Please Support the Labour Left Alliance’s 6 Candidates for Labour’s National Executive Elections

Roger Silverman is the only Jewish Anti-Zionist Candidate Standing because Jewish Voice for Labour Cowardly Accepted Momentum’s Veto and Withdrew Jo Bird

The Left has its back to the wall in the Labour Party.  The worst thing it can do is engage in wishful thinking.

As I predicted before the leadership elections, Keir Starmer is the candidate that the Deep State & the British Establishment want you to vote for. Despite Sturmer’s claim that he was the ‘Unity candidate’ ‘he is Establishment down to his manicured fingers’ and notwithstanding his youthful days of radicalism ‘Today he is the darling of the Right.’

I quoted from two Jewish members of his Holborn & St. Pancras constituency, Ruth Appleton and Amanda Sebestyen, that

Time and time again, as left-leaning members we have been subjected to hostility and abuse... Those that are close to Keir Starmer, rather than welcome involvement from the left, have actively prevented it....

Their advice was that

‘any socialist thinking about supporting Keir Starmer should think again and instead support a candidate that welcomes and supports socialist policies and encourages the active involvement of socialist members!’

Momentum was split. Half of them, including Laura Parker Lansman's right hand woman, supported Sturmer. They also supported Angela Rayner, a right-wing nonentity against Richard Burgon and on the day Sturmer’s election was announced they issued a ludicrous statement that claimed victory!

We are proud too that, in four and a half years, Jeremy Corbyn and the movement that supported him has changed our party for the better and given voice to the hopes of millions who felt unrepresented in politics.... ... This is our victory. And we should be proud.

Coming from the organisation that did more to secure Corbyn’s defeat than anyone, it is no surprise that they claimed Sturmer’s election as a victory.

My own reaction was slightly different: Mogadon Man Assumes the Leadership of the Labour Party as Lansman’s candidate is crushed ‘Starmer represents a return of the Blairite Right’ was my comment.

The Centre Left Grassroots Alliance Should Be Put Out To Grass

The Centre Left Grassroots Alliance was reconvened in order to stitch up a slate for the NEC.  The LLA was not invited. Meanwhile Momentum had held its own internal elections and Lansman’s Renewal slate was comprehensively defeatrf by the Momentum Forward group. Unfortunately there was no change of political perspective.

What Jo doesn't say is that she's standing for the Councillors' 2 seats because Lansman's successors and CLPD vetoed her candidature

Both Momentum Forward and the CLPD put a veto on Jo Bird, a Jewish anti-Zionist and member of JVL from being a candidate. Lansman had previously attacked JVL for not representing the ‘Jewish community’ which should be considered a good thing since the Jewish community is a reactionary and racist one that has voted Tory for the past half a century. Unfortunately, rather than refusing to back down and insist that Jewish anti-Zionists cannot be vetoed, JVL hauled up the white flag of surrender, suitably kosherised!

Jo Bird is now one of 2 candidates standing in the Councillors section which means she has no chance of being elected.

By way of contrast the lead candidate on the LLA slate is Roger Silverman, a Jewish anti-Zionist.  I have known Roger for over 20 years and he is a sound Marxist. For those who are interested in these things, Roger is the son of Sydney Silverman MP whose parliamentary life was devoted to the abolition of the death penalty.

I can therefore recommend, without a moment’s hesitation, that members, whoever else they vote for, put Roger at No. 1.  I would also recommend that the rest of the LLA slate be supported before you vote for any other candidates. The full slate is:

1.     Roger Silverman

2.     Chaudhry Qamer Iqbal

3.     Carol Taylor Spedding

4.     Ekua Bayunu

5.     Alec Price

6.     Steve Maggs

Even if the JVL doesn’t understand what is at stake, the Jewish Chronicle certainly does. ‘Liar’ Lee Harpin, its Political Correspondent, who was arrested in the hacking scandal, wrote a witchhunting article targeting shadow cabinet member Lyn Brown, the MP for West Ham, for supporting Roger and thus hinting to Sturmer that he should sack her for dangerous lefty tendencies.

The LLA has launched a petition which is an Open Letter to JVL calling on them to support Roger.  In view of the fake ‘anti-Semitism witchhunt continuing and even increasing there is a burning need for an anti-racist, anti-Zionist, socialist Jew on Labour’s National Executive to call out the racist stiff that goes by the name of Sturmer (for those who think I am misspelling his name Der Sturmer was the anti-Semitic paper of Nazi Julius Streicher, Gauleiter of Franconia who was hanged after the war).  Sturmer’s racist support for Israel should result in his suspension.

