Abram Leon, 26, leader of Hashomer Hatzair and then the Fourth International in Belgium, was Murdered in Auschwitz

Leon Explained in The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation Why Anti-Semitism Arose and Where it Came From

As readers of my book will know, during the Second World War the Zionist movement was a Quisling movement that collaborated with the Nazis and went out of its way to obstruct rescue of Jewish refugees whose destination wasn’t Palestine.

By way of contrast Abram Leon, leader of the Fourth International in Belgium, died resisting the Nazis. Where, as in the Warsaw Ghetto, Zionists fought alongside Jewish anti-Zionists against the Nazis they did so not because they were Zionists but despite their Zionism.

Jewish Partisans Captured in Warsaw Ghetto

After the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising there was panic in Palestine. Dina Porat, Chief Historian at Israel’s Yad Vashem Propaganda Museum wrote that Melech Neustadt of the Jewish Agency Executive:

repeatedly implored the youth movement leaders in Palestine to save those still alive – even against their will – by issuing a directive that they were to leave immediately by whatever ways possible... The issue was whether or not the Yishuv was morally justified in instructing these comrades to abandon their communities, save themselves, and thereby stop the armed uprisings.... the numerous revolts in the summer of 1943 would ultimately deprive the Yishuv of the cream of Europe’s potential pioneering force... among the major youth movements in Palestine. Neustadt’s views prevailed and attempts to extricate the activists failed. They refused to leave. [Porat, The Blue and the Yellow Stars of David, p. 241]

A Zionist emissary arrived in Bedzin, a Nazi ghetto in Poland, in July 1943 after the Warsaw Uprising to persuade Frumka Plotnicka to leave. She replied that ‘I have a responsibility for my brethren... I have lived with them and I will die with them.’ The Zionist fighters, such as Antek Zuckerman and Zivia Lubetkin, refused on principle to leave. One can only admire the bravery and commitment of these young fighters who, given the choice between the fight against the Nazis in the Diaspora and the Arabs in Palestine, committed what in Zionist eyes, was a mortal sin. They chose the Diaspora.

One of the Palestinian emissaries, Yudke Hellman, described how in October and December 1939 he witnessed the return of Plotnicka and Lubetkin to German-occupied Poland and how he had tried and failed to persuade them to leave for Palestine. Frumka stood up and announced that her decision to return to Warsaw was final. [Yechiam Weitz, The Yishuv’s Response to the Holocaust, pp. 218-19].

Hayka Klinger, another fighter in Warsaw, who arrived in Palestine in March 1944, told the Histadrut Executive that ‘we received an order not to organize any more defence.’ [Porat p. 242] Klinger observed that

‘Without a people, a people’s avant-garde is of no value. If rescue it is, then the entire people must be rescued. If it is to be annihilation, then the avante-garde too shall be annihilated.’ [Edith Zertal, Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, p. 33]

Never was the ethical and moral distinction between the Jewish diaspora and Palestine’s Zionist leaders clearer.

The Zionist leaders saw the risings in the ghettos as ‘a kind of betrayal of the overriding principle of the homeland.’ [Zertal p.34] Yet despite opposing the uprisings at the time, the ghetto fighters were ‘retrospectively conscripted’ into the Zionist terror groups. ‘We fought here and they fought there’ according to Palmach commander Yitzhak Sadeh. [Zertal p.26] Except that the Jewish partisans fought against the fascists whereas the Zionist militias fought with fascists.

This is why John Rose of the SWP was wrong when he argued that Zionism was not an obstacle to fighting against fascism. Rose wrote:

It’s true that when Hitler came to power some Zionist leaders stupidly thought that they could do a deal with him that would enable some German Jews to go to Palestine.

The Zionist attitude to the Nazis had nothing to do with ‘stupidity’ nor was Ha'avara, their trade deal with the Nazis, about enabling some Jews to go to Palestine. However I digress.

Abram Leon was born in Warsaw in 1918 and died in Auschwitz in 1944. Leon had been the leader of Hashomer Hatzair (Young Guard), a left-wing Zionist youth group, from 1936 till 1940 when he and 20 comrades broke from Zionism and joined the underground Trotskyist  organisation. He was arrested by the Nazis in June 1944 and tortured before being sent to Auschwitz where he died in September 1944.

Leon died at the age of 26 but not before he had written The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation, which was written whilst leading the resistance to the Nazis. It is a remarkable work, not least because of the conditions under which it was produced.

