As Labour & Tory Become Indistinguishable The New Party of Corbyn & Sultana Could See the Rebirth of the Left

 There Must Be No Repeat of Labour Under Corbyn 2015-19 The Appeasement of the Zionists & the Influence of Advisors like James Schneider Needs to be Curbed

Why Labour Lost | Interview With James Schneider

When Zarah Sultana announced her resignation from Labour and her joint leadership with Corbyn of a new party, Corbyn was forced to put an end to months of dithering and delay. However he was reported to be ‘so unhappy’ that ‘he only responded publicly two days later - his team described the timing of the announcement as "unfortunate".’

The Party has no name apart from Your Party. The Left Party, if only as an interim name is far more suitable! Either way it can't have no name.

Even though Starmer has retracted this rich, racist white 'feminist' has doubled down

The ‘Labour’ Government under Starmer has been worse than was feared. Attacks on claimants, repressive legislation and a speech by Starmer reminiscent of Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech with its reference to an ‘island of strangers’. Although Starmer ‘regretted’ it subsequently Yvette Cooper defended it.

Let us not forget the lies the Zionists and the genocidaires told last time around - they will do the same and more next time

There is a burning need for a mass party of the left. Having Corbyn and Sultana as joint leaders is sensible. However there can be no repeat of what happened from 2015-19 when Corbyn appeased and did the bidding of the Jewish Labour Movement despite the fact that the JLM was refounded with the intention of being rid of him. Its claim to be concerned with anti-Semitism was a lie and should have been called out by Corbyn who had much personal experience of being called anti-Semitic over the years.

Instead the JLM were allowed to pick their targets for expulsion. As we now know from their support for the genocide in Gaza, its sole concern is with defending Zionism and the Israeli State.

This extract from p.306 from the Labour Leaked Report shows how Corbyn and his office (LOTO -  Leader Of The Opposition) tried hard to appease the racists and the Zionists who had targeted their enemies carefully

Although it can be argued that Corbyn was ambushed by the Zionists when he was Labour leader by the false ‘anti-Semitism’ smears, he handled it appallingly. Corbyn threw his allies to the wolves in a vain attempt to appease his accusers.

Much of this was due to the advice of his closest advisors such as Seamus Milne and James Schneider. Their main strategy seemed to be to apologise and move on instead of stand and fight. Milne has disappeared to a well deserved obscurity but Schneider is very much alive and kicking. He cannot be allowed to wreak havoc a second time. As his interview above with Novara Media showed, six months after Starmer became leader, on why Labour lost the election he didn’t have a clue as to the nature of the attack on Corbyn.

Schneider didn’t once mention the false anti-Semitism smears that dominated Corbyn’s time in office. The concerted attacks of the Zionist press and the media in general that led to the EHRC case, which then led to Corbyn losing the Whip, went unmentioned. Nor did he mention it in July 2025 in an interview for New Left Review. Indeed the genocide in Gaza was only mentioned in passing. Anti-Zionism is not Schneider's strong point.

Schneider’s advice to Corbyn and the leadership of the new party needs to be treated with a hefty dose of salt given his record from 2015-2019. He needs to play a minor role rather than being seen as an oracle of wisdom. He still does not understand why Zionism is important to Britain’s imperial establishment. Schneider also complained about Zarah Sultana’s announcement of the new party with her resignation:

 Unfortunately, the party has already been launched even though it does not exist. We have been deprived of a carefully planned launch, but we can live with that.

Corbyn’s advisers cannot be allowed to dominate the new party because they will repeat their old errors. Nearly a year ago a letter  was sent (see below) to Corbyn asking him to reassess his period as leader in respect of the false anti-Semitism narrative that had been weaponised by the Labour Right and the bourgeois press, not least the Guardian.

The letter was signed by Chris Williamson, the MP that Corbyn threw overboard, Jackie Walker, the Black Jewish Vice Chair of Momentum before she was stabbed in the back by Jon Lansman and expelled; Asa Winstanley from Electronic Intifada who was suspended and then forced out of Labour and Anne Mitchell, former Chair of Brighton and Hove PSC, who was also expelled for ‘anti-Semitism’ along with myself as the first Jewish person to be expelled. 

We were all anti-Zionists not anti-Semites but Corbyn and his office threw red meat to the Zionists not realising that in the words of Rudyard Kipling, 'if once you have paid him the Dane-geld, You never get rid of the Dane.'  Substitute 'Zionist' for 'Dane' and you get the message. When you pay a blackmailer, the demands only increase, as they did from 2015-2019.

Corbyn did not to reply to our letter. There has been no reassessment of what happened either by him or his advisors, Schneider included. The consequence of the failure by Corbyn and his advisors to confront the false anti-Semitism smears was the accession of  Starmer to the leadership on a promise of rooting out ‘anti-Semitism’.

Today you cannot put a piece of paper between Starmer and Badenoch. That is why voters are turning to Reform. Our task is to take on the racist scapegoating of the right which Starmer has enabled with his attacks on the working class and poor and offer an alternative. 

James Schneider - Corbyn's closest advisor - but has he learnt anything from last time around?

Neo-liberalism has for the past 30 years seen a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Capital has reigned supreme. It was the poor who paid for the banking crisis of 2008-9. It is not migrants who closed the mines, docks and shipyards but the free market. This is the message that we have to get across and point to things like Farage's support for an insurance system for the NHS that is modelled on what happens in the US.

Starmer, who described himself as a ‘Zionist without qualification’, has lived up to our worst fears. He has openly supported a genocide and the use of food as a weapon of war. Even now, despite his protestations he is arming the killers of children. However none of this should have been a surprise. A little due diligence would have outed this snake. When I was expelled the first person to welcome that was Starmer with a one word response 'good'. 

In February 2020, two months before the leadership election in April, I wrote, that ‘Keir Starmer is the candidate that the Deep State & the British Establishment want you to vote for’. It was patently obvious that Starmer was not going to stick to his 10 Pledges. I love the 4th Pledge about introducing a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and putting human rights at the centre of Britain's foreign policy! Yet many of Schneider's mates in Momentum actually supported Starmer.

No one lies quite like Starmer but the thing is, he is an unconvincing liar. He comes across as synthetic which is why people, even in his own constituency, have never warmed to him. Yet Corbyn, Schneider and the rest of his advisers tolerated this cuckoo in the nest.  Five minutes googling would have turned up his police state record as Director of Public Prosecutions.

Not just over Brexit but in his support of the false anti-Semitism smears and his vendetta against Julian Assange. Yet he was not removed and there is no reason to believe that any of Corbyn’s advisers gave serious thought to it. Schneider in particular has a lot to answer for.

My purpose in raising these issues is not to pour over the entrails of what went wrong last time but to learn from our mistakes. Having Karie Murphy and James Schneider as the key advisors to the leader of the new party is a recipe for disaster. Neither are anti-Zionists. Corbyn himself shows very few signs of learning anything from the genocide in Gaza. He is still a two statist whereas it is obvious that Israel is a genocidal state that has got to go the way of the South African Apartheid state.

The left in Britain has a history of failure.  We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. The new party should welcome debate and different currents and factions. However it cannot have parties like the SWP operating within it with the sole purpose of recruiting to their own party. You cannot serve two masters.

The SWP and similar groups on the far-left have been failed projects. There are reasons for this, not least their failure to accept that the working class in Britain, atomised as it is after the Thatcher counter-revolution, is not an agent for revolution in Britain today. There is no organised proletariat. The Unions are far weaker today than they ever were.

Likewise with the Workers’ Party. Their recent showing in the Runcorn by-election of 0.5%, where they campaigned on ‘Stop the Boats’ and ‘Tough on Immigration’ means that although individual members are welcome in a new party George Galloway can’t be whilst he continues to think he can present a ‘left’ populist version of Farage’s Reform Party.  George is not someone to take advice and despite his many talents, not least as an orator, he is not a strategic thinker. His support for Brexit was another disastrous mistake.

One of our key tasks will be to break the trade unions from the Labour Party and Labourism. We have to convince their members that the link with Labour serves only the interests of the trade union bureaucracy. It is not in the interests of their members.

But we also have to be honest. If it wasn’t possible in the early part of the last century to form a revolutionary working class party or indeed in the 70s and 80s it’s certainly not possible now. That does not mean that the new party becomes simply a parliamentary party.

It has to be a party of the oppressed, the working class and those who are at the sharp end of capitalism and imperialism. It has to be a party of protest and direct action as well as operating in parliament. It also has to understand that the capitalist state is an entrenched and repressive political and social formation that is inherently undemocratic. But to pose revolutionary slogans and programs at this stage will simply confine the left to the margins.

The new party will have to face the issue of the Green Party, which is not a left-wing, still less a socialist party. The Green Party want to green capitalism not replace it. It is not a grassroots activist party and its main strategy is taking over the existing state without any serious plan to change it. It supports NATO and it supports Zionism whilst decrying what it is doing. It has adopted the IHRA like the rest of the political parties. In Germany Die Grunen was, along with the neo-Nazi AfD, the most pro-Zionist of all parties. Its former Foreign Secretary, Annalena Baerbock is a war criminal.

Yanis Varoufakis: Block Baerbock from the UN General Assembly

Many people are under illusions about the Green Party. In Brighton where they controlled the Council twice they were a disaster and not at all progressive. They not only gave no support to the Palestinians but they even voted alongside the Tories and Labour to support the IHRA fake definition of anti-Semitism, as they do nationally.

Owen Jones has suggested an electoral pact not to compete against each other. Tactically this may be worth thinking about with a First Past the Post electoral system, but it comes with the danger of sowing illusions in the Green Party. Regardless PR is a priority to prevent a repeat of a situation where someone like Starmer can obtain 63% of the seats with 34% of the vote. The lowest ever by a winning party.