If Roger Silverman is the ‘wrong sort of Jew’ that is only because today most British Jews are, consciously or otherwise racists.  Anti-racists are a distinct minority in what is a very conservative community.  Ironically it was the Ultra Orthodox Union of Hebrew Congregations that dissociated themselves from the Board of Deputies attacks on Corbyn.

I recommend supporting 4 of the CLGA 6, Mish Rahman (who is a signatory of the LLA), Ann Henderson, Yasmin Dar, Gemma Bolton. Ann and Yasmin are already on the NEC and they have been good on the witchhunt.  Nadia Jama from Sheffied is a supporter of Lansman’s Renewal Momentum.  In Sheffield she supported Lansman’s coup and constitution, aimed at removing expelled members from Momentum.  She deserves absolutely no support.  I would rather see Luke Akehurst on the NEC than this treacherous Lansmanite.. 

Exactly the same goes for Laura Pidcock.  She made a name for herself early on as an MP for a number of ‘left wing’ anti-Tory soundbites but when it came to it she was as insubstantial as the rest of the Campaign Group.  Pidcock not only refused to speak out against Corbyn and Formby’s witchhunt but she personally told Chris Williamson, as co-Chair of the Campaign Group, that he should no longer attend group meetings. Chris was the only Labour MP with any guts and Pidcock not only scabbed on him but on Corbyn too, because the anti-Semitism allegations weren’t about me or Chris or Jackie but designed to remove Corbyn.

I would also recommend a vote for Cameron Mitchell and Mark MacDonald QC who, very kindly, gave me invaluable support legally in 2017 when, against the advice of all the other lawyers I consulted, he encouraged me to bring an action for an injumction against the Labour Party. The injunction succeeded  in December 2017 in delaying proceedings but not preventing them.

It really is shameful and an act of political cowardice that JVL accepted a veto on Jo Bird's candidacy.

Re Nadia Jama

There must be no return to the CLGA of old which put right-wingers like Ann Black on the NEC.  Come 2016 it was Black, as Chair of the Disputes Committee, who signed off on the suspension of Brighton & Hove and Wallasey Labour Parties.  The Leaked Labour Party Report makes it clear that both parties were stitched up.  I have twice emailed Black to ask if she regrets the decision she took to act on the allegations of lying right-wingers like Brighton Council Leader Warren Morgan.  Black has not responded!

Nadia Jama was prominent in the attempt by the Lansmanites in Sheffield Momentum to impose Lansman’s undemocratic constitution after his coup in January 2018. The first few attempts were defeated. Then Jama and her clique brought everybody and their granny to a meeting where they then had a (small) majority in favour of the constitution. Nadia Jama was a very vocal supporter of the constitution and of imposing it (which meant that 3 members of the local Momentum Steering Committee, who had been expelled by Labour, were unable to be re-elected to the SC - which was the point of the whole exercise. Everybody knew it and members debated at length how this was a witch-hunting constitution, because it barred from Momentum membership all those who had been expelled by the Labour Party. Needless to say, Sheffield Momentum imploded after that and the anti-witchhunt left went on to form Sheffield Labour Left. Local Momentum is now well and truly dead.

Nadia was briefly one of the two candidates supported by Lansman for the NEC by-election in February 2020, but he dumped her for Lauren Townsend and Leigh Brennan. She continued to stand though, but only got 13 CLP nominations.

However, she clearly remained a supporter of his (and vice versa) and was a signatory of Lansman's 'Momentum Renewal': She then apparently joined the LRC between February 2020 and August 2020, because it was the LRC who proposed her to be on the CLGA slate for this election, despite being told of what had happened the LRC nominated her.

Tony Greenstein

Keir Starmer is the candidate that the Deep State & the British Establishment want you to vote for

Starmer Prosecuted Julian Assange,

Refused to prosecute the Police Killers of Ian Tomlinson & advocated 10 year prison sentences for Claimants – Anyone who thinks he is a socialist needs their head examining!

Above is the video of Ian Tomlinson, a man going about his job selling newspapers, who was viciously attacked by the Police riot squad. Starmer is personally responsible for the killers getting off scot free. He is a Red (or Pink) Tory.

Unity candidate?

Starmer has made great play in the election for Leader that he is the ‘unity candidate’ – only he can bridge the gap between left and right.

Starmer is the candidate of MI5 and the Political Police – he is Establishment down to his manicured fingers. ‘Sir’ Keir has pointed to his role in providing legal advice to striking miners and print workers.  This is true but it was a long time ago when he was a socialist. Today he is the darling of the Right.

As Director of Public Prosecutions he was, as the Canary states, ‘responsible for prosecuting all those lovely people he previously defended.’

