the signatories, although individual members of the Jewish Labour Movement and HnH were not writing on their behalf. The letter was ‘disappeared’ by the Guardian from the Internet. But even in the age of the Internet you can’t ‘disappear’ the printed word!

Owen Jones played a particularly disgusting role in the attack on Williamson. He was the Guardian’s faux left columnist who, lacking all arguments, resorted to insults describing Chris as ‘king of the cranks’ for having something Jones lacks – principles. Jones joined the clamour against Corbyn writing that Jeremy Corbyn says he’s staying. That’s not good enough a month before the 2017 General Election.

Garratt says that Jones had a ‘blind spot’ on the question of Labour anti-Semitism. I disagree. It is part and parcel of his noxious identity politics which promotes the most powerful and reactionary identities, Zionist Jews against their victims, Palestinians. (p. 114)

Every racist and reactionary, inside and outside the Labour Party, was clamouring for the expulsion of Chris Williamson.

Chris’s second offence was to book the House of Commons to show Jackie Walker’s film Witchhunt which is a sustained polemic against the anti-Semitism narrative.

The Witchhunt was due to be shown by Jewish Voices for Labour at the 2018 Labour Party conference. However this was prevented because of a bomb threat. Instead of calling out this political terrorism by the Zionists Jennie Formby did their work for them.

Instead of defending the democratic right of an MP to organise the showing of a film that offended the Zionists or simply defending the right of free speech, Formby sent an email to Williamson demanding that he cancel the showing of the film ‘with a heavy hint that if he didn’t, she would suspended him’

The Witchhunt was a film produced by Jon Pullman, himself Jewish. It offered a different perspective to that of the Board of Deputies, the Daily Mail, Jonathan Freedland and John Mann. It would have been easy for Formby to defend the right to show the film as a basic democratic right. Instead Formby, acting on behalf of Corbyn and the Leader of Opposition Office, became the emissary of Apartheid Israel and its apologists.  In Israel they administratively detain dissidents. In Britain they rely on ‘socialists’ to do their dirty work. (pp. 61-62)

In this one incident we see exactly where the Corbyn Project went wrong. Instead of defending their supporters against the attacks of Zionists and Israel apologists, Formby went out of her way to appease them.  And a fat lot of good it did because when the 2019 General Election came they wheeled out the Chief Rabbi, the Board of Deputies and all the rest of the Zionist cabal to damn Corbyn as the worst thing since Adolf Hitler.

It is regrettable that Chris initially apologised and even more regrettable that once he was suspended he didn’t rebook the film, however he was under immense pressure.

In Appendix 5 there is reprinted a copy of the questions sent by the witchhunters to Chris. There were 4 questions about the film:

i.                   Did you book a room in Parliament for 4th March 2019 to screen a film entitled ‘Witch Hunt’?

ii.                Please explain your understanding of the film

iii.             Please explain why you booked a room in Parliament to screen this film.

iv.             Do you have anything else you think the Party should know about this screening.

If I had been sent these questions my answers would have been short and to the point. I would have asked Formby and the witchhunters why they had a problem with the screening of a film? What did they fear? Do they not believe any longer in democratic debate? Is the Labour Party a replica of the Israeli state? Did they never consider that the Zionists had something to hide?

The shrill and raucous Ruth Smeeth MP, who lost Stoke on Trent North at the 2019 General Election, whined that ‘Giving these people and Jackie Walker a platform at the home of British democracy is a complete and utter disgrace.’ (p.62)

Smeeth, who was previously Director of Public Affairs and Campaigns at the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) in November 2005 became CEO of Index on Censorship in June 2020 after having lost her seat at the General Election. IoC should be called Index for Censorship. The fact that Formby and Corbyn backed up Smeeth, an utterly reactionary MP, who was an informer for the US Embassy demonstrates the cowardice and lack of any political perspective of these spineless reformists.

Smeeth was defending an Israeli state that has ruled over 5 million Palestinians for over half a century. There are two systems of law in the Occupied Territories – one for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers. That is the definition of apartheid and that is what Corbyn and Formby were defending. We should bear this in mind next time Corbyn speaks at a Palestine solidarity event or pushes his Peace and Justice campaign.

