Why We Should Critically Welcome The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism [JDA]

 Unlike the IHRA Misdefinition of Anti-Semitism the JDA Makes a Clear Distinction Between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism

The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism, although flawed in parts and open to criticism, not least because of its unfortunate title, should be welcomed by all those concerned about seeing the fight against anti-Semitism being part of the fight against racism rather than being counterposed to it. 

The JDA should also be welcomed by those who are sick and tired of seeing ‘anti-Semitism’ weaponised on behalf of a ‘Jewish’ state that has just seen 2 Jewish Nazis elected to the Knesset, one of whom is likely to be made a government minister.

Unlike the IHRA which labelled opposition to Zionism and Israeli racism as anti-Semitism, the JDA makes a clear distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. The JDA states that the following are not anti-Semitic:

Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, uni-tary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.13.Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state.

The difference between the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism and the JDA is the difference between night and day.

Of course the JDA should have been unnecessary. The idea that it is necessary to define anti-Semitism in order to oppose it would have been ludicrous but for the cynical attempt by racists and imperialists, anti-Semites included, to use the historic oppression of Jewish people in order to support not only the Israeli state but western imperialism and its wars in the Middle East.

It is no accident that some of the most virulent anti-Semites and White Supremacists, from Viktor Orban of Hungary, Mateusz Morawiecki of Poland and Donald Trump, have all supported the IHRA. Indeed no genuine anti-Semite could possibly take exception to the IHRA. What is there not to like about it if you are a racist?

Indeed one of the most vociferous campaigners in support of the IHRA, former Vice-Chair of the Zionist Federation Jonathan Hoffman, is a link person between the Zionist Right in Britain and fascist groups such as the EDL and Tommy Robinson's supporters. Hoffman is also one of the 'academics' who have signed the Zionist petition calling for the dismissal of Professor David Miller of Bristol University.

I remain of the same opinion as Justice Potter Stewart' in the 1964 case of Jacobellis v. Ohio that I don’t need a definition of anti-Semitism to recognise it when I see it. When my father and thousands of Jews like him took part in the Battle of Cable Street in order to prevent Moseley’s British Union of Fascists marching through the Jewish East End in October 1936, they did not need a definition of anti-Semitism in order to understand what they were fighting. However we are where we are and today the primary benefit of a genuine definition of anti-Semitism is that it can be used to replace the bogus and fraudulent IHRA definition.

Unlike the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism, the JDA is concerned with anti-Semitism not tarnishing the struggle of the Palestinians and opponents of Zionism as ‘anti-Semitic’.

What is truly frightening about the IHRA is how many people of sound mind, people who consider themselves intelligent and in the normal world are intelligent, have nevertheless subscribed to a definition of anti-Semitism that was intellectually bankrupt, the academic version of the 3 card trick. The IHRA is embarrassingly incoherent, dishonest and internally contradictory. Indeed the IHRA is itself, by its own definition anti-Semitic when it says on the one hand that Israel is the collective representation of all Jews and then says that it is anti-Semitic to associate all Jews with Israel’s crimes.

The slogan on a large demonstration in Tel Aviv in support of Israeli soldier Elor Azaria, who shot a unconscious Palestinian in Hebron in the head, murdering him. 'Kill them all' means kill all Palestinians.  According to the IHRA to describe this as Nazi-like is itself antisemitic!

The IHRA’s vagueness and obfuscation was itself demonstrably dishonest. It was deliberately opaque. Indeed a 500+ word statement cannot, by anyone’s imagination, be called a definition and, as Stephen Sedley wrote, the IHRA cannot be a definition because it is indefinite.

The 38 word IHRA definition, leaving out its 11 Israeli centred examples, is nothing if not slippery and vague. The IHRA was an exercise in intellectual dishonesty and it was eagerly grasped by racists such as the British representative to the IHRA, Lord Pickles, as a way of smearing and demonising anti-racists. Anyone who genuinely believed it was a definition of anti-Semitism can only be classed as intellectually bankrupt. And the IHRA rested on the assumption that the State of Israel was a normal, democratic state. As such the IHRA took sides in the battle between Jewish supremacy and Zionism on the one hand and anti-Zionism on the other.

The 38 word core definition of anti-Semitism at the beginning of the IHRA states that:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Although we are told that anti-Semitism is ‘a certain perception of Jews’ we are never told what that perception is. We are told that anti-Semitism ‘may be expressed as hatred toward Jews’ without saying what else it might be expressed as. In raising the bar of anti-Semitism to the level of hatred the IHRA missed out all sorts of examples of anti-Semitism which are hurtful or discriminatory but which are not derived from hatred.