Activists in his Holborn and St. Pancras constituency have spoken out in a letter  to the Camden New Journal. Over 30 Labour Party members, including Stephen Kapos, a child survivor of the Hungarian Holocaust and the Budapest Ghetto and anti-racist campaigners Amanda Sebestyen and Jewish Socialist Group member Ruth Appleton wrote that:

Time and time again, as left-leaning members we have been subjected to hostility and abuse... Those that are close to Keir Starmer, rather than welcome involvement from the left, have actively prevented it....

Keir Starmer presides over a constituency Labour Party which contains only officers with a history of outright opposition to Jeremy Corbyn. As left-leaning party members we have been completely marginalised by the right in the local party who support Keir Starmer.

Claiming to be the unity candidate should be more than a catchy campaign slogan. We are gravely concerned that under a Keir Starmer leadership all socialists in the party will be treated as we have been.

Therefore any socialist thinking about supporting Keir Starmer should think again and instead support a candidate that welcomes and supports socialist policies and encourages the active involvement of socialist members!

Attacking Benefit Claimants

One of the particularly ugly features of New Labour was the repeated attacks it made on benefit claimants. It began in 1997 with the removal of single parents allowance and they never looked back. New Labour ran ads on ‘benefit thieves’ but never about tax dodgers even though far more benefit is left unclaimed than lost through false claims.

 The scale of multi national and other tax dodging is huge yet ‘Sir’ Keir was unconcerned about prosecuting his establishment buddies. The Independent of 16^th September 2013 reported that ‘Benefit cheats face 10 years in prison as Keir Starmer sets out 'tough' new Crown Prosecution Service guidelines.’

People on benefit, by definition, live in poverty. The level of JSA, £75 per week, makes it impossible to live on it for any prolonged period of time.  It is probably what ‘Sir’ Keir pays for a good bottle of wine when he sits down to have a meal in a fancy restaurant.

At a time when New Labour gave out corporate tax breaks, handed lucrative contracts to PFI companies like Carillon to privatise the NHS and paid farmers 'set aside grants' not to grow food, the attack on benefit claimants was one of the most disgusting features Blair's period in office. Starmer was more than happy to contribute to New Labour's attack on civil liberties.

Someone trying to put clothes on their children and feed their empty stomachs by earning a few pounds a week over and above their poverty allowance from the state was branded a criminal whereas the real criminals who hid  billions away in offshore islands got off scot free. ‘Sir Keir’ said nothing about them and recommended no prison time for his rich friends. 

The Murder of Jean Charles de Menenzes

In the wake of 7/7 Jean Charles Menenzes was murdered by the Metropolitan Police. He was shot at point blank range. The Daily Record (14.2.09.) wrote about how the family of Jean Charles de Menezes dropped their legal battle for justice last night after prosecutors refused to bring charges over his death.

They said almost four years of relentless campaigning had brought them little closer to holding any individual to account for the innocent Brazilian's death.

Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, approved a decision not to prosecute any police over the shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVRfdySMEGo

Starmer Explains His Refusal to Prosecute a Police Killer

Police Murder of Ian Tomlinson

As George Monbiot wrote in Ian Tomlinson ruling: we must all fight this whitewash ‘First Blair Peach. Then Jean Charles de Menezes. Now Ian Tomlinson. It is our duty to raise Cain this time.’

Perhaps the most outrageous decision of all was Starmer’s decision not to prosecute the Police over the murder of Ian Tomlinson, who was viciously attacked by the Police in central London.

 ‘Hundreds of thousands of us have now seen the footage of the newspaper-seller shambling peacefully home from work. We've seen how, without warning or provocation, PC Simon Harwood attacked him from behind, hitting him with a baton then shoving him to the ground. We know that the officer had unlawfully removed his badge, and that his face was obscured by a balaclava. We know that, a few minutes afterwards, Ian Tomlinson collapsed and died. We also know that the Metropolitan police lied about his death to the media and to Tomlinson's family.

Fifteen months later the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, decides that "there is no realistic prospect of a conviction against [Harwood] for any offence arising from the matter investigated and that no charges should be brought against him". The evidence for his role in Tomlinson's death, Starmer says, is contradictory, and the time limit for pressing lesser charges has sadly expired. Starmer provides no convincing explanation of why it has taken him so long to make his decision, or of why a jury should not be allowed to make its own assessment of the evidence.

Now picture the opposite case: a civilian launching an unprovoked attack on a policeman, captured on film, which is immediately followed by the policeman's death. The Crown Prosecution Service ponders and dithers before deciding that the assailant should get away scot free. Implausible? You have just understood that in the United Kingdom equality before the law exists only in textbooks.

Looking Shifty - would you vote for this man?