There follows an amusing chapter on the main Zionist ‘victim’ of anti-Semitism, Luciana Berger, the Blairite parachuted into Liverpool Wavertree constituency in 2010 who didn’t even know the name of the famous Liverpool football manager, Bill Shankly. Despite the false allegations by Tom Watson et al that Berger was driven by anti-Semitism out of the Labour Party, Garratt is right that

‘to this day, there remains no evidence of any anti-Semitism directed at Berger from within the Liverpool Wavertree constituency or from anyone with any serious connections to the party.’ (p.37)

In a trenchant defence of Williamson Garratt points to the stench of hypocrisy emanating from Margaret Hodge, who knowingly presided over the child abuse scandal at Islington Council. Hodge, a tax-dodging millionairess who broke the Boycott of Apartheid South Africa, compared herself to a victim of the Nazis declaring that she knew ‘what it felt like to be a Jew in Germany in the 30s.’

If anyone else had compared themselves to the Jewish victims of the Nazis they would have been labelled as anti-Semitic.

The section on Gilad Atzmon, the anti-Semitic jazz player, is badly researched. Despite quoting Atzmon as saying that ‘(We) must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously’ Garratt says that he merely ‘overreached’ himself and that this was ‘merely clumsy writing’ ,arguing that his subsequent substitution of ‘Zionists’ for ‘Jews’ worked in his favour (in fact Atzmon was covering his tracks). Garratt argues that ‘whether this makes him an ‘anti-Semite’ is another matter. Well it does matter and Atzmon is an anti-Semite.

The use of scare quotes suggests that Garratt disagrees. He is simply wrong and if anyone is in any doubt then I refer them to my blog A Guide to the Sayings of Gilad Atzmon, the anti-Semitic jazzman where we learn that Jewish anti-Zionists are a fifth column

‘who will convert (to Zionism) in the next anti-Semitic wave… who makes Zionism into an eternal struggle for ‘Jewish salvation’.’[iii]

Atzmon has an interesting backstory, having become alienated by what Israel was doing when he fought in the 1982 Lebanon war. However Atzmon didn’t reject Zionism, rather he internalised Zionism’s Jewish self-hatred and turned it into anti-Semitism.

This arose because Islington Council had rejected a booking by Atzmon and the Blockheads on the grounds of his anti-Semitism. Chris Williamson not knowing who Atzmon was tweeted in support of a petition against the ban before deleting his tweet minutes later. The Zionists made hay out of the affair.

The Zionists harassed 3 venues into cancelling a meeting with Chris Williamson in Brighton - however People Power defied the attempts of the racists to close down free speech and we held the meeting, with 200 people in Regency Square

However Chris could have taken my position. I led the campaign against Atzmon with articles in Weekly Worker such as Anti-Semitism in anti-Zionist garb [iv] and for the Guardian’s Comment is Free, The Seamy Side of Solidarity [v] At all times we stressed that we were opposed to Atzmon’s anti-Semitism not his jazz playing. He is a world renowned jazz player. I therefore took the decision to sign the petition and I personally attended one of Atzmon’s gigs in Brighton!

Chris’s one regret was being pressurised into apologising for his speech at the Sheffield meeting. It is understandable that he did so in order to avoid disciplinary action but he made the situation worse:

‘Typically, later that evening, despite the assurances he felt he had received regarding his apology and despite the agreement he had regarding cancelling the film, Williamson was suspended anyway.’

When Len McLuskey and Corbyn claim that Starmer ratted out on promises he made, that if Corbyn retracted his initial statement responding to the EHRC report, he would be reinstated we should remember that Corbyn showed the way.

The reaction to Chris Williamson’s suspension from the grassroots of the Labour Party was overwhelmingly supportive. What was Formby’s reaction? To declare that motions supporting Williamson were ‘not competent’. When it came to Corbyn’s suspension the same device was used by David Evans but who paved the way if not Jennie Formby? Even worse, when Chris was reinstated Formby bowed to a petition from Tom Watson and 100 MPs to resuspend him. The cowardice of Formby and LOTO knew no bounds.

When Chris went to the High Court to obtain an injunction against the Labour Party he was successful. Anticipating the High Court decision the party issued another suspension a few days before the hearing and it was this which the judge refused to overturn.

Garratt shows how the press and the BBC unanimously declared that ‘MP Chris Williamson loses anti-Semitism appeal.’ The judge had ruled that the Labour Party’s excuse for resuspending Chris was unlawful. This was confirmed this when he awarded Chris 100% of his costs despite the Labour Party arguing that it should recover 60%.