Leon’s thesis in a nutshell was that unlike the myths spread by the Zionists and Orthodox Jewry, that the Jews survived because of their religion, the exact opposite was the case. He reversed the relationship. The religion survived because of the Jews. It was the specific social and economic role that Jews played in society, reflected as it was in their religion, which kept the religion going.

It was Karl Marx who had written in On the Jewish Question that:

Judaism has survived, not in spite of  history but because of it. (p.92)

Captured Jewish Partisans in Warsaw

Indeed where Jews did not have a specific socio-economic role as with the Jewish farmers in Sicily, they assimilated to the surrounding population.

Zionism has rewritten the history of the Jews and hence the history of anti-Semitism. Zionism, with its claim to Palestine, consists of a series of myths designed to appeal to the simplest of minds.

How many times did we hear during the attacks on Corbyn that anti-Semitism was a ‘virus’, a pathological and incurable condition. As one of the first Zionists, Leon Pinsker wrote in Autoemancipation:

‘Judeophobia is then a mental disease, and as a mental disease it is hereditary, and having been inherited for 2,000 years, it is incurable.

Pinsker was a doctor so he used the term ‘Judeophobia’ rather than anti-Semitism. But if a disease is incurable then there is no point in fighting it.  At best one seeks pain relief or palliatives.

Theodor Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, was of the belief that the cause of anti-Semitism was the Jews themselves. Their fault was living in other peoples’ countries. The solution was therefore colonisation. In the Jewish State he wrote:

“The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.”

Leon demolishes this and other Zionist myths and shows how, as Jews fulfilled certain roles in  society – money lenders, tax stewards, usurers, traders, skilled craftsmen –anti-Semitism itself changed. Religious anti-Semitism expressed  class antagonism to the role Jews played in feudal society and was expressed as religious antagonism.

Leon’s great achievement was to situate the Jews in history. Instead of the Zionist myth of the expulsion of the Jews from Palestine in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, for which there is zero evidence, he showed how it was the Jews themselves who emigrated because Palestine was incapable of feeding its inhabitants.

In this the Palestinian Jews were not unique. Many people such as the Phoenicians and Armenians had followed similar paths.

Some 4 million Jews left Palestine in the first two centuries AD. Some 1 million of them were to be found in Alexandria alone, one of the great Hellenized cities in the Mediterranean. Like many people before them, the Jews became great traders and it was through trade and commerce that Jews survived.

Leon’s explanation of the Jews as a ‘people-class’ explained their survival. In the feudal era, a society based on production for use not exchange, groups who carried out particular socio-economic roles were seen as being different ethnically from the native population.

The Zionist idea of ‘eternal anti-Semitism’ is a way of avoiding difficult questions such as why the Jews survived and why there was persecution. It is really a reflection of the anti-Semitic stereotype of the ‘eternal wandering Jew’ which became a film under the Nazis.

Anti-Semitism constituted the class antagonism of different layers of feudal society towards the economic role that Jews played.

Thousands of Jews died in peasant revolts, be it at York, Norwich or at the hands of Chmielniki and the Cossacks in Poland from 1648 to 1657. However this was a peasants revolt against the role of Jews as Arendators, officials who leased land from the nobles and whose demands on the peasants were extremely exacting. 

Many of those who died were Jews but contrary to popular history it wasn’t just Jews who suffered. As Anna Reid wrote in Borderland: A Journey Through the History of Ukraine:

Wherever they found the szlachta, royal officials or Jews, they [Cossacks] killed them all, sparing neither women nor children. They pillaged the estates of the Jews and nobles, burned churches and killed their priests, leaving nothing whole....

But whereas anti-Semitism in feudal times came from the peasants and mendicant religious orders, with the Jews as in Poland, protected by the nobility and King, under capitalism anti-Semitism came from the State and the ruling classes. The best example until the Nazis was under the Czar whose Ministers deliberately instigated pogroms, creating the Black Hundreds for this purpose.

To the Zionists anti-Semitism was the property of all non-Jews regardless of class. Anti-Semitism existed because the Jews existed. As A B Yehoshua explained, the Jews were guests who used other peoples’ countries like hotels. [Jewish Chronicle, 22.12.89. ‘Diaspora a cancer’]

As Hannah Arendt observed

If it is true that mankind has insisted on murdering Jews for more than two thousand years, then Jew-killing is a normal, and even human, occupation and Jew-hatred is justified beyond the need of argument. [The Origins of Totalitarianism, p. 7] The Origins of Totalitarianism, p. 7,

Leon’s book went almost unnoticed until it was resurrected by French Marxist Maxime Rodinson in 1968 at the height of the Paris riots.