Starmer Covered Up for the Metropolitan’s Spy Cops and their wrongful convictions

(see A message to anyone thinking of voting for Keir Starmer in the Labour leadership race)

Equally appalling was that Starmer was DPP when revelations were published about the first known ‘spycop’, Mark Kennedy. Kennedy infiltrated environmental and anticapitalist groups between 2003 and 2009. In 2011, a trial of environmental activists accused of plotting to break into Ratcliffe power station collapsed after it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had covered up vital evidence. This consisted of recordings Kennedy had made of planning meetings. Starmer was present in court the day the case was thrown out.

20 people already prosecuted from the same action had their convictions overturned. And a further 29 people convicted of blocking a train carrying coal to Drax power station also had convictions quashed due to Kennedy’s involvement.

The CPS ordered an investigation into what had happened. Interviewed about the ensuing report in 2011, Starmer said:

If Sir Christopher Rose had found systemic problems, then I would quite accept perhaps a retrospective look at all the cases. But he didn’t, he found individual failings.

But it was systemic. In 2015, the Guardian reported that 83 people could have been wrongfully convicted after evidence of spycop involvement was withheld. On 6 January, the Guardian published details of the case of an 81-year-old man trying to get a conviction overturned for an anti-apartheid protest in 1972. Following revelations from the Undercover Policing Inquiry, he discovered that the person he was convicted alongside was actually an undercover police officer.

The Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance claims:

If the other 150 or so officers have similar tallies [as Kennedy], it means about 7,000 wrongful convictions are being left to stand. It may well be that spycops are responsible for the biggest nobbling of the judicial system in English history. So Starmer’s suggestion that Kennedy’s actions were not systematic is bullshit.

Released papers showed the Crown Prosecution Service had been deeply involved – they knew about the plan before the arrests, they worked with the police to withhold evidence from the defence and the courts.

Starmer's one word endorsement of the expulsion of a Jewish anti-Zionist should make it clear where his sympathies lie on Israel and Palestine

Fake Anti-Semitism Campaign

I have a personal interest in this.  I was the first Jewish person to be expelled under the fake anti-Semitism campaign. After all if you want to fight ‘anti-Semitism’ it’s a good idea to expel a few Jews! But this was not about Jews or anti-Semitism but Israel. When I was expelled on February 18^th 2018 who was first out of the stalls to  support the expulsion?  Arise Sir Keir with this tweet from the 'unity' candidate.

As the Telegraph wrote in Keir Starmer: the high-flying law man desperate to stress his working class credentials

Sir Keir has spent his life “fighting for justice, standing up for the powerless”, but cringes if anyone brings up his knighthood, let alone his £1.8 million house.

And Politics Home, run by Kevin Schofield, an ex Sun ‘journalist’ reported that Keir Starmer – top prosecutor lurches left to cement favourite status.

Anyone who is fooled by this ‘lurch to the left’ is truly pathetic. Starmer is the candidate for the Police, MI5 and the British State that eviscerated Corbyn.  It was just one of Corbyn’s idiocies that when Starmer resigned in the chicken coup that he was let back in to wreak more havoc.

In his resignation letter Starmer wrote that

‘In the last few days I have maintained my support for you notwithstanding my reservations. However. the resignations across the Shadow Cabinet and the Shadow Frontbench … materially change this. It is simply untenable now to suggest that we can offer an effective opposition without a change of leader.’

Starmer was also criticised for the decision not to prosecute the black cab rapist John Warboys on further charges which allowed him to apply for parole and very nearly get it.

It is quite clear that ‘Sir’ Keir’s claims to left-wing credentials, based on his youth, are fake and phoney. He long ago abandoned all of that. His revolutionary days are behind him. 

Starmer demonstrated during his time as DPP that he was deeply hostile to civil liberties. The decision over Ian Tomlinson’s death was particularly shocking. A bent Home Office pathologist, who was contradicted by 2 other pathologists and who was the subject of disciplinary proceedings by his own professional association was used by Starmer as an excuse to allow a killer Policeman to go free.

This decision, on its own, makes Starmer unfit to be Labour leader. He is literally an accessory after the fact to Police murder.

And those 'feminists' supporting Starmer should be aware that Women Against Rape, based in Camden, pressed Starmer, as head of the CPS to end the policy of prosecuting rape survivors disbelieved by the police, similar to the recent case in Cyprus.

Starmer refused to change the policy, undermining women’s ability to report rape and landing some in prison for years.

See Oliver Eagleton's The case against Keir Starmer

Tony Greenstein

Jewish Voice for Labour & the Politics of Self-Indulgence - Nothing to say on Palestine or Zionism

Jews in the Labour Party should oppose Israeli Apartheid not obsess about identity politics

What is the point of Jewish politics today?  At the end of the 19^th and beginning of the 20^th century, when most British Jews arrived as refugees from the pogroms of Czarist Russia, Jewish politics had a very specific dynamic.  They were directed against the masters of the sweat shops as represented by the formation of some 30 plus Jewish trade unions. 