When Chris ran into Corbyn in parliament he promised him that he would remain the Derby North MP. However this was a lie. There was no such agreement.

It is no surprise, given Chris’s prominence in the Labour anti-Semitism campaign that the EHRC was preparing to name him as one of 6 individuals guilty of harassing Jewish members of the Labour Party.[vi] In fact a ‘swift and comprehensive legal challenge’ ensured that Chris’s name was entirely expunged from the report. In the end they scapegoated just 2 people – Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley.

Garratt concludes his book  by quoting from Norman Finkelstein:

‘Corbyn, he did not only present a threat to Israel and Israel’s supporters, he posed a threat to the whole British elite. Across the board, from The Guardian to the Daily Mail they all joined in the new anti-Semitism campaign. Now that’s unprecedented – the entire British elite, during this whole completely contrived, fabricated, absurd and obscene assault on this alleged Labour anti-Semitism, of which there is exactly zero evidence, zero.’ (p. 117)

This was, as Garratt says, a fabricated smear campaign comparable to the McCarthyite witch-hunts in 1950s America. Chris’s real ‘crime’ was in his own words being Corbyn’s

most outspoken supporter in the House of Commons, which made me a target for disgruntled Labour MPs, mischief-making bureaucrats and Zionists. Consequently, I expected trouble, but I never anticipated how serious that trouble would turn out to be. I certainly did not expect to be forced out of the party to which I had devoted my entire adult life.’ (p. 126)

Chris is clearly right that

‘there was never any recognition that the capitulation strategy was making matters worse. Jeremy’s advisers seemed to have the collective memory of a goldfish rather than drawing a line in the sand.’ (129)

The conclusion that Chris has drawn from this is the ‘impossibility of turning the Labour Party into a vehicle for socialism and anti-imperialism’ is one that is currently being fiercely argued over.

This book, despite its flaws, is a welcome and long overdue exercise in setting the record straight. Chris Williamson was not a Jew baiter or an anti-Semite as the Zionists alleged. Jon Lansman and Owen Jones, who propagated the ‘anti-Semitism’ slurs were in fact the grave diggers of the Corbyn Project.

Chris Williamson will long be remembered as a brave and principled Labour MP who was let down and betrayed by those who are only in politics for what they can personally get out of it. All those SCG MPs, such as Russell Lloyd-Moyle who lied to me about Chris Williamson, aren’t fit to walk in his shadow.

Tony Greenstein

[1]               Abram Leon, The Jewish Question - A Marxist Interpretation, p. 245 . Pathfinder, NY,.p. 247.

[2]               Jewish Chronicle 30.3.21. https://tinyurl.com/4ncmkk9u

[3]               https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/03/guide-to-sayings-of-gilad-atzmon-anti.html

[4]               https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/894/anti-semitism-in-anti-zionist-garb/

[5]               https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/feb/19/greenstein

[6]              https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/29/key-findings-of-the-ehrc-inquiry-into-labour-antisemitism


  1. The problem with your approach and fixed position as I see it Tony is that you ALSO are using the ‘ad hominem’ logical fallacy to make your point.
    You rightly talk about the principle of ‘free speech’ being eroded with the accusation of ‘anti-semitism’ becoming a weaponised smear to discredit perceived opponents, but then YOU use it yourself.
    Obviously Gilad Atzmon can NOT fairly and meaningfully be regarded as an ‘anti-semite’ in any open and reasonable society! His whole family are Jewish! He himself was raised as a Jew in Israel. Do you seriously believe that he has a prejudice against all his close family and friends who are Jewish? Can you not see how it is a ridiculous accusation to make against him?
    Yes, he expresses views that are currently taboo and classified as ‘anti-semitic’. But I suggest that merely shows how society has become out of touch with reality and demonises dissent. A viewpoint and an understanding can be critical of a group, of a nation, of a race, of a historical narrative and not be motivated by racial prejudice. If you really are a champion of free-speech I hope you will acknowledge this truth and consider desisting from yourself indulging in the easy and lazy way of debating sensitive and controversial issues by attacking the person rather than the message. If its not OK against you, against Chris Williamson, against Jackie Walker, against Ken Loach, against, Ken Livingstone, against Marc Wadsworth, against Jeremy Corbyn, etc., etc., then it surely must not be OK against Gilad Atzmon, against Paul Eisner, etc.

    I suggest, and would like readers of this to consider, that WE as a society have to stop permitting the use of this politicised, weaponised slur that increasingly has nothing to do with combatting genuine racism, but has more to do with discrediting perceived opponents.

    1. In his book "The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics" Gilad Atzmon makes many statements that can be legitimately considered antisemitic. In fact you don't even need to go much further than the contents page as one of the chapters is entitled "Credit Crunch or Zio Punch".

      Basically Atzmon appears to be using "Zionist" as a euphemism for Jewish and equating Zionism, corruption within the financial sector and Jewishness in a manner that is indistinguishable from antisemitism.

      In short, regardless of his personal history or intentions Atzmon has said many things that can be legitimately considered antisemitic, which is not case for any of the people that Tony defends, so Tony is not being inconsistent in the way you suggest.

    2. Well, I have not read his book. So unless I see a comment in its context I don’t see how you have refuted my position.
      I have read many of his blog articles. I have even debated with him on his Facebook page.
      I have never seen anything from him that shows a prejudice against ALL Jews because they are Jewish by him. On the contrary. So I think my point remains unanswered by you. You have just repeated the accusation against him without providing ANY specific supporting evidence for it.
      In other words, you have just done EXACTLY what I suggest we as a society desist from doing: viz. attacking the messenger instead of logically and reasonably refuting their message.

    3. You are illogical MBW on many levels.
      i. Criticising Atzmon as antisemitic says nothing about the principle of free speech. I am merely exercising my right of free speech!
      ii. Otto Weininger's family was also Jewish but it is acknowledged that the man Hitler described as the only good Jew was an antisemite. Clearly you can hold anti-Semitic views regardless of one's family.
      iii. I more than anyone have opposed the weaponising of antisemitism. However that doesn't mean that antisemitism doesn't exist merely that Zionists and imperialists use it to demonise their opponents.
      iv. YOu engage is a reductio ad absurdum. Since when have I ever said that to be an antisemite you have to hate all Jews? That is a cretinous argument. It's like saying that you can't be a Black anti-racist unless you hate all Black people. As Himmler said, all Germans have their favourite Jew even if the others are swine.
      To be anti-Semitic you have only to display hostility to or prejudice against Jews as Jews. The fact that you except some Jews from your antagonism is irrelevant. Your definition would exonerate most racists.

      You say you have never seen anything antisemitic from Atzmon. Well given your definition of antisemitism that's not surprising. Let us take his article 'Credit Crunch or rather Zio Punch

      Atzmon cited John Reynolds, Chair of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group as saying that:

      "Above all we need more individuals to make a stand. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York should go further and call for more Christians to work in the city." The Observer 28.9.08.

      This was in the middle of the financial crash of 2008/9 which Atzmon blamed on Jewish 'swindlers'. How did Atzmon interpret the above remarks?

      'One may wonder what Reynolds refers to when calling for more ‘Christians to work in the City’... By pleading the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to send more Christians to the City he may try to suggest to us that our financial world must be spiritually de-Judified. I must admit that it took me by complete surprise to read such a suggestion in the politically correct Guardian.’

      It also came as a complete surprise to John Reynolds who, once he’d recovered, threatened to sue for libel. Atzmon therefore issued a ‘Clarification’ and fulsome apology.

      ‘Clarification: In the course of an article entitled "Credit Crunch or rather Zio Punch?" I recently made a comment about Mr John Reynolds, the Chief Executive of Reynolds Partners and chairman of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group. I suggested that some people may think that his call in The Observer to send more Christians to the City was a plea for the financial world to be "spiritually de-Judified". I want to make it clear that I did not intend to suggest that Mr Reynolds was anti-Semitic or in any way hostile to Jewish people or those of the Jewish faith and I am sorry if my comment was understood by anybody in that way. Mr Reynolds has asked me to clarify the position and I am happy to do so. I would like to apologise for any distress caused.’

      If you can't see why only an antisemite could have interpreted Reynold's remarks as being a call for 'de-Judaification' then you are politically blind

  2. Thanks for your reply. But I think you also are not really responding to what I wrote but to your own interpretation of what I wrote. One that I ask you to consider whether it is a misinterpretation.

    E.g. I totally agree with you when you wrote: “clearly you can hold anti-Semitic views regardless of one's family”. So you appear to be arguing against your own misunderstanding.