It is perfectly possible for someone to inflict violence on someone because they are Jewish, not because they hate them but because they despise them or fear them. According to the IHRA they are not anti-Semitic! Likewise someone who objects to their son or daughter marrying a Jew, not because they hate them but because they believe Jews are dishonest and untrustworthy, to say nothing of being mean and stingy, is not anti-Semitic according to the IHRA. The IHRA has but one function.  To protect the Israeli state and Zionism not Jews.

The first advantage of the JDA is that it formulates a clear and easily understood definition of anti-Semitism: ‘Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).’ The latter 5 words could have been omitted but based as it is on the Oxford English Dictionary definition ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ it is infinitely preferable to the IHRA definition.

We now have a very clear and useful definition of anti-Semitism that clearly distinguishes between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The JDA does not attempt to police political speech in the way that the IHRA did.  It does not for example suggest that if someone criticises Israel without at the same time criticising every other country that abuses human rights (‘double standards’) that they are anti-Semitic.

This slogan is daubed on the walls of Hebron's Shuhada Street by the Jewish settlers - the IHRA says it's 'anti-semitic' to mention this!

The JDA does not describe comparisons between the Israeli state and its policies and that of Nazi Germany as anti-Semitic. It is clear that there are many comparisons today between Israel and Nazi Germany as the walls of Shuhada Street in Hebron, which are daubed with settler slogans ‘Arabs to the gas chambers’ testify.

As Neve Gordon and Mark Levin point out, under the IHRA two of the greatest Jewish personalities of the 20^th century, both of them refugees from Nazi Germany, Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, have to be classified as anti-Semitic! In 1948 when Menachem Begin, the leader of Herut visited the United States they signed a letter with other Jewish personalities, to the New York Times claiming that Herut was:

“closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

Another piece of graffiti on the walls of Hebron - this betrays the mentality of the religious Zionist settlers in Israel

In particular Guidelines 10-15 are welcome. They are a clear statement that support for BDS has nothing to do with anti-Semitism and everything to do with a non-violent protest against Israel. The statement that evidence based criticism of Israel cannot be anti-Semitic is to be welcomed. Similarly that support for a unitary state of Palestine (and by implication opposition to a Jewish state) is not anti-Semitic.

However there are many criticisms that can also be made of the JDA. Firstly it lacks any Palestinian perspective or input.  Given that the JDA came about as a result of the attempts of the IHRA to silence free speech on Palestine it should have been a given that Palestinians might have an input into the JDA. Unfortunately the drafting of the JDA was an all-Jewish affair despite the fact that it has a whole section B ‘Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic’.

Although it has been created in opposition to the IHRA the JDA focuses far too heavily on the Israeli narrative and concerns. Although, given the context, this is understandable, the authors fight shy of saying outright that the main threat from anti-Semitism comes from the far-Right and fascist groups, not from the Left. Perhaps this was too much for people like Professor Feldman of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism. He and Brian Klug, another member of the drafting committee see themselves as above divisions of left and right, occupying as they do the ivory towers of Birkbeck College and Oxford University!  However we need to say it loud and clear that the main threat to Jews today comes from people like Donald Trump and his White Supremacist neo-Nazi supporters.  Historically the left has always fought anti-Semitism. In Nazi Germany the opposition to anti-Semitism and Nazism came almost exclusively from the left.

This is especially pertinent since the so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism  includes the statement that ‘In 2019, Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Antisemitism Barometer showed that antisemitism on the far-left of British politics had surpassed that of the far-right.’ This was based on fraudulent ‘research’ carried out by Dr Daniel Allington of King’s College and others.

The CAA’s 2019 Anti-Semitism Barometer introduced 6 absurd new questions about anti-Semitic attitudes which were based solely on one’s attitude to Israel and Zionism. This redefinition of what constitutes anti-Semitic statements had but one purpose – to brand opponents of Zionism and the Israeli state as anti-Semitic. From now on Israeli zealots could claim that the real enemy of Jews was not their neo-Nazi friends but those on the Left.

For example if you are not comfortable spending time with Zionists then that makes you an anti-Semite! I confess I didn’t find the company of supporters of Apartheid in South Africa  particularly congenial but I never considered that that made me a racist! Below are the 6 new ‘anti-Semitic’ statements that Allington, Hirsh and company devised:

1.      “Israel and its supporters are a bad influence on our democracy.

2.      “Israel can get away with anything because its supporters control the media.”

3.      “Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated theJews.

4.      I am comfortable spending time with people who openly support Israel.”

5.      “Israel makes a positive contribution to the world.”

6.      “Israel is right to defend itself against those who want to destroy it.

What are the problems with the JDA?

However the JDA is not unproblematic and should not be seen as the final word on what is and is not anti-Semitic. For example Guideline No. 5:

‘Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.’

is no longer true. When in 1974 the National Front pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die by Richard Verall came out then it was possible to say that holocaust denial was anti-Semitic in itself and inspired by neo-Nazis who wished to deny that which they desired to repeat.

However one of the achievements of Zionism and the State of Israel has been to harness the memory of the Jewish victims of the holocaust to the Zionist chariot. So much so that many people, especially in the underdeveloped world, think that if they deny the holocaust they will deny Israel’s legitimacy. They are of course wrong but their intention is not to repeat the holocaust like neo-Nazis but to undermine the Israeli state. That is stupidity not anti-Semitism.

More problematic are the examples under B ‘Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic’

Guideline No. 6, ‘Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism to the State of Israel’ is closely allied to the IHRA’s 9^th illustration : ‘Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.’

The logical fallacy here is to substitute ‘Israel or Israelis’ for Jews. Israel is not a Jew.

One of the traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews in medieval Europe was poisoning the wells of non-Jews. Another was the murder of non-Jewish children in order to bake Passover bread. These are undoubtedly anti-Semitic.

However these examples refer to Jews not Israel. It is a fact, confirmed by archival evidence, that Israel poisoned the water supply of Acre in the 1948 war of expulsion. It is also a fact that Israeli settlers have regularly poisoned the water and wells of Palestinians in the West Bank. This is what settlers do to the indigenous population, regardless of the religion of the settlers or their victims. It cannot be right to characterise factual assertions, based on evidence, as anti-Semitic. Nor can it be right to associate traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews with a racist state which treats Palestinians as the Untermenschen.

Israel has tested poisoned gas and chemical weapons on Palestinians. It is not anti-Semitic to state this. It is a fact that Israel has harvested stolen body parts of Palestinians. The Chinese government uses the body parts of those executed. Such an accusation is not racist.

Guideline No. 8 ‘Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting).’ is also not anti-Semitic. It is understandable, given that the Zionist movement makes the claim that they speak on behalf of all Jews (except us self-haters!) which reinforces peoples’ confusion between being Jewish and being a Zionist.

It cannot be anti-Semitic for non-Jewish people to fall for Zionist propaganda and further it is reasonable for a Palestinian to ask that Jewish people distance themselves from the Israeli/Zionist assertion that to be Jewish is to support the oppression of Palestinians. If there is any anti-Semitism it is on the part of the Zionists.

I also find Guideline 10 problematic:

‘Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.’

I acknowledge the right of Israeli Jews to live in Palestine/Israel. However I do not acknowledge that they have any collective rights as settlers and oppressors. The settlers are not oppressed and therefore the rights we should recognise are individual rights. I would therefore strike out the words ‘collectively and individually’.

However, apart from Guideline No. 6 these are minor disagreements.  The JDA is an overwhelmingly positive contribution to detoxifying the debate over anti-Semitism and the dishonest attempts of Israel’s anti-Semitic supporters to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It should therefore be welcomed as a wholly positive contribution to demystifying the question of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

We should therefore feel free to use this definition and to propose that trade unions, universities and labour parties be encouraged to ditch the IHRA in favour of the JDA. We should be open and explicit.  The IHRA is a definition that anti-Semites support. The JDA is a definition for opponents of anti-Semitism.

We should ask hypocrites like Caroline Lucas MP, who professes to support the Palestinians, to put her money where her mouth is. If Lucas supports the Palestinians then we need to keep asking her why she is supporting a definition of anti-Semitism which defines the Palestinian struggle as anti-Semitic. 

We know that racists like John Mann, Keir Starmer and Eric Pickles will cling to the IHRA as their main purpose is to sanctify western support for Israel and legitimise imperialism’s operations in the region. However we should demand that members of the Socialist Campaign Group adopt and endorse the JDA.  Likewise Momentum should abandon the IHRA and adopt the JDA. If these groups refuse to break with the racist and imperialist consensus over Zionism then they should be ostracised as enemies of the Palestine liberation struggle and as racists.

Tony Greenstein

Defend Free Speech and Reject the Attempts of the Apartheid Regime in Tel Aviv and their British Puppets to Ban Anti-racists and Anti-Zionists

The Board of Deputies issued 10 Commandments (Pledges) which ‘Sir’ Keir Starmer is implementing – the 5^th Commandment means no platforming Black and Jewish anti-racists

Youtube: https://t.co/IXgZcX59eL
Facebook: https://t.co/i7PsNcpggD https://t.co/k6i0wwJ9sr

It is of course strange because the 5th of the original 10  Commandments, was 'thou shalt honour thy father and mother' not 'thou shalt not speak with Jewish anti-Zionists and those expelled for anti-Zionism.'  