Jewish politics meant involvement in the politics of the day.  In 1902 the proto-fascist British Brothers League, headed by William Evans Gordon, MP for Stepney, was formed in the East End.  Its purpose?  To put a stop to Jewish immigration.  Alone among Jewish groups, it was the Zionists who sympathised with the BBL.  Chaim Weizmann wrote that 

‘‘‘our people were rather hard on him.... Sir William Evans-Gordon had no particular anti-Jewish prejudices... He acted as he thought, according to his best lights and in the most kindly way, in the interests of his country…. he was sincerely ready to encourage any settlement of Jews almost anywhere in the British Empire, but he failed to see why the ghettos of London or Leeds or Whitechapel should be made into a branch of the ghettos of Warsaw and Pinsk. [Trial and Error, pp. 90-91)

Another ‘friend’ of the Jews was Arthur James Balfour, the Tory Prime Minister who introduced the Aliens Act of 1905 which restricted Jewish immigration.  In 1917 he sent a letter, the Balfour Declaration to Lord Rothschild sealing the alliance between the fledgling Zionist movement and British imperialism. 

Jewish politics until the second world war were about the fight against poverty and anti-Semitism.  Only the middle and upper classes were concerned with Zionism.

Today that has changed.  Virtually no Jews live in London’s East End.  Their place has been taken by Bengali immigrants.  Jews are no longer the main victims of fascism or racism.  Jews do not experience Police violence, deaths in custody or state racism.  They do not experience economic discrimination.

Jewish politics have changed out of all recognition.  Pick up a copy of the Jewish Chronicle and the main topic of interest revolves around Israel.  Jews today serve the purpose of providing an alibi for Israel and its policies.  The standard response to campaigns against Israel or Zionism is the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’. 

Hence why, for two years, even before Jeremy Corbyn was elected as leader of the Labour Party, the Zionist movement has waged an anti-Semitism smear campaign.  In August 2015, Corbyn was accused of links with a holocaust denier Paul Eisen.

At the forthcoming Labour Party Conference the Jewish Labour Movement will seek to move a Rule Change which will mean that any supporter of Israel can claim to be a ‘victim’ of anti-Semitism if the issue of Palestine is raised.  

False accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ have been the principal weapon of the Right in the Labour Party.  Supporting Austerity or cutting benefits is unattractive politically.  Even supporting the bombing of Syrians and Yemenis isn’t as appealing as opposing ‘anti-Semitism’ and defending Israel’s ‘right to exist’. Cloaking yourself in the mantle of the Holocaust and ‘anti-Semitism’ even though you are supporting a 50 year old military occupation and the Apartheid State of Israel, is seen as offering better political dividends.  ‘Anti-Semitism’ is the go to weapon of choice for Labour’s Right.

Jeremy Newmark - Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement who was captured by Al Jazeera openly working with the Israeli Embassy in its infiltration of the Labour Party

Because the Jewish Labour Movement claims that they represent all Jews in the Labour Party no one doubts that an alternative Jewish organisation is necessary which stands for the principles of anti-racism and support for the Palestinians.  That is why any Jewish group worth its salt must be primarily concerned with rebutting the allegation that to support the Palestinians and to oppose Zionism makes one anti-Semitic.  Jewish socialists task is to sever the connection between being Jewish and supporting Israel.

Unfortunately Jewish Voices for Labour which has just been set up doesn’t want to so much challenge the politics of the JLM as avoid them.  Its founding statement of principles completely avoids saying anything about the Right’s ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign which has led to the suspension of Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, myself and others.  Indeed it wants to say as little as possible about Palestine and Zionism.  This is not accidental.

Jewish Voices for Labour Statement of Principles

Founding member Rachel Lever of Jews 4 Justice 4 Palestinians explained in an email to others her role in drafting the JVL’s founding statement.  She wanted a Jewish group that would explore its own ‘heritage’ and engage in navel gazing.  A Jewish consciousness raising group for which the whole Palestine/Israel/Zionist thing was an unnecessary encumbrance.  The purpose of the new group was:

To discard the shackles and gather with other Jews to explore, celebrate, critique etc our heritage at this juncture without the Israel thing, and in the context of the resurgence and ascendancy in the Labour Party of values that we share in some part because of our Jewishness.

Having a Jewish statement that omits Israel and Zionism (in either a positive or a negative formulation) is implicitly part of the argument that antisemitism and antizionism needs to be uncoupled from each other....

If anyone can’t live without the words Israel, Zionism, Palestine, Gaza, BDS (and why not add Occupation, the Wall, administrative detention, land theft, child prisoners, war crimes, apartheid, racism, settlements etc etc) then this is not the organisation for them.

So there we have it.  What Lever calls ‘the Israel thing’ is part of the ‘shackles’ of being Jewish.  Whilst many Jews are active in rejecting a Zionist movement that has linked up with Trump, Orban, Bannon and the alt-Right, Lever and co. prefer to sit around ‘exploring, celebrating, critiquing etc. their heritage’.  Quite what they think they will discover is mind boggling because, as Sivanandan explained, identity is what you do and who we are not what you think. 

Ian Saville, the Jewish Socialist Group enforcer (& socialist magician!) speaking a year ago at a meeting against the witch hunt with Jackie Walker - today the JSG had to be dragged into issuing any statement regarding Jackie

But to Lever, Amanda Sebastyen and others, Israel and Zionism is an optional extra. It is a lifestyle choice not a permanent political commitment. Going on a demonstration is a recreational activity.

The purpose of a Jewish group in the Labour Party is political or it is nothing.  Zionism deliberately conflates being Jewish and being Zionist.  Any Jewish group that claims to be socialist has no choice but to challenge the JLM and Labour Friends of Israel. It has a political and moral duty to oppose the actions of those who claim Israel’s war crimes in the name of all Jews. 

It is interesting that Rachel Lever explicitly rejects the second of her four choices that she articulates in her email viz. 'To spend our lives and energies exposing it [Israel] and campaigning for justice for Palestinians, thus making its negation also an intrinsic part of our identity.'  Most of the 'non-Zionist' peace wing of JfJP aren't so explicit in saying what they really believe so we should be grateful to Rachel.

When asked about Israel's 'right to exist' the response was that JVL was a British group and therefore has no position on any state!

It has been suggested that we should judge JVL more by what it does than by what its founding principles say.  I disagree. What confidence can one have in an organisation that dares not speak its mind, that doesn't openly state what it believes in and which hides its principles behind a bushel?  Who does it think it is deceiving?  Surely not the JLM.  That is dishonest politics.

 

I fully understand why Asa Winstanley of Electronic Intifada, should welcome the formation of JVL, as an alternative non-Zionist Jewish group in the Labour Party. Asa is not alone in wanting to see an alternative to the execrable JLM, the British wing of the racist Israeli Labour Party, and LFI, which is an extension of the Israeli Embassy inside the Labour Party.

It is therefore regrettable that JVL has not only been set up undemocratically but a Founding Statement of Principles has been issued which is politically disingenuous.

Despite being asked to sign a statement of support for JVL, I was not invited to its inaugural meeting when a founding statement was agreed.  Nor were other Jewish anti-Zionists including the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.

It is clear that those who were instrumental in the formation of this group, in particular Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Jewish Socialists Group, were determined that JVL would neither be a democratic nor a campaigning group inside the Labour Party on the issue of Palestine and Zionism.  In particular they they did not want it to be seen to oppose the JLM’s Zionist agenda.  Instead of debating out differences openly, its founders have used administrative methods to exclude potential critics.

I issued a statement a week ago Some Comments on the Formation of Jewish Voices for Labour. which I sent to members of JVL's Facebook group. I then applied to join the FB group and was accepted.  However that didn’t last very long.  Almost immediately Ian Saville, warned me not to ‘attack’ members of the Steering Committee and in particular not to ‘disparage the process of its formation’.  Clearly democracy isn’t one of JVL’s strong points.  When I responded to this warning with JVL – What are they scared of? I was removed from the group.

What are the problems with Jewish Voices for Labour

1.      JVL’s formation was undemocratic, effectively a stitch-up between leading members of JfJP and JSG.

2.      Given that the JLM have been waging a false-anti-Semitism campaign for nearly two years it is unbelievable that JVL have nothing to say about this campaign.  On the JVL FB group, some members of the group were openly calling for support for the expulsion of Livingstone.

3.      JVL takes no position on giving concrete support for the Palestinians.  It isn’t necessary to take an explicitly anti-Zionist position but when the JLM is saying that even to use the word ‘Zionist’ is abusive it is political cowardice to avoid the word.  Zionism is the racist ideology and movement that led to Israel, a Jewish supremacist state.  A state which has reduced Gaza to a human rights disaster yet Gaza too is not mentioned.

4.      Perhaps the single most important issue in terms of solidarity is the question of BDS.  JVL supports the right of others to support BDS however it abstains from supporting BDS itself.  Nor does it make any mention of the Palestinian Right of Return. 

5.      JVL is Jewish only.  There is often a good reason for having specific Jewish solidarity groups (e.g. Jews for boycotting Israeli Goods, JfJP etc.) but in terms of the Labour Party it is important to have a common front against Zionist reaction and that must include non-Jews.  Ironically even the JLM accept non-Jews.  It is a concession to chauvinism to exclude non-Jews from the organisation.

6.      The statement makes no mention of the Zionist campaign to redefine anti-Semitism, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. When the Zionists are waging campaigns against our very right to campaign on Palestine and smear Palestinian supporters as ‘anti-Semitic’, to pretend this is not happening is unreal.

When the Zionists and the Right explicitly link being Jewish and supporting Israel, to refuse to mention Israel or Zionism is not some brilliant political manoeuvre but an act of political cowardice.  The Labour Party is not a knitting circle.  The idea that the JLM is going to be defeated by this political sleight of hand is wishful thinking.  The way to ‘decouple’ anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is not by pretending the debate doesn’t exist but by engaging in it and politically challenging the supporters of Zionism. 

Email of Rachel Lever and Amanda Sebestyen

Below is some of the correspondence preceding the setting up of Jewish Voices for Labour 

Email from Rachel Lever re founding of JVLOn 8 Jul 2017, at 20:26, Rachel Lever wrote:One of Zionism’s greatest triumphs has been to shackle Jews the world over to Israel, defined by it either positively or negatively. IHRA is the latest in a long line of such shackles. Jews have four choices  1. To “Love Israel” and make it part of our identity 2. To spend our lives and energies exposing it and campaigning for justice for Palestinians, thus making its negation also an intrinsic part of our identity  3. To abstain or compromise or have “doubts” which still leaves us marked by Israel 4. To discard the shackles and gather with other Jews to explore, celebrate, critique etc our heritage at this juncture without the Israel thing, and in the context of the resurgence and ascendancy in the Labour Party of values that we share in some part because of our Jewishness. There is in any case no need for yet another Jewish Anti-Z organisation, in or out of the Labour Party.  There is however an absolute imperative to deny to the JLM the status of “Labour’s Jewish voice” and the harm they can do using that monopoly. In practical terms, omitting Israel may make this alternative Jewish voice more effective and authentic and deny the JLM their franchise, than if we simply invert their pro-Israel identity and become anti-Z “usual suspects”..... I freely confess to having drafted some of the wording of the statement. It is intended both to help to create something slightly different for which I believe there is a genuine gap in the market (and which might yield some new faces and insights), and to stake a claim against the heinous new “definitions” of antisemitism that explicitly connect Jews to Israel.  Having a Jewish statement that omits Israel and Zionism (in either a positive or a negative formulation) is implicitly part of the argument that antisemitism and antizionism needs to be uncoupled from each other. Needless to say, membership is entirely voluntary. If anyone can’t live without the words Israel, Zionism, Palestine, Gaza, BDS (and why not add Occupation, the Wall, administrative detention, land theft, child prisoners, war crimes, apartheid, racism, settlements etc etc) then this is not the organisation for them. Rachel From: Haim Bresheeth Sent: 09 July 2017 09:27To: Rachel LeverCc: Michael Kalmanovitz; mailings@jfjfp.com; Jonathan Rosenhead; Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi; Mike Cushman; richard kuper; Amanda Sebestyen
Subject: Re: FREE SPEECH AND ISRAEL: A CALL TO LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS Interesting, Rachel. Than the new organisation is devoted to silencing the debate on Palestine? To keeping mum on the anti-Semitism lies and slurs? To avoid speaking on the long list of topic you number? Well, my my, I thought that was the role of JLM, and it was already doing that rather well… So JVL will try to replace JLM in making Palestine and the occupation invisible? Now it is all clear, at last.
Yes, maybe that is not an organisation I need not consider joining. I am very impressed by the pride you voice inhaling been at the cradle of its auspicious birth… HaimProf. Haim Bresheeth Professorial Research AssociateFaculty of Arts and Humanities School of Oriental and African Studies And Director of Camera Obscura Films

---

On 8 Jul 2017, at 23:09, Amanda Sebestyen wrote:I think this sums up the role and importance of JVL beautifully, Rachel.

---

From: Michael Kalmanovitz Sent: 08 July 2017 11:05To: 'Haim Bresheeth'; mailings@jfjfp.comCc: 'Jonathan Rosenhead'; 'Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi'; 'Rachel Lever'; 'Mike Cushman'; 'richard kuper'; 'Amanda Sebestyen'Subject: RE: FREE SPEECH AND ISRAEL: A CALL TO LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS Haim Bresheeth said “three important words have not made their way to this text: Israel, Palestine and Zionism”.  May we add two more to his: “Gaza” – which is the best known example of Israel’s slaughter of the innocents; and “BDS” – the massive & growing international non-violent antiracist boycott movement.
Are we to assume therefore that these will not be central issues of the group that this letter is proposing to form? 
The Jewish Labour Movement, Labour Friends of Israel, Progress, & the Israeli embassy have constantly sought to undermine the most radical & massive movement we have seen in the Labour Party for many years (as seen on Aljazeera!). This movement, called forth by the election of Jeremy Corbyn, is the greatest protection for every sector that is discriminated against. In your text there is no mention of or commitment to it. The Zionist/right-wing’s weapon of choice against this movement are manufactured allegations of antisemitism to manipulate themselves into power in the Labour Party, and undermine Corbyn & McDonnell. (They were able to deprive us of Ken 