    E.g. You wrote: “Criticising Atzmon as antisemitic says nothing about the principle of free speech”. This is to avoid my point and argue against your own ‘strawman’ misrepresentation of it. I gave Atzmon as just one example of something that you appear to not understand. I also gave the example of Ken Loach, Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, you yourself and even Paul Eisen. OF COURSE it is acceptable to “criticise” someone’s statements and/or attitudes as antisemitic. I am arguing it is neither intellectually acceptable — nor good for society — to allow the demonisation of someone with a very damaging and almost irreversible slur for those statements. Especially when those statement can be open to misinterpretation and even deliberate distortion.

    E.g. your castigation of what you called my “definition” of anti-semitism, in response to my explaination of why I think you attacking Gilad Atzmon as an ‘anti-semite’ is a rather ridiculous, ad hominem logical fallacy.
    I conceded that he wrote things that are classified as anti-semitic. So to reply with one rather convoluted example of that and then expect people to conclude he does hate Jews BECAUSE they are Jewish, is in my opinion repeating exactly the behaviour I suggested we all desist from.

    So I again ask you to consider that you have misunderstood what I wrote.
    Atzmon is just one example.
    I wrote about discrediting people as ‘anti-semites’ in order to discredit their statements. I am suggesting we as a society stop allowing and indulging in that and instead just refute specific arguments or statements, rather than ignoring them and lazily attacking the person.

    Because if we don’t, we get the situation we have now, where anyone can be demonised and discredited using this accusation, even Jewish people who have fought racism all their adult lives.

    I am arguing that a person can have opinions that are considered by some to be anti-semitic without having a prejudice against all Jews because they are Jewish. Can we agree on that much?

    And then I suggested that a viewpoint and an understanding can be critical of a group, of a nation, of a race, of a historical narrative and not be motivated by racial prejudice.
    Do you disagree with that?

    Then, your example of one statement by Atzmon that you believe shows an anti-semitic prejudice. Well, yes. Either I must be politically blind, as I couldn’t see in it any entrenched anti-Jewish prejudice.
    Or, perhaps it is you that has a blind-spot here, which would explain you are refusing to accept his clarification because of your own subliminal prejudices. 🤔😉

    Finally, can we agree that we can ONLY fairly and accurately call someone an ‘anti-semite’ if they discriminates against, or are hostile towards, or are prejudiced against Jews BECAUSE they are Jewish.

  3. Take for example this report in main-stream media.

    Notice how the pro-Israel and Jewish affiliations of the saboteurs is not — and dare not — be mentioned.

    I am suggesting that this is also an outcome of this tactic of destroying the reputation and career of anyone by labelling them an ‘anti-semite’.

    And I am suggesting it has to stop. We as a society shouldn’t allow it. And we definitely shouldn't do it ourselves.

    We can criticise and discuss behaviour and attitudes as anti-semitic, sure. That is OK.

    But we need to stop destroying the lives of people by FALSELY and unfairly summing them up with this extremely devastating, destructive ad hominem attack.

    1. You are not listening Sameer Antisemitism does not have to mean someone hates Jews. It could mean that someone thinks them inferior to non Jews or doesn't like to mix with them.

      The fact that Zionists misuse the definition is no reason to therefore abandon it.

      Atzmon is an anti-Semite because he essentialises Jews, he holds that all Jews are Zionists other than a couple of esoteric categories and he believes that since Zionism is the genuine national representative of all jews being an anti-Zionist Jew is impossible.

      In essence he holds to an inverse Zionist position which is not surprising since he came from a Zionist background. His voluminous essays have no impact and he has no effect and I am not surprise that he opposes BDS because he is mainly concerned with his ego.

      I am not into demonising someone but explaining them and their characteristics. Why do you find that so difficlt.

      I am aware of how Zionists brand any critics of Zionism as anti-Semitic. I prefer a simple definition: 'Hostility to or prejudice against Jews'. You can find it in the Oxford English dictionary.

      I know you like the sound of your own voice but I suggest you listen to someone who is wiser than you viz. Ali Abunima, Professor Joseph Massad and other Palestinians who disavowed Atzmon because of the damage he is doing to the Palestinian cause or was doing.

      Atzmon bases everything on a fixed idea 'Jewishness' and ascribes everything Israel does to that phenomenon. This isn't terribly different from Nazi racial characteristics, which of course Zionism reflected.

      If you can't see it fine. But don't spend a thousand words as a substitute

      Granting No Quarter - A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon



Please submit your comments below