In the Board of Deputies history it has never organised a demonstration against fascists or racists.  When Sir Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists tried to march through the Jewish East End on October 4 1936, the Board told Jews to stay at home and keep quiet.  Thousands of Jews, including my father, ignored them and the Zionists.

But when Jeremy Corbyn got elected the Board waged an all out war on him. On 26^th March 2018 they organised an ‘Enough is Enough’ demonstration outside Parliament calling Corbyn a racist.  They were joined by fellow racists, Norman Tebbit of the ‘cricket test’ (if you were an Indian and supported the Indian cricket team you weren’t really British) and Ian Paisley Jnr. MP, the Protestant bigot from Northern Ireland.

The Board of Deputies is mandated by its own Constitution, Clause 3(d) to ‘Take such appropriate action as lies within its power to advance Israel's security, welfare and standing.’ 

This is Israel today - but Keir Starmer just loves Zionism

That was why the Board was so insistent that the Labour Party accept a new definition of ‘anti-Semitism’.  The old one in the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jew’  was obviously useless when it came to defending Israel.  Whereas the IHRA, a 500+ word ‘definition’ which includes ‘Israel’ in 7 of its 11 examples is tailor made.

It is as if it were anti-Brazilian to demonstrate against Bolsonaro or we were anti-Chilean when we demonstrated against Pinochet.

Margaret Hodge - one of the leading witchhunters was praised by the BNP for her housing policies

It is unfortunate that some on the Left, in particular Counterfire but also the SWP, still don’t get it.  They still think it’s about anti-Semitism. They still shout ‘I am not anti-Semitic’ as if the Zionists are in the slightest concerned.

Zionism begins from an abandonment of the fight against anti-Semitism.  It believes that Jews form a separate nation from those they live amongst and that they should live in their own nation state, Israel.

Not for nothing did the founder of Zionism write in his Diaries (p.231) that

‘Anti-Semitism, too, probably contains the Divine will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free.’

That is why anti-Semites love the IHRA.  It’s not about hating Jews but hating Zionism.  That is why from Tommy Robinson to neo-Nazi Richard Spencer and DonaldTrump, you can both hate Jews and love Israel as the ideal ethno-nationalist state.

At the end of April, Jackie Walker and I spoke at a meeting at which Dianne Abbot MP and Bell Ribeiro-Addy spoke.  All hell broke loose with the Zionists demanding both MPs be suspended. The Jewish Chronicle reported that

A frustrated Oswald Moseley

‘Tony Greenstein, who was expelled over antisemitism allegations, and Jackie Walker, who was booted out of Labour on gross misconduct charges, both participated in Wednesday evening's meeting of the newly formed 'Don't Leave, Organise' group, who also received the backing of former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

Last May I spoke at a Birmingham Stop the War Coalition meeting to which Salma Yaqoob had been invited.  Immediately Ian Austin, the nasty little right-wing twerp who heckled Jeremy Corbyn during the Chilcott debate, an avid warmonger, called for Salma’s suspension. Salma denied having ever accepted the invitation but regardless it should be obvious to all that this Zionist McCarthyism has to be fought.

The Zionist tactics resemble the actions of the Apartheid regime in South Africa which, under the 1982 Internal Security Act had a class of ‘banned persons’ who could neither be associated with, quoted or published.  They are the tactics of the Board of Deputies and their Zionist supporters, Starmer included.

It is regrettable that in a statement that Stop the War Coalition put out defending Salma Yaqoob, instead of attacking the witchhunters they sought to allay the fears of their Labour MP patrons. Lindsey German, their Convenor, refused to take down the last 2 sentences of a statement which read:

‘Local StWC groups act autonomously in deciding their platforms, but we note that Tony Greenstein has never been asked to address a national StWC meeting.  StWC rejects both anti-Semitism and abusive language in political debate.’

Lord John Mann, one of the leading 'antisemitism' campaigners is an anti-Gypsy bigot

Normally organisations publicise who has spoken on their platforms not who hasn’t!  StWC was however seeking to placate the witchhunters and their Labour patrons who refused to give Chris Williamson any support when he was suspended. 

neo-Nazi Richard Spencer just loves Israel

Tomorrow we are holding the first in what we hope will be a series of meetings highlighting the growth of McCarthyism in the Labour Party.  Chaired by Chris Williamson, Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and myself will be speaking.

You can tune in on either Youtube or Facebook.  We look forward to you joining us. 