Leon’s main argument was that the Jews formed a ‘People Class’ – that they performed specific tasks in pre-capitalist society that bound them together as both a people and a class. Under feudalism this was very common. Not just the Jews but the Gypsies, Scots, Armenians and Chinese of South Asia, who were even called the Jews of Asia, also formed castes that attracted popular ire.

Where the Jews lost a distinctive socio-economic role they assimilated to the majority. To the Zionists anti-Semitism was common to all non-Jews. As Leon wrote (p.247)

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.[1]

In what is a short book, Leon gave a panoramic overview of the Jews historically. The book explains that the ‘Jewish Question’ was dying out in Western Europe with the advent of capitalism. The Jews no longer had any specific socio-economic role. They were assimilating to the majority population with the advent of Emancipation. It was only anti-Semitism in Russia and Eastern Europe, resulting in waves of migration by Jews westwards, that kept the Jewish Question alive.

Zionism was implacably opposed to Jewish Emancipation because they saw, correctly, that granting equal rights to Jews meant that they were no longer forced by the state to maintain a separate existence. In Israel today the fascist Lehava calls miscegenation , inter-racial sex, a holocaust. Israeli minister Rafi Peretz labeled intermarriage between American Jews and non-Jews as being “like a second Holocaust.”

Leon had but a very short life but in that very short time-span he produced  one of the Marxist classics which cuts through the mystification of Zionism in its treatment of both Jewish history and anti-Semitism .

I began by saying that Leon had started out as a Zionist in Hashomer Hatzair. In Palestine this was a political party which later became Mapam. Their strand of ‘Marxist’ Zionism had been founded by Ber Borochov, who was expelled from the Russian Social Democratic Party in 1901 for Zionism.

Borochov held that Jews could not take part in the class struggle in the diaspora because they had no relationship to the means of production. Their conditions of production meant that they were outside the class struggle. According to Borochov social structure of the Jews resembled an ‘inverted pyramid’ – too many rich Jews and not enough poor or working class  Jews.

It was only in Palestine where Jews could form their own society that it was possible for class struggle to break out. Borochov, who ended up supporting WW1 was wrong. It was precisely at this time, the end of the 19^th and beginning of the 20^th centuries that Jews were becoming part of the proletariat.

Marxist Zionism was always a cult that used sophistry to explain away colonialism. If Borochov is to be taken at his word then Socialist Zionists having allied with the bourgeois Zionists in order to create a Jewish State would then wage class war against them! The problem with this was that it was more likely to become part of the bourgeoisie in such a state.

We can see where this bankrupt theory has ended up. In the last Knesset Meretz, which was the descendant of Mapam, found itself in alliance with the far-Right Yisrael Beteinu and Yamina. In the 2020 elections Meretz, has been eliminated from the Knesset altogether. In 1949 in Israel’s first elections it obtained 19 seats.

The beauty of Leon’s book is that it at once provides an overview of Jewish history since ancient times and explains how and why anti-Semitism has persisted, albeit in different forms.  It demystifies anti-Semitism.

As Leon remarked in the section on Zionism and the belief in  2,000 years of exile:

In reality just so long as Judaism was incorporated in the feudal system, the “dream of Zion” was nothing but a dream and did not correspond to any real interest of Judaism. The Jewish tavern owner or “farmer” of sixteenth-century Poland thought as little of “returning” to Palestine as does the Jewish millionaire in America today. Jewish religious Messianism was no whit different from the Messianism belonging to other religions. Jewish pilgrims who went to Palestine met Catholic, Orthodox, and Moslem pilgrims. Besides it was not so much the “return to Palestine” which constituted the foundation of this Messianism as the belief in the rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem.

We should not forget that Leon was writing at the height of the Nazi persecution, a persecution which claimed him in that death factory, Auschwitz. He wrote that one of the “ironies of history” was that

when the Jew was unassimilable, at a time when he really represented “capital,” he was indispensable to society. There could be no question of destroying him. At the present time, capitalist society, on the edge of the abyss, tries to save itself by resurrecting the Jew and the hatred of the Jews. But it is precisely because the Jews do not play the role which is attributed to them that anti-Semitic persecution can take on such an amplitude. Jewish capitalism is a myth; that is why it is so easily vanquished. But in vanquishing its “negative,” racism at the same time destroys the foundations for its own existence....

The irony of history wills that the most radical anti-Semitic ideology in all history should triumph precisely in the period when Judaism is on the road of economic and social assimilation. But like all “ironies of history” this seeming paradox is very understandable. At the time

Tony Greenstein

---

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

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 17^th 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 4^th 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