The new party will not be a revolutionary party but a mixture of social democrats, activists, Marxists and those in between. A left reformist party intent on rolling back the authoritarian state that Starmer and Yvette Cooper are intent on bringing about with their proscription of Palestine Action and their introduction of a new Crime & Policing Bill banning  protests outside places of worship.

The old distinction between revolutionary socialists and reformists is to a large extent irrelevant in a situation which is not revolutionary and unlikely to be so. Our task is to reverse the drift to the right not establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The pendulum has swung to the right in society and we have to swing it back again. There are a number of measures that can be taken.

The savage attacks on benefit claimants, the disabled in particular coupled with the massive increase in ‘Defence’ i.e. War expenditure and the continued privatisation of the NHS marks Starmer Labour as no different from the previous Tory government.

Reform is campaigning on putting all the blame on migrants and boat people. It is essential to point the finger at those responsible. The billionaire class, the banks and multinationals and a system whereby the rich are made richer, all of which is symbolised by a parasitic Royal Family. Reform are vulnerable on economic questions and a new party is in an ideal position to challenge them.

There must be a program of democratising the state. The Police, with their attacks on Palestine demonstrations have proved that whatever powers they are given they will abuse. They are accountable to no one and believe themselves qualified to decide what is and is not anti-Semitism. Their adoption of the fake IHRA definition of anti-Semitism demonstrates that they are happy to use British Jews as a pretext for preventing the right to protest.

The Police implement certain laws and not others. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 remains a dead letter. The Fox Hunting Act 2004 has never been enforced yet an obscure clause, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has seen dozens of activists arrested. Today’s Police are Orwell’s Thought Police.

The capitalist state is not neutral and never has been which is why Labour’s love affair with the Police was so disgusting. Their job should be preventing crime not policing dissent. Rape for example has been all but decriminalised. That means bringing the police under democratic control whilst resisting funding their desire for more repressive equipment.

A new party has to have a minimum programme. Nationalisation with little if any compensation of rail and the utilities. A state bank. An end to private involvement in the NHS and public control of the NHS.  A massive cut in so-called defence spending. An end to Trident and the British military role in foreign wars. A repeal of all the Tory and now Labour anti-protest and anti-trade union legislation. The BBC should be freed from the Zionist lobby and the warmongers.

We should also follow most of Europe and the United States in decriminalising possession of cannabis and growing for one’s own use. There should be massive investment in public transport alongside an end to the use of fossil fuels.

Internationally we should call for the decolonisation and de-Zionisation of Israel. An end to trade with Apartheid Israel. Two states is a neo-colonial solution whose time has gone and Corbyn needs to wake up to the fact that a Jewish state is a racist state which should go the way of South Africa.  

This should be coupled with a withdrawal from NATO which is an alliance of warmongers. NATO has been responsible for the war in Ukraine. Without NATO expansion up to Russian borders there would have been no war. Without American and European funding and involvement in the 2014 coup against a democratically elected President of Ukraine the war would not have started against the Russian speaking eastern region of the Donbas led by Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov regiment which in turn led to the Russian invasion.

The democratisation of the British state needs to be high on the list. The House of Lords should be abolished with its replacement by a second chamber elected in the regions by PR. A referendum should be held on getting rid of the monarchy and Britain becoming a republic and joining modernity. The abolition of the feudal ‘royal family’ with their absurd honours system, palaces and massive land holdings is long overdue.

The new party is polling up to 15%, level with Starmer Labour. Amongst the young, 18-29 it is 33%, ahead of both Labour and Reform. This is a brilliant place to start but it will only increase if the party begins organising as soon as possible from the bottom up. Meetings should be held in every constituency to form an organisation. The Party should be rooted in the localities.

There is a need for transparency which isn’t evident at the moment. I’ve had two mailings from ‘Your party’ whoever that is.  We need to know who is actually running the show. It is not good enough to wait until November. Who is calling the shots now. Putting in place a democratic regional structure should be a priority. Calling a conference to be called at the end of year which without local participation means it is likely to be more of a rally.

If the new Left Party is disciplined and doesn’t fall into the habit of fighting each other then it could do what the French left under Melechon did  in France which was to outpoll and prevent the fascist Front Nationale winning the parliamentary elections.

But we must also draw lessons from the French experience where Socialist Party elected representatives then abandoned ship. Anyone elected or standing for the Left Party must be held accountable and recallable. We should get away from the idea of professional politicians who see politics as a career.

But above all we should be prepared for the counter attack. When the party is established and seen to be credible that is the time when the BBC, Daily Mail, Express and Guardian will revive the ‘anti-Semitism’ smears, terrorism scares, patriotism and much else. In addition to accusing us of bankrupting the country by proposing that the billionaires should pay some tax for a change.

There must be no repeat of 2015-2019 where Corbyn’s first reaction was to apologise and then appease his critics. The way to defang our enemies is to go on the attack not concede to their arguments.

Tony Greenstein

As the Tories totter on the edge Labour must support a second referendum

The idea that British capitalism is superior to European capitalism is a delusion born of imperial grandeur

Many on the Left who support leaving the EU (Lexit) somehow believe that an independent British capitalist state is preferable to European capitalism. It is difficult to understand why given the support for Brexit of people like William Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson and others on the Tory Right, to say nothing of UKIP. Indeed the original apostle of Brexit was none other than the original monetarist and free marketer Enoch Powell.

That the European Union is based on free-market capitalism is undeniable.  However that is a problem that needs to be opposed by the labour movement on a European wide basis. The idea of a British state going it alone with a low tax regime and further anti-union laws hardly seems to be a progressive let alone a socialist position.

It is clear that Theresa May’s agreement is a humiliating one in that Britain will remain in the customs union and Northern Ireland within the single market with a backstop guaranteeing that this is subject to an EU veto.  The alternative, no deal, is one which is horrific to contemplate.

The break-up of the European Union is something which unites the Far-Right throughout Europe. Brexit is seen as a something to aim at by those who would clearly love to see the break of the European Union.  It is not too much to suggest that if the EU were to break up we could eventually see the return of military conflicts between different states.  This was, after all, the original reason for the setting up of the Iron and Steel Confederation which later became the Common Market.

It is no coincidence that Donald Trump, a self-declared nationalist and in reality a White Supremacist welcomes Brexit.  It means imposing trade terms on Britain, for example the dropping of existing food standards, that are inherent in the Single Market. It is welcomed by Steve Bannon and the alt-Right who see Brexit as bolstering nationalism, racism and the demonistation of Muslims.

Theresa May’s deal is unacceptable not least for its hostility to State aid to industry. We stay half-in and half-out of the EU. A Brexit without a deal is equally unacceptable. This means inevitably that the only real option is a second referendum.

Of course there will be squeals and howls from those who cry that it is ‘undemocratic’.  Why?  It is simply giving people a right to make an informed decision, based on what they have seen for the past two years. Of course it is possible that a majority will still vote for Brexit but I somehow suspect that after having been lied to in the first referendum (the £300m+ promised to the NHS) that many people will not have the wool pulled over their eyes for a second time.

The position of Corbyn has been described by some as masterly.  I disagree.  Doing nothing is not a brilliant strategy and it is clear from Corbyn’s comments today and those of McDonnell yesterday that Labour is moving towards a second referendum .  The opposition to the EU based on opposition to free movement of workers is reactionary.  Low wages are not caused by immigration but by weak trade unions. It is the lack of a fight by the British working class which has led to Britain being a low waged economy.

People seem to forget that it wasn’t the EU who closed the mines, shipbuilding yards and much else but Thatcher and free market economics. Those in the North voting Brexit do it from a position of weakness and despair.  The EU is a handy scapegoat but it is hardly responsible for what the Tories have done.

The idea of an independent British capitalism is a belief that Britain is strong enough to form its own trade treaties and on its own terms.  The USA and other countries are likely to disillusion them.  This is a left-over from the British Empire.  It is Suez repeated all over again but as farce. Deliberately destroying your own trading relationships hardly seems to me to be a socialist strategy.

I believe Labour should throw its weight behind staying in the European Union and give its support for a second referendum. I have no doubt that this will create its own momentum towards a Labour victory at the General Election.

Tony Greenstein

If Anyone Resembles Enoch Powell it’s Rabbi Sacks NOT Jeremy Corbyn

In 2017 Rabbi Sacks marched with thousands of settler racists through Arab East Jerusalem chanting 'Death to the Arabs'

The Daily Mail in its pro-Hitler days warns against Jewish refugees entering 'through the back door'

In an interview with the New Statesman, the house journal of the Labour Right and the anti-Corbyn campaign, former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks engaged in a piece of vitriol worthy of Goebbels himself.  Not surprisingly, the Daily Mail, which in the 1930’s campaigned against the entry of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany to Britain and which latterly employed Katie Hopkins as its columnist, cheered him to the rafters.

The Mail quoted Sacks as saying that Corbyn’s criticism of Richard Millett, an open fascist, ‘was the most offensive remark by a British politician since Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech in 1968.’ Outrageous and absurd hyperbole seems to be the Zionist substitute for anything approximating to rational thought and polemic.  Less than a month ago, Britain’s 3 Zionist papers published a joint editorial which spoke of ‘ the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government’ with barely a murmur from rational people.

An existential threat literally means a threat to someone’s life.  What these 3 propaganda rags were saying was that Corbyn was literally a threat to the Jewish community along the lines of Adolf Hitler.  Presumably under a Jeremy Corbyn administration the British version of Auschwitz would be opening its doors for business. And then these Zionists complain about comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany and via the IHRA denounce those who make such a campaign as ‘anti-Semites’.

The Daily Mail, which backed Enoch Powell in 1968, now has the audacity to compare Corbyn with its erstwhile hero

Of course given that the Blessed Margaret Hodge of child abuse fame compared the threat of disciplinary proceedings to the experiences of her father who fled the Nazis, it would seem that exaggeration and hyperbole are the main fare of Zionism these days.

It would seem that in their defence of the State of Israel, British Zionists have lost all sense of proportion.  The idea that someone who was arrested outside South Africa House protesting against Apartheid has now become an SA stormtrooper is too silly for words.  However this is understandable.  How else do you defend a state where Arab life is cheap, where Arab homes are demolished to make way for Jewish homes and where Arab and Jewish are segregated in maternity wards if not by demonising your opponents and engaging in the type of abuse that would be better suited to Smithfields market?  It says a great deal about Zionist intellectuals that they have to get down into the gutter in order to defend the racist Rottweiler that is the Israeli state.

This is the reason for Jonathan Sack's libellous attack on Corbyn - how else do you defend Israeli Police helping the bulldozers to demolish a Palestinian village unless you attack your opponents as 'antisemitic'?

Sack’s remarks remind me of the response of Ha’aretz’s Anshel Pfeffer to the virulently anti-Corbyn Campaign Against Antisemitism which claimed that in an opinion poll more than half of British Jews felt that anti-Semitism today echoed that of the 1930s. Pfeffer witheringly observed that if the CAA and British Jews “actually believe that, then it’s hard to take anything they say about contemporary anti-Semitism in their home country seriously.”

Pfeffer added that such a belief showed “a disconnect bordering on hysteria … not only are they woefully ignorant of recent Jewish history but have little concept of what real anti-Semitism is.” Which just about sums up Jonathan Sacks too.

Jonathan Sack’s comparison of Corbyn with Enoch Powell is not only extraordinarily offensive but it is in itself anti-Semitic. What he and the rest of the empty chorus of Zionist propagandists are doing is to belittle and minimise the experience of Jews who in the past faced real anti-Semitism.  To compare opposition to Zionism and Israeli Apartheid with anti-Semitism simply minimises and trivialises the bloody pogroms of Czarist Russia to say nothing of the tribulations of German and European Jewry under Nazi occupation.  It is somewhat ironic that the Zionist movement which never fought anti-Semitism and in the case of Nazi Germany actively collaborated with it now dons the mantle of the opponents of anti-Semitism.

My dad fought in the Battle of Cable Street, a battle that the Board of Deputies explicitly told British Jews to stay away from. They and the English Zionists told Jews to avoid the fascists and keep their heads down. They repeated this in the 1970’s in the fight against the National Front.  The reason Zionism has never fought fascism or anti-Semitism  is because it shares too much in common with anti-Semitism to ever fight it.   As one of Israel’s foremost novelists and poets, A B Yehoshua observed ‘even today a real anti-Semite must also be a Zionist.’ Both agree that Jews ‘real home’ is not where they are living but in Israel.

Sacks’s argument, such as it was, was that at a speech in 2013, Corbyn said of a group of British “Zionists”:“They clearly have two problems. One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.”

Sacks then drew the conclusion from these throwaway remarks that Corbyn had threatened ‘the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.’  Now Sacks is an erudite fellow with a clutch of degrees.  For him to make cheap and populist remarks like this, in order to gain the plaudits of the right-wing anti-immigrant British press (and the BBC of course) is a measure of how Zionist intellectuals will prostitute their talents for the sake of Zionism and petty nationalism. This is a measure of how far Zionism will go as it debases the currency of political debate.

Jeremy Corbyn was referring to a couple of far-Right British Zionists not Jews. He never mentioned their religion.  It was entirely irrelevant to him.  The whole of Sack’s intellectual edifice is based on this assumption, an assumption that is the staple diet of Zionism, that being Jewish means being a Zionist.   Corbyn however made his position quite clear.  In a statement to the Guardian  Corbyn said he had used the term Zionists “in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people”. He also added: “I am now more careful with how I might use the term ‘Zionist’ because a once self-identifying political term has been increasingly hijacked by anti-Semites as code for Jews.”  On this Corbyn is wrong  Anti-Semites tend to do this less and less now.  It is Zionists who insist on conflating Jew with Zionist and then drawing the conclusion that to be a Jew is to be a Zionist.

It is not for nothing that the most virulent anti-Semites, like the neo-Nazi founder of America’s alt-Right, Richard Spencer, defines himself as a White Zionist. Nor is Spencer alone.  Think of any major far-Right or neo-Nazi political leader or movement in Europe today and almost without exception they are pro-Israel and pro-Zionist.  Le Pen, Strache, Geert Wilders, Alternative for Germany, Matteo Salvini – today’s far Right are focused on Muslims and in the process they too have become philo-Semitic.

Sacks is one of the few erudite rabbis in Britain, certainly in comparison with his almost embarrassing successor, Ephraim Mirvis.  It is a sad commentary on the corrosive effects of Zionist nationalism that it makes Philistines out of otherwise learned Jews!  Nothing is more contemptible than seeing an intellectual like Jonathan Sacks lower himself in order to make cheap and demagogic points and play to the populist crowd. That is precisely what Enoch Powell, a classics scholar did with his Rivers of Blood speech.  Ironically if anyone resembles Enoch Powell it is Rabbi Jonathan Sacks himself.

Tony Greenstein

Rabbi Sacks, Why Are You Cheerleading for anti-Palestinian Provocateurs?

As a key modern Orthodox leader, think again about joining Jerusalem Day marchers who scream ‘Death to Arabs’, promoting one of the most contentious of all Israeli settlements, and the consequences for Diaspora Jews

Anna Roiser

May 17, 2017 5:07 pm

Growing up in Bnei Akiva in the UK in the 80s and 90s I was entirely ignorant of the occupation. There were no dotted lines on our maps of Israel, no Palestinians seeking self-determination, only millions of hostile Arabs wanting our land. Supporting Israel meant supporting Israel’s control of the whole land; I knew of no other option.

Israeli authorities order Palestinian businesses to close for the Jerusalem Day "March of Flags" through the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem. May 6, 2016 Olivier Fitoussi

Through such education the occupation was normalized for many Orthodox British Jews of my generation. It is common even now in both formal and informal settings to reject the use of that word to describe the situation in the West Bank.

This environment enables Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, member of the House of Lords, a high-profile member of both Yeshiva University and New York University’s faculty, and one of the most eminent modern Orthodox rabbis of his generation, to extend a “personal invitation” to Diaspora Jews to join him on a trip to Israel which includes “leading” the March of the Flags on Jerusalem Day and “dancing with our brave IDF soldiers” in the radical settler enclave inside the city of Hebron. The trip, marking the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, is run by Mizrachi Olami, the parent organisation of Bnei Akiva.

The March of the Flags, which celebrates the reunification of Jerusalem, passes through the Old City’s Damascus Gate in East Jerusalem and proceeds through the Muslim quarter. In his promotional video for the trip Rabbi Sacks quotes Psalms: “Jerusalem is rebuilt like a city that is compact together” and goes on to say, “of course that’s what we see each time we visit Jerusalem today”.

The Israeli authorities enable this wilful blindness to the reality of a divided city by issuing closure orders to Palestinian businesses along the route, and preventing Palestinian residents from being on the streets.

The march, largely attended by bussed in yeshiva students, is associated with hate speech and violence. Haaretz’s Bradley Burston describes it as “an annual, gender-segregated extreme-right, pro-occupation religious carnival of hatred, marking the anniversary of Israel's capture of Jerusalem by humiliating the city's Palestinian Muslims marchers vandalized shops in Jerusalem's Muslim Quarter, chanted "Death to Arabs" and "The (Jewish) Temple Will Be Built, the (Al Aqsa) Mosque will be Burned Down," shattered windows and door locks, and poured glue into the locks of shops forced to close for fear of further damage.” 

On their trip to Hebron, as well as praying at the Cave of the Patriarchs, the group will visit one of the most contentious of all the settlements. It comprises a few hundred Jews in the centre of a city of 150,000 Palestinians, heavily guarded by the Israeli army and causing huge ongoing disruption to the Palestinian population. ‘Dancing with soldiers’ in the streets of this settlement enclave is an unequivocal show of support for the settlers’ presence there, and of disregard to local Palestinians living under a form of perpetual siege.  

Residents clean a Palestinian house that was attacked by Jewish settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron, December 5, 2008.REUTERS

The Western Wall and the Cave of the Patriarchs were inaccessible to Jews between 1948 and 1967. Celebrating renewed Jewish access and praying at these holy places is understandable; however Mizrachi’s planned activities venture beyond celebration into highly contentious territory and provocation, mixing political acts with religious celebrations. The trip aims to tacitly reinforce the same lesson I was taught in my youth: that supporting Israel’s presence in the entire land is an intrinsic and necessary part of supporting Israel.

It is surprising that Rabbi Sacks is promoting this trip. His most recent book, Not in God’s Name, discusses the importance of interpreting religious texts and obligations in a way that is consistent with peace and tolerance. He has earned a reputation for being thoughtful, measured and conciliatory. Last year he won the prestigious Templeton Prize in recognition of his appreciation and respect towards all faiths, for promoting the importance of recognizing the values of each of them, and for his inter-faith work.

In a 2002 interview Rabbi Sacks expressed serious concerns about the occupation, remarks for which he was much criticised by some in the Orthodox community.

For Rabbi Sacks and other religious leaders to endorse the message that to support Israel must require supporting the occupation, and some of its most radical settlers, has serious consequences. Many in the Diaspora accept this message, impeding real dialogue about how we can best support Israel, and about the plurality of views. Others see how Judaism, Zionism and the occupation are being presented as an indivisible whole and reject the former as well as the latter, at great cost to our community.

Jerusalem Day at Damascus Gate in east Jerusalem on May 20, 2012.Olivier Fitoussi

To the wider communities in which we live, the promotion of these events by one of the world’s most respected rabbis sends a message of normalization and acceptance of the occupation by the mainstream Jewish community. Many Jews in the Diaspora work hard to emphasize that being Jewish is not synonymous with supporting the Israeli government, and that supporting Israel’s right to exist is not synonymous with supporting the occupation. Rabbi Sacks’ actions risk undermining these messages.

A group of British Jews currently living in Jerusalem has prepared an open letter  to Rabbi Sacks, expressing our concern at the implications of his trip on Diaspora communities, and asking that he reconsider his involvement in these events. We hope that together we can work towards a more honest dialogue about Israel, one in which we directly engage with the occupation rather than airbrushing it out.

Anna Roiser is a British lawyer and a New Israel Fund New Gen Activism Fellow for 2017/2018 currently living in Jerusalem. Follow her on Twitter: @12AnnaBanana     

Israel youth walk during Jerusalem Day March held by Israeli nationalists that celebrate 48 years for the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, in Jerusalem’s old city, May 17, 2015. The march is termed by the nationalists the Flag March. Activestills.org

Jerusalem Day is approaching, and with it my anxiety. Since I was a young boy, Jerusalem Day, in which Israelis mark what they call the “reunification” of West and East Jerusalem, is a difficult and strange day for me. A day of rage, grief, and lack of security.

In my childhood I witnessed right-wing Israelis violently rampaging through the Old City, and especially in the Muslim Quarter where I lived. These rampaged only intensified over the years, due to the security situation as well as the leniency of the authorities. Those who celebrate Jerusalem Day know full well that these kinds of actions are an outright provocation toward the city’s Muslim inhabitants. This is especially felt in the Muslim Quarter.

Take the day off

The violence usually takes place right under the nose of Israeli security forces. Right-wing extremists provoke us by aggressively banging on our doors and target young Arabs. The reason is simply: they know that the young are easily riled up. And if anyone dare think of responding, we all know who the police will believe. The rampages end with a giant march through Damascus Gate, during which Israelis are accompanied by a large police presence. The truth is they don’t need the police; most of them are armed with automatic rifles, and can eliminate any threat. After all, they already have permission to do so.

My parents would forbid me from leaving the house on Jerusalem Day. They told me that the intense heat could give me heat stroke. I do not know how my mother thought that this was going to convince a child like myself; after all, it was clear to me as a young kid that the weather was perfect for, say, a family outing. I know that there was something wrong with their claim, and the Hebrew songs being sung under our home, along with a dramatic increase in traffic in our neighborhood, was enough of a reason to understand that this was far more serious that a “hot day.” Over time I understood that my family forbade me from going outside because they wanted us to protect our home. It was no coincidence that my father took a day off on Jerusalem Day, spending all day in front of the television and the window with a newspaper and cup of coffee.

Today I try to avoid Jerusalem on this day. I do my best to go places that can help me forget the fact that I live in Jerusalem. Two years ago, I spent the day with a Hebrew book on the beach, reading and translating all the new words I was learning. But now I developed a new habit that has changed my life: I take my computer, go to the beach, and write every thought that comes to mind.

Like a cancer

Israeli policemen arrest as Palestinian youth, outside Jerusalem’s old city, as Palestinians protest against the flags march, May 17, 2015. The march marks 48 years for the occupation of East Jerusalem.

I know that the demonstrations, the racist marches, the anti-Arab slogans (“Jews have a soul, Arabs are sons of bitches”) will never end on this day. The police is not interested in confronting the extremists, meanwhile the government doesn’t want to be seen as sympathetic to Arabs. Thus, no one takes any proactive steps to stop the incitement, which only causes the situation to worsen. In fact, at the end of Jerusalem Day, the police set up a giant, blue human wall to prevent confrontations between Palestinian residents and the celebrants, who paralyze an entire city to celebrate this day.
On Jerusalem Day, you will be able to hear politicians on both the right and the left who pretend to celebrate this day, emphasizing that Jerusalem is a special city, despite those who don’t see it as a unified city. I, on the other hand, invite all these politicians to take a short tour of Jerusalem to show them the obvious: that Jerusalem is not unified — it is shattered to pieces. One side enjoys modernization, while the other is the victim of deliberate policies of neglect, poverty, and crime that take over the Arab neighborhoods like a cancer in the body.

Suleiman Maswadeh is an activist who studies political science and communications. This article was originally published in Hebrew on Local Call.

Why Rabbi Sacks Is Wrong: Palestinians Don’t Have to Be anti-Semites to Be anti-Zionists

The former British chief rabbi is a wise and brilliant man, but his recent essay does to Palestinians what anti-Semitism does to Jews: it dehumanizes them.

Peter Beinart

Apr 06, 2016 1:46 PM

I often meet Jonathan Sacks, the former British chief rabbi, for lunch. He just doesn’t know it.  

I eat at my desk while watching one of his ten-minute lectures on the weekly Parsha on YouTube. Sacks’ erudition—not just about Jewish texts but also about Western history, philosophy and literature—is extraordinary. Once, sitting in a synagogue in London, I came across an essay in which he employed the African-American scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr’s work on Br’er Rabbit, the wily trickster from Southern folk tales, to understand the Biblical Jacob. I was amazed. How many Orthodox rabbis read African-American literary criticism? And even if they did, how many would dare use it to analyze one of the Patriarchs?

Like many English-speaking Jews, I owe Sacks a debt. I daven from his siddur. I’ve led Seders from his Haggadah. He’s a wise and brilliant man. Which is why his recent essay declaring that, “Anti-Zionism is the new Anti-Semitism,” is so disappointing.

   

In it, Sacks argues that anti-Semitism is “a virus that survives by mutating.” In every age, it latches on “to the highest source of authority available within the culture. In the Middle Ages, it was religion. In post-Enlightenment Europe it was science. Today it is human rights.” Thus, Sacks argues, today’s anti-Zionism—which on human rights grounds challenges not merely Israel’s policies, but its very existence as a Jewish state—is merely anti-Semitism in a new guise.

It’s an elegant formulation. But there’s a problem. The claim that medieval Jews deserved blame for the murder of Christ, or that nineteenth century Jews were genetically inferior, had no rational basis. To believe it, you had to be an anti-Semite. It’s not irrational, however, to believe that Israel is seriously abusing Palestinian human rights. Anti-Semites may exploit those abuses to vilify Jews. But you don’t have to be anti-Semite to find them profoundly troubling. In the film The Gatekeepers, one former Shin Bet head, Avraham Shalom, says that in the West Bank, Israel has become “a brutal occupation force.” Another, Carmi Gillon, says “We are making the lives of millions unbearable.” There’s no place in Sacks’ historical schema for them.

Sacks dismisses Israeli human rights abuses in one phrase: Israel is “the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East with a free press and independent judiciary.” But in the West Bank, Israel is none of those things. The vast majority of people in the West Bank are Palestinians who cannot vote for the state that controls their lives. They are not citizens of the country in which they live. Their Jewish neighbors enjoy a free press and an independent judiciary. But West Bank Palestinians live under military law, which, among other things, forbids ten or more of them from gathering for a political purpose without prior approval from the Israeli military, even if they gather in someone’s home.  

In his essay, Sacks only mentions the word “Palestinians” once. But it’s impossible to understand contemporary anti-Zionism without them. Palestinians didn’t become anti-Zionists because they needed a rationale for hating Jews and found the old ones outdated. They become anti-Zionists because their experience with Zionism was extremely rough.  

In the early twentieth century, Palestinians constituted the vast majority of people in British mandatory Palestine. Like colonized peoples around the world, they began developing a national consciousness and a national movement aimed at securing their independence. As Jews began migrating to Palestine in large numbers, the Zionist movement—which sought a Jewish state—became an obstacle to their national desires.  

Yes, Palestinian nationalists made mistakes (for instance, their rejection of the 1947 partition plan) and committed crimes (for instance, the 1929 Hebron massacre). But you don’t have to consider Palestinians blameless to understand why they might view Zionism in a negative light. After all, it was a Zionist army that displaced roughly 700,000 Palestinians between 1947 and 1949 and would not let them return. A Zionist army controls the Palestinians who live without basic rights in the West Bank. A Zionist army oversees Israel’s partial blockade of the Gaza Strip.   

Some Palestinians accept the two state solution on pragmatic grounds. But the vast, vast majority of Palestinians are anti-Zionist. Even most Palestinian citizens of Israel (often called “Arab Israelis”) vote for parties that seek to turn Israel into something other than a Jewish state. 

The growing anti-Zionism that Sacks decries is a Palestinian export. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement began with a call from Palestinian civil society groups in 2005. Since then, BDS—and the anti-Zionism that undergirds it—has grown in direct proportion to Israeli policy. When Zionism, as practiced by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, means entrenching Israel’s undemocratic control over millions of stateless Palestinians in the West Bank, converting people to anti-Zionism becomes easier. As BDS leader Omar Barghouti declared in 2014, “We’ve got to give credit to Netanyahu. Without him we could not have reached this far.”  

Yes, some anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. And yes, of course, some Palestinian anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. But equating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism means claiming that virtually all Palestinians are anti-Semites, even Palestinians like Knesset Member Ayman Oudeh, whose political party, Hadash, includes Jews, or intellectuals like Ahmad Khalidi and commentators like Rula Jebreal, who have Jewish spouses.  

Equating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism turns Palestinians into Amalekites. By denying that they might have any reason besides bigotry to dislike Zionism, it denies their historical experience and turns them into mere vessels for Jew-hatred. Thus, it does to Palestinians what anti-Semitism does to Jews. It dehumanizes them.   

Like Sacks, I am a Zionist. Like him, I oppose the BDS movement. But one can be a Zionist, and celebrate the miraculous rebirth of Jewish statehood in the land of Israel, yet also recognize why Palestinians—even Palestinians who don’t hate Jews—might see our blessing as their curse. One might even call that recognition, to borrow the words of a great man, the “dignity of difference.”