We will not be silenced

Tony Greenstein

You can access the meeting via these 2 links

Youtube: https://t.co/IXgZcX59eL
Facebook: https://t.co/i7PsNcpggD https://t.co/k6i0wwJ9sr

At the Zionist Leadership hustings it was hard to tell who was the worst Zionist – Thornberry, Nandy, Starmer or Long-Bailey

A personal letter to Rebecca Long-Bailey You're no Corbyn Continuity Candidate You're Keir Starmer’s reflection

Last Thursday the Jewish Labour Movement, Labour Friends of Israel and Jewish News jointly staged hustings for the 4 leadership  candidates. All of them tried to outbid each other in their condemnation of Labour Party ‘anti-Semitism’.

Perhaps we should put the ‘anti-Semitism’ Disinformation Paradigm into perspective. According to a new survey by former Tory Party Treasurer Lord Ashcroft, 73% of Labour Party members believe the issue of anti-Semitism has either been invented outright or wildly exaggerated by Corbyn’s opponents. Amongst socialist members of the Labour Party this rises to 90%. Just 22% of members believe anti-Semitism is a serious problem (6% of the Left).

Despite all the propaganda - 3/4 of Labour Party members believe the 'antisemitism' allegations were invented or wildly exaggerated

Amongst Momentum members 92% believe that the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations were an invention or wildly exaggerated.  Jon Lansman is completely out of touch, even with his own members. This is the context in which the debate last week took place. See Poll: Labour members say anti-Semitism crisis “invented”

Rebecca Long-Bailey, the ‘left’ candidate gave a toe-curlingly embarrassing display of subservience to Israel’s supporters. In the words of Sienna Rodgers of Labour List

Rebecca Long-Bailey kicked off the Jewish Labour Movement hustings... with an apology for the “hurt and anxiety” caused by Labour antisemitism ... she ... vowed to prioritise: a disciplinary process that is “legally independent, free from political bias or interference”; educating members; and calling out antisemitism.

You could not put a piece of paper between any of the candidates. Having been persuaded against my better judgement to support RBL, having previously described her as a wannabee Neil Kinnock, it is doubly disappointing to realise that I was right all along!

Realising that dialogue is the spice of life and the enemy of the totalitarian ideology that is Zionism, I decided to send a personal letter to Becky. Being an ex-solicitor I am sure she will have no problem in digesting the contents!

Tony Greenstein

Dear Becky,

This is, as you will appreciate, a painful letter to have to write. However knowing you as I do I am sure you will understand why I felt it necessary to put pen to paper or rather finger to keyboard.

Despite my many doubts about your recent move to the right, in particular your support for the expulsion of Chris Williamson and the Board of Deputies’ 10 Commandments (Pledges), I reluctantly accepted the argument from comrades that you were the least worst of the 4 candidates.

It was on the basis that you were still, just, a socialist, that I supported you and gave out leaflets supporting you and Richard Burgon at various meetings in Brighton and Hove.

Yesterday I was rung up by a friend in Brighton Kemptown CLP. Her question was simple. Who should she vote for? After listening to you at the Zionist hustings I couldn't in good conscience recommend a vote for you.

It should have been obvious just by the list of sponsors what this hustings was about. Socialism isn't just a word. It means anti-racism and anti-imperialism being an integral part of one's politics. Any socialist worthy of the name would have refused to take part in hustings sponsored by Labour Friends of Israel.

Surely you are not so naive as to believe that an organisation which has not once condemned Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land or its Apartheid practices could be genuinely opposed to anti-Semitism?

According to the murderous 'logic' of Labour Friends of Israel, the responsibility for Israel shooting unarmed protesters lies with Hamas, not Israel!  RBL is quite happy to keep company with this scum

Have you forgotten the response of LFI to the news that Israeli snipers were firing at unarmed demonstrators at the Gaza fence? They blamed those who died for their own deaths.

Over 500 children have been injured and over 70 have been murdered in cold blood by the Israel’s army since March 2019. Yet what was the response by LFI? It tweeted ‘Hamas must accept responsibility for these events.’ Except that Hamas didn’t shoot those who died or who were crippled by exploding ammunition deliberately designed to disable.

Imagine that a Palestinian organisation had blamed Israel for the deaths of 70 Jewish children. Would you have spoken on their platform? If not why do you speak under LFI’s banner. Do Palestinian lives not count? It seems Becky that you need to examine your own racism before pointing the finger at others.

LFI also supported the attack on Gaza in 2014, as it has done all Israel’s wars. 2,200 Palestinians were murdered, including 551 children. Do tell me what your description would be of someone who supported the murder of 500+ Jewish children.  Racist? Anti-Semitic? Yet when it comes to the blood of Palestinian children you turn a blind eye.

LFI's stance is not surprising as one thing Al Jazeera’s programme, The Lobby, made clear was that Labour Friends of Israel is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli Embassy.

The Board of Deputies blamed those who were killed for their own deaths

The Board of Deputies too blamed the Palestinians. Their statement said that ‘the responsibility for the violence lies with Hamas’ before going on to support the murder of unarmed demonstrators: ‘Israel is defending its people from repeated violent attempts at mass invasion.’  they wrote. 

The idea that Palestinian refugees trying to return to the lands they were expelled from should be shot down in cold blood says everything about the Board. Whatever else they represent it is not the socialist traditions of British Jewry.

The Board of Deputies openly supported the murder of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza yet has the gall to talk of 'antisemitism'

21 year old medic Razan has come to symbolise the State Terrorism of Israel whose snipers picked off Razan for no other reason than that she was there

Even medics, such as 21 year old Razan Najar, have been murdered by Israeli snipers. All to the approval of the same BOD whose 10 Commandments you have agreed to. According to these 10 'pledges' you must not communicate with anti-racist or socialist Jews.

The Board of Deputies spent more time attacking the ANL than the National Front

I would be interested in an explanation as to how demanding that the Labour Party only communicate with the reactionary BOD, has anything to do with fighting anti-Semitism since the BOD has always opposed the fight against fascism and those who are genuinely anti-Semitic.

When it came to challenging genuine anti-Semites the Board of Deputies urged Jews to keep their heads down and say nothing - only Israel concerns them

In the 1930’s the Board opposed physical resistance to the British Union of Fascists telling Jews to stay at home during the Battle of Cable Street. In the 1970’s when the National Front was growing stronger they did the same. According to Paul Holborrow, Secretary of the Anti-Nazi League

‘We were constantly under attack from the Jewish Board of Deputies ... because of the SWP’s anti-Zionism.’

The Board of Deputies has only ever been concerned about one thing, supporting Zionism and the State of Israel, opposition to which they term ‘anti-Semitism’.

You opened the hustings by paying tribute to the great Jewish MPs that Manchester has had. You might have mentioned the late Gerald Kaufmann MP, Father of the House of Commons. In 2009 he made one of the great parliamentary speeches. He said, during Operation Cast Lead, when 1,400 Palestinians were murdered that:

My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland. Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.

You stated that ‘our Jewish Community just didn’t feel safe or welcome within our party.’ This is the big lie that Goebbels spoke of. There is no evidence whatsoever that even one Jew felt unsafe in the Labour Party. True the racists of the JLM, the British wing of the ILP may have felt uncomfortable when defending Apartheid but that surely is good.

What is remarkable about the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign was the number of Jews who were victims. Not only was Jackie Walker and myself expelled, but numerous anti-Zionist Jews such as Glynn Secker and Jo Bird were suspended. Professor Moshe Machover, the founder of Matzpen, the Israeli Socialist Organisation was also expelled, until Sam Matthews was forced to reinstate him.

Oozing insincerity Emily Thornberry promised to expel anti-Zionists from the Labour Party - this despicable woman gained just 1.9% of the Zionist vote!

You stated that you would ‘act on the recommendations of the EHRC’ and that you find it very shameful that the Labour Party is being investigated by them. It’s not shame but outrage you should be feeling at the interference by a State body in the internal affairs of the Labour Party. The EHRC is not and never has been an anti-racist body. It is a body consisting of the great and good whose purpose is to ensure 'diversity' and neutralise anti-racist campaigning.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has never  condemned the Tory government over the Windrush Scandal, still less investigated it. It has remained silent over the recent deportations of Black British citizens to the West Indies and said nothing about Islamaphobia in the Tory Party or the racism of the Prime Minister. This is unsurprising since the EHRC is chaired by a Zionist, David Isaac. 

It is no surprise that no other forms of racism failed to get a mention at these Zionist hustings. Zionists are interested in defending, not combating racism.

Your response to the resignation of Louise Ellman and Luciana Berger proves that you represent the abandonment of everything Corbyn stood for. You said that it was ‘absolutely devastating & shameful that we had MPs leaving the party because they didn’t feel welcome.’ thus implying that anti-Semitism played a part in their decisions. This is a total fabrication. 

Ellman was targeted, not because she is Jewish but because she was a vitriolic right-winger who defended Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinian children. Arresting children in the middle of the night, blindfolding and beating them, including sexual abuse.  All of these practices this wretch of a woman defended. Many of her political opponents were Jewish. I suggest you read ‘The Riverside Scandal’ and then apologise.

Luciana Berger was another Blairite parachuted in to Liverpool Wavertree. The Chair of her own constituency was Jewish. She was hated, not because she was Jewish but because she was a nasty right-winger who was Director of LFI from 2007-2010.

One can only presume from your fatuous remarks that you only support the deselection of MPs if they are not Jewish!

You spoke of a ‘breakdown of trust’ between the Jewish community and the Labour Party. Leaving aside that there is no single Jewish community, the facts are that the Jewish community has long deserted Labour. For over 50 years British Jews have voted Tory in overwhelming numbers. In 2015 64% of Jews voted Tory and just 15% voted Labour despite having a Jewish leader, Ed Miliband.

But even this is untrue. Jeremy Corbyn forfeited the support of British Zionists but Labour never had their support anyway. Orthodox Jewry did not criticise Corbyn and 34 Orthodox Rabbis wrote a joint letter condemning the Board's attacks on Corbyn but of course the BBC and the prostitute press preferred not to publicise this.

As recently as last December Rabbi Ephraim Padwa, Head of the 35,000 Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations wrote a letter condemning those who called Corbyn 'antisemitic'. Yet instead of aligning yourselves with these and other Jews you preferred to ally yourself with the most racist and reactionary section of British Jews.

The Jewish Community Hasn't Supported Labour for 50 Years

I suggest you read Daniel Staetsky’s article in The Times of Israel, How British Jews vote and why they vote this way.  The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign of the past 4½ years has been a wholly artificial creation whose sole aim was to remove Jeremy Corbyn.

On December 5^th 2019 just 1 week before the election, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Pollard, in a letter to readers wrote that

‘over the next 6 weeks we will discover if the British public are prepared to put an anti-Semite into Number Ten.’

Was this a false allegation? If so then why is it antisemitic to say that similar allegations against Labour Party members are also false? According to Zionist propagandists denial of false allegations of 'antisemitism' is proof of one's guilt! 

In just the same way denial of being a witch at Salem in the 17th century was held to be proof that you were a witch. I thought we had come just a little way in the past 300+ years but it would seem not. Instead Beccy you stand in the tradition of Cotton Mather and those whose false accusations led to the witch-trials which in turn led to the murder of 19 people, including 14 women.  

Elizabeth Reis wrote about the dilemmas that faced women in the witch trials: 

"During examinations, accused women were damned  if they did and damned if they did not. If they confessed to witchcraft charges, their admissions would prove the cases against them; if they denied the charges, their very intractability, construed as the refusal to admit to sin more generally, might mark them as sinners and hence allies of the devil."

Rebecca Long-Bailey signed up to the 10 McCarthyist Demands of the Board of Deputies without a whimper

In fact the only women who were hanged at Salem were those who denied their guilt.  

In May 2018 the President of the Board of Deputies, Jonathan Arkush, stated that Corbyn ‘has anti-Semitic views.’ Clearly this was a lie but it wasn't the only lie.  So why are you giving comfort to these racists? 

Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lansman's Protege Declares She is a Zionist 

Perhaps most shocking of all was your declaration that you are a Zionist.

Israel is an ethno-nationalist state, i.e. a state not of its own citizens but of the mythical ‘Jewish people’. When Netanyahu says that Israel is ‘not a state of all its citizens’ he is right. That is an admission that racism is part of Israel's DNA.

No state has a right to exist. Did the Apartheid, Francoist or Nazi states ‘have a right to exist’. Why?  States are not people.

Keir Hardie - member of the Trilateral Commission and a friend of the secret policeman

Zionism is the racist ideology that has guided the Israeli state from its foundation. Even before 1948 the Israeli Labor Party operated a colour bar, campaigning for Jewish Labour i.e. a Boycott of Arab Labour. Today the ILP supports the deportation of Black African refugees because they are not Jewish and therefore threaten the Jewish demographic majority of Israel.

The Jewish National Fund, which owns and controls 93% of Israeli land deliberately excludes Arabs from access to it. What is a Jewish state if not a state that discriminates against those who are not Jewish?

I realise that you know nothing about the Israeli state but are you seriously suggesting that criticism of Zionism and its bastard offspring, the Israeli state, which armed and trained the death squads of Guatemala as they murdered up to 200,000 Mayan Indians, is anti-Semitic? Is criticism of Israel for arming and equipping the death squads of El Salvador, arming the Argentinian Junta (which murdered up to 3,000 Jews) and Pinochet, to say nothing about Apartheid South Africa, antisemitic?

Yes of course Israel's supporters cry ‘anti-Semitism’.  What else can they say? If you can't attack the message then attack the messenger.

For ‘socialists’ such as you to defend such a state because it is ‘Jewish’, as if the Holocaust entitles Israel to support neo-Nazi regimes, is shameful.

What does Zionism mean in practice? Demonstrations in Afula against the sale of a single house to an Arab. The edict by the Chief Rabbi of Safed, Shmuel Eliyahu, forbidding Jews from renting property to Arabs.  Eliyahu is a paid Israeli state official. It means the Reception Committee Law of 2011 allowing Jewish communities to ban Arabs from living there. Zionism means that maternity wards in Israel are segregated into Jewish and Arab. Education too is segregated and even Higher Education is now falling victim.

I doubt if there is a single Palestine solidarity activist in Britain who hasn’t been accused of ‘anti-Semitism’. Jewish anti-Zionists, who are the equivalent of Whites South Africans who opposed Apartheid, are called ‘self-haters’, the same term that the Nazis used against German anti-fascists.

You said, like the other candidates, that you support a 2 state solution. That is no solution. It is dead as a dodo. The only reason LFI and JLM support 2 states is because they know it won’t happen. It is a smokescreen for Apartheid. The only solution is a single state where Jews and Arabs have equal rights.

Stephane Savary drops the mask.  It's no longer about 'antisemitism' but Israel's right to be a racist 

It is strange that 'socialists' such as yourself are unwilling to support a single state where there are equal rights for all citizens.  Because that is what the 'antisemitism' campaign is really about. Today Lisa Nandy is being criticised because she supports the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees.

Far from being the Corbyn continuity candidate you represent a radical break from Corbynism. Unlike Jeremy you have no record of activism. Socialist and anti-racist politics are to you abstractions.

It is clear that there is no genuine difference between you and the other candidates. It is not surprising that despite your grovelling to the Zionists when the JLM came to vote on which candidate to support you obtained a mere 1.4%! Even Jeremy Corbyn in 2016 obtained 4%!!

It must be galling that unlike Pontius Pilate you haven’t received your reward of 30 pieces of silver. Clearly the price of treachery has fallen victim to inflation.

Kind regards

Tony Greenstein

Lisa Nandy - the Zionists' favourite

A Highlight of RBL’s Contributions

In Manchester where we have had some of the greatest Jewish MPs

It was absolutely devastating to see what they faced... our Jewish Community just didn’t feel  safe or welcome within our party. It was absolutely shameful that we were in that situation. We have to say sorry and I’ll say sorry again tonight.

 We have to have processes in the party that are legally independent, free from any political bias or interference

Education to stop the conspiracy theories and tropes that are emerging across the left

I’ve said very clearly that I’ll adopt the Board of Deputies 10 pledges. I’ll act on the recommendations of the EHRC. I find it very shameful that we are being investigated by them.

Peston: Labour did better than expected at the 2017 election and then anti-Semitism exploded as an issue... Why has it taken so long to tackle the scandal of anti-Semitism. What have you done over the last couple of years to try and eliminate the scourge of anti-Semitism. Peston says he’ll start with Becky because Thornberry suggested on Newsnight that you didn’t do enough and you were on the NEC.

RLB attributes anti-Semitism to the large influx after 2015.  We had a breakdown of trust between the Jewish communal organisations and the Jewish Labour Movement.

Says she spoke ‘privately’ to people to call for ‘auto-expulsions’

So I don’t think the Party gave the right response to that programme (Panorama). As the party of workers and trade unionists we should not have called out former members of staff.  Whether they were correct or not ‘was a completely different matter’.

We also have to recognise what those particular staff were going through.

Peston: would you welcome Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman back into the party?

RLB: that was absolutely devastating & shameful that we had MPs leaving the party because they didn’t feel welcome.

Peston intervenes to point out that Berger stood against the party

RLB: What Luciana, Louise and our other colleagues have been through is absolutely shocking and how they managed to cope with that is an absolute miracle.

Peston: Is that a yes?

RLB: I would, yeah.

RLB: We’ve got to do everything the EHRC wants and more. We have to adopt the Board of Deputies 10 pledges. We’ve got to roll out a robust educational progamme with the JLM.

Question from the floor: Would any of you describe yourself as a Zionist?

Thornberry: I believe in the State of Israel therefore I’m a Zionist.

Keir Starmer:  I believe in the State of Israel, a secure Israel I also believe in an independent Palestinian state (Peston intervenes) I don’t describe myself as a Zionist but I understand, support and sympathise with Zionism.

Lisa Nandy: I believe Jewish people have the right to national self-determination. That makes me a Zionist.

RBL: On Zionism I also agree with a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state and a 2 state solution. I suppose that makes me a Zionist.  I agree with Israel’s right to exist and self-determine