"what is your proposed organisation for?"                       Michael Kalmanovitz

Livingstone’s considerable electioneering skills during the campaign.)  The election result has slowed down the Zionists/right-wing. 
Bearing all this in mind, what is your proposed organisation for? 
If JVL isn’t opposing what the Israeli occupation is doing to Palestinian people, promoting BDS, opposing the Zionist/right-wing’s undermining of the new movement, what else should people organised as Jews within the Labour Party who are not Zionists be forming an organisation to accomplish?
Surely JVL will not want to resurrect the antisemitism “discussion”, which is what the Zionist/right-wing wants, taking the focus off defeating the red Tories & the blue.

---

From: Haim Bresheeth
Sent: 29 June 2017 17:20To: mailings@jfjfp.comCc: Michael Kalmanovitz; Jonathan Rosenhead; Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi; Rachel Lever; Mike Cushman; richard kuper; Amanda Sebestyen
Subject: Re: FREE SPEECH AND ISRAEL: A CALL TO LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS Dear Jenny Manson, Thank you for sending me the proposed text for JVL attached below. I have read this carefully, only to discover that three important words have not made their way to this text: Israel, Palestine and Zionism… If we are to have an Jewish progressive alternative to JLM, which I, as ~ member of the party would love, why can it not outline some differences, and open some distance between us and them?  Otherwise, what is the point? From the wording below, most people would not work out why there needs to be another Jewish grouping in the Labour Party… I hope a group can be set up of which I would like to be a member! HaimProf. Haim Bresheeth

Proposal to set up a new Jewish Organisation within the Labour Party - Who We Are

Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is a network for all Jews in the Labour party.

Our political priorities are universal human rights and dignity; justice for all; freedom of speech and free-thinking; and democracy in the Labour Party. 

Our mission is to contribute to making the Labour Party an open, democratic and tolerant party, encouraging all ethnic groups and cultures to join and participate freely. As such we aim to strengthen the party in its opposition to all forms of racism including antisemitism, broadening the party’s appeal to all sections of British society.

We take our inspiration from the long history of Jewish involvement in the socialist and trade-union movement and in antiracist and antifascist struggles including the civil-rights movement. We stand for rights and justice for Jews everywhere without wrongs and injustice to other people anywhere.

At a time of profound divisions in Jewish communities, JVL offers a space to explore and debate the many questions (personal, social, cultural, political) that are important to us as progressive Labour Jews. We aim to create an alternative voice on the left for the Jewish values and heritage we can all be proud of.  

We will work where appropriate with existing groups concerned with Jewish issues from an internationalist and anti-racist perspective.

We will try to arrange a meeting in a couple of weeks time to agree a minimal set of rules, membership fees and to elect such officers as decided then. We will aim to launch publicly at the Labour Party conference in September.

Please add your voice to ours by replying to jewishvoiceforlabour@gmail.com

Signed:

Jenny Manson, co-convenor
Ian Saville, co-convenor

Julia Bard
Graham Bash
Pam Blakelock
Mike Cushman
Richard Kuper
Pam Laurance
Rachel Lever
David Rosenberg
Jonathan Rosenhead
Amanda Sebestyen
Glyn Secker
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi

Of the 8 people who 'liked' the decision, at least 3 are Jewish Socialists Group and one, Miriam Yagud is a Green Party member who has called for Livingstone's expulsion

How my exclusion was announced to the JVL list - no mention of who is excluded still less the reason why.  But as Leah Levane explained there are more important things than democracy.  

A Warning Message from Ian Saville – Please Desist from Criticism

Hello Tony, I am writing to you as one of the administrators of the JVL Facebook Group. Whatever your intention, the effect of your interventions in the group in the short time in which you have belonged to it are likely to have a negative effect on the functioning and perception of the group. The group should be a place where people with a diverse range of opinions can engage in comradely discussion without being attacked or denigrated. Your posts attacking the steering group (of which I am not a member) and other people posting on the page seem provocative and divisive, and have caused concern to other members. If you persist with such posts you will be removed from the group. It seems also that even before joining the group you circulated some of its members with unsolicited material attacking the JVL and disparaging the process of its formation. This has also been a matter of concern to some who received your message. Please take this as a warning and desist from this sort of behaviour, as any further instances will result in you being immediately excluded from the group. 

Yours, Ian Saville