Labour MEPs Join With UKIP, the Front National and assorted Racists and Fascists in opposition to ‘Anti-Semitism’

Open Letter to New Labour's Anneliese Dodds MEP Does Europe's Far-Right really opposes racism?

In Israel - relationships between Arabs and Jews are condemned by all Zionist parties

 It's not a good idea to underestimate the stupidity of Labour MEPs and what passes for social democracy these days.  However the decision to support the bogus International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism alongside nearly all of Europe's far-Right parties, marks a new low, even for people like Dodds.

Last Wednesday a motion on Combating Anti-Semitism was tabled at the European Parliament.  Naturally all good men and true are against anti-Semitism and indeed all forms of racism.  That was why Hungary's Jobbik and Greece's neo-Nazi Golden Dawn parties opposed the resolution.

UKIP - like most racists and anti-Semites they support Zionism

However part of this motion, Clause C2, called on Member States and EU Institutions and Agencies to adopt and apply the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

Readers of this blog will know that the IHRA is a bogus definition of anti-Semitism whose only purpose is to conflate and confuse anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, [see Bogus Definition of Anti-Semitism Suffers Its First Defeat at the University Colleges Union Conference].

I therefore wrote to the only Labour MEP in the South East, Anneliese Dodds, to ask her not to vote alongside an assortment of reactionaries and racists to ‘oppose’ the Zionist definition of anti-Semitism.

Very kindly, Ms Dodds replied almost immediately.  She didn’t agree with me but, I thought, at least she took the time and trouble to respond.  Imagine my surprise when a friend up north received an identical response from Labour’s North East EU office!  Leaving aside coincidence, it would seem that Ms Dodds in incapable of explaining, in her own words, how she voted last Wednesday. 

Of course I expect no better from a brain dead New Labour MEP however that didn’t deter me from responding to ‘her’ letter.

Empty headed - Anneliese Dodds - New Labour MEP for South-East

Letter to Anneliese Dodds, Labour MEP for the South-East

Dear Anneliese

When I received your email last Sunday, explaining why you were going to vote to support the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, I was of course disappointed that you didn’t engage with my arguments. However I accepted that there will always be times when socialists, if that is not too strong a word for you, disagree.

You will therefore imagine my surprise when a friend received an identical letter, from Jude and Paul at the North East Labour Office. I realise that brilliant (& stupid) minds work alike, but this was, as I am sure you will agree, a coincidence too far.  It would seem that you are either incapable of or unwilling to defend your decision to vote against deleting Clause C2 of the motion, which included the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.  I would be interested to know whether it is normal practice for you to rely on a letter written by others when you correspond with your electorate and whether you inform correspondents that the letter is not in fact your own?

The Islamaphobic Danish People's supported the IHRA

You will I am sure understand why I am copying this letter to other people as it demonstrates your lack of integrity and dishonesty in passing a standard letter as your own.  You will I am sure understand why I will pass up your offer to subscribe to your newsletter since it is probably written by someone else anyway.

You state that the EU Parliament resolution on Fighting Antisemitism calls for a working definition of antisemitism.  Why is this a problem? Anti-Semitism is quite a simple concept.  Most people have no problem understanding what anti-Semitism is.  Anti-semitism is hostility or hatred directed against Jews as Jews.  

Dr Brian Klug of Oxford University, an academic expert on anti-Semitism drew up an equally simple definition of anti-Semitism.  In his lecture ‘What Do We Mean When We Say ‘Antisemitsm’? Echoes of shattering glass’ given at the Conference “Antisemitism in Europe Today: the Phenomena, the Conflicts” held on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, at the Jewish Museum, Berlin in 2014, Klug came up with a 20 word definition of anti-Semitism: Anti-Semitism is:

‘a form of hostility towards Jews as Jews, in which Jews are perceived as something other than what they are  

This is 20 words in total. You say the development of the IHRA definition is a ‘tool to help practitioners and law enforcement officers to identify antisemitic incidents.’   I fail to understand how a ‘definition’ of some 420 words can be of greater use than a simple 20 word definition in helping law enforcement. What are they supposed to do before arresting someone? Write a thesis?

There is one and only one reason why the IHRA is 420 words long and that is because its main purpose is to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is no coincidence that the IHRA definition contains 11 ‘examples’ of anti-Semitism of which 7 are directly concerned with criticism of Israel and/or Zionism.

One such example is ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’  Hannah Arendt in her book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’ drew attention to the fact that Jews and non-Jews cannot marry in Israel.  In Israel, relationships between Jews and Arabs are actively discouraged because in a society based on Jewish racial supremacy, intermarriage threatens the established social and racial order.  Hence was why the Education Ministry banned from the high school syllabus Dorit Rabinyan's book Borderlife, which portrayed a relationship between Arab and Jewish teenagers.  Israel Bans Novel on Arab-Jewish Romance From Schools for 'Threatening Jewish Identity'

Arendt compared this situation to the Nazis' Nuremburg laws.  But according to this idiotic definition of anti-Semitism, the greatest Jewish political philosopher of the 20^th century, herself a refugee from Nazi Germany, is anti-Semitic.  There are plenty of other comparisons between Israel and the Nazis prior to 1941, e.g. segregation of education, housing, social amenities etc.

Another, equally fatuous example of ‘anti-Semitism’ is ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’  I agree this is terrible but Zionist organisations continually say that Israel is the embodiment of modern Jewish identity.  If that is the case then clearly Jews are responsible for Israel's actions.

In an article for the Telegraph the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis held that ‘One can no more separate it [Zionism] from Judaism than separate the City of London from Great Britain.’  He is wrong, there is a very clear distinction between the two but is it really the case that the Chief Rabbi of British Jewry is an anti-Semite?  Surely that is a bit strong?

You, or rather your ghost writer also state that the IHRA definition is not legally binding.  Perhaps this is true at the moment, but its adoption by the European Parliament makes it one step nearer to it becoming legally binding.  There is already a clear attempt, along the lines of what has already happened in France, to make Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel illegal.  

If Israel's supporters have their way then the tactics used successfully against Apartheid South Africa will be rendered illegal if used against Apartheid Israel.  What you are doing is supporting a form of McCarthyism in which legitimate free speech and solidarity action is outlawed.

However I forgot the clinching argument in your email. Apparently ‘the definition specifically states that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’  One of the problems of having others do your writing and thinking is that you end up putting your trust in spin doctors and other varieties of the common fool. 

If you had bothered to actually read the IHRA definition you would know that it doesn’t say that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.  If that were the case then why does the IHRA give examples of where criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic?  

What the IHRA does say is that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’  In other words you can’t criticise Israel unless you criticise other countries in the same way. 

Or as the Parliamentary Select Committee Report on Anti-Semitism stated: 

‘Israel is an ally of the UK Government and is generally regarded as a liberal democracy,... It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies.' [Paras. 23 and 24]

In other words, if you criticise the world's only Apartheid state, a state which defines itself as a Jewish state, a state not of its own citizens but Jews worldwide, then that is according to the IHRA anti-Semitic.  Anyone with an ounce of grey matter will immediately recognise that the IHRA definition has nothing to do with the popular perception of anti-Semitism, i.e. hatred, violence or discrimination against Jews.  Its purpose is to protect Israel, the West’s main ally in the Middle East.

How can criticism of Israel be similar to that against other countries when Israel is unlike any other country?  Perhaps you can name any other country which deliberately sought to engineer the ethnic composition of its population by expelling 80% of the people living there, in this case the Palestinians?  Or a country which has ruled over 3 million residents for 50 years without giving them any civil or political rights and which characterises all opposition as ‘terrorism’?  A state which has two separate legal systems operating in the West Bank – one for non-Jewish Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers.  This is the quintessential definition of Apartheid as even John Kerry all but admitted last year.

The third paragraph of ‘your’ letter is tautological and engages in a circular argument.  You say that ‘The IHRA definition does not ... limit freedom of expression. This is because the definition is not legally binding and because it specifically states that criticism of Israel as such cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’  I have already dispensed with the latter point.  The fact that the definition is not, at the moment, legally binding, does not prevent it from being part of a well funded and well organised attempt to inhibit freedom of speech. 

The rest of your letter is an example of verbal incontinence.  I would suggest that if you are seriously interested in combating anti-Semitism as opposed to acting on behalf of the Israeli Embassy, then you read the article in May’s London Review of Books by Sir Stephen Sedley entitled ‘Defining Anti-Semitism’.  You might then understand exactly what it is you have voted for and why crying wolf over anti-Semitism, is the best way of giving succour and support to genuine anti-Semites.  The article begins:

Shorn of philosophical and political refinements, anti-Semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews. Where it manifests itself in discriminatory acts or inflammatory speech it is generally illegal, lying beyond the bounds of freedom of speech and of action. By contrast, criticism (and equally defence) of Israel or of Zionism is not only generally lawful: it is affirmatively protected by law. Endeavours to conflate the two by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new. What is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour Party) of a definition of anti-Semitism which endorses the conflation.

You might also want to read the Opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC re the IHRA where he states:

21.      In my view any public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to decisions concerning the prohibition or sanctioning of activity which was critical of the State or Government of Israel would be acting unlawfully if it did not require such activity also to manifest or incite hatred or intolerance towards Jews.  If an authority applied the IHRA Definition without such a requirement it would be in  breach of  Article 10 of the Convention and would,  therefore,  be acting unlawfully under domestic law in the United Kingdom.

Voting Alongside an Assortment of Racists and Fascists

The breakdown of the vote last Wednesday in support of Clause C2 of the anti-Semitism resolution is very interesting.  

All the members of that well known anti-racist party UKIP voted to support the IHRA.  

The far-Right European and Conservative Reform Group voted by 57-4 to support the IHRA.  This included the racist and anti-Semitic Polish Law and Justice Party.  Perhaps you don’t remember when David Miliband, as Foreign Secretary in 2009 , ‘tore into the Waffen-SS sympathisers in the Latvian party Cameron had also embraced.’ Is Michal Kaminski fit to lead the Tories in Europe?

Robert Ziles of the Latvian LNNK - loves Israel and loves anti-Semitism

Miliband was referring to Robert Ziles, of the Latvian LNNK, who last Wednesday voted like you to support the IHRA.  Ziles likes to spend a weekend in March paying tribute to Latvian members of the Waffen SS and marching with them.  Ziles too apparently condemns 'anti-Semitism'.

Amongst other supporters of the IHRA were Le Pen’s Europe of Freedom & Direct Democracy Group, which voted by 25-5 to support the IHRA.  All members of the Front National and Herr Strache’s Austrian Freedom Party (formed as a neo-Nazi party) voted to support the IHRA.

Victor Orban's Fidesz hates refugees, loves Hungary's war time Nazi collaborators but supports the IHRA

We should not, of course, forget that other well-known anti-racist party, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz, which apart from its enlightened policies when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers smiles benignly on the growing rehabilitation of Admiral Horthy, the ruler of Hungary under the Nazis from March 19^th until July 7^th when some 437,000 Jews were deported to Auschwitz.  Fidesz has openly tolerated and played along with anti-Semitism in Hungary yet 10 of its MEPs had no hesitation in voting in favour of the IHRA.

Perhaps I could refer you to an article by Randolf Braham, the historian of the Hungarian Holocaust, The Reinterment and Political Rehabilitation of Miklós Horthy

As Donald Trump has demonstrated, White Supremacists like Donald Trump's Strategic Advisor, Steve Bannon and Breitbart News demonstrates, support for Zionism and Israel goes hand in hand with anti-Semitism.  After all if you don't want Jews in your own country why not support their removal to the 'Jewish' state of Israel.  

I guess congratulations are in order for having voted alongside almost all the racists and anti-Semites in the European Parliament in support of a Zionist definition of anti-Semitism. 

Given all these allies that you have made in the fight against ‘anti-Semitism’ have you ever considered forming another parliamentary group, ‘Anti-Semites against ‘anti-Semitism’?  

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein

 Letter from Ms Dodds and others in Defence of Their Vote to Support the IHRA

Sunday 28 May 2017

Dear Tony,

Thank you for your email concerning the European Parliament's Resolution on Fighting Antisemitism. This Resolution is intended to contribute to countering the rise in antisemitic attacks in the EU. It calls for a working definition of antisemitism, promotes the security of Jewish communities, and calls for the appointment of special envoys and all-parliamentary groups on fighting antisemitism.

The Resolution calls for the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This definition is not legally binding and serves as a tool to help practitioners and law enforcement officers to identify antisemitic incidents. The definition specifically states that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

We acknowledge concerns regarding freedom of speech and would not accept any attempt to equate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. The IHRA definition does not do this, nor does it limit freedom of expression. This is because the definition is not legally binding and because it specifically states that criticism of Israel as such cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The definition was adopted by the UK Government with the support of the Labour party in December 2016.

Labour MEPs support the European Parliament's resolution as it is an important measure to counter the rise in antisemitic attacks in the EU. Language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews is antisemitism, and is as repugnant and unacceptable as any other form of racism. This Resolution condemns this and calls on EU Member States to take further action to actively protect Jewish communities.

Labour MEPs will continue to raise these concerns and monitor the definition in practice.

Thanks again for getting in touch; If you are interested in keeping updated on my work, both here in the South East and in the European Parliament, you can sign-up for my report back e-newsletter here http://www.AnnelieseDoddsMEP.uk/e_newsletter

Yours sincerely

Anneliese Dodds MEP

Fascist Leader Attacks Boycott of Israel

What a surprise.  First the Hitler loving leader of Christians United 4 Israel, John Hagee, hates BDS and then the leader of the French fascist party, Marine Le Pen adds her weight to the call.

Fascist Le Pen Opposes BDS

Marine Le Pen has had a little local difficulty in recent months.  She has been trying to clean up her act and pretend that the French FN are no longer anti-Semitic.  Gone are the days when her pater would talk about the gas chambers as being a ‘mere detail’ of history.  Unfortunately Jean Marie le Pen  found it difficult to keep his mouth closed, with the result that he was barred from the headquarters and expelled, only to be reinstated by a French court.

Marine's old dad, Jean, is angry that he has brought up his daughter to be a good anti-Semite and now she's pretending that she loves Jews

Marine has been trying to convince people that though the FN hates Muslims and Blacks it loves Jews.  True there are a few Jewish idiots who accept this nonsense and focus their attacks on French muslims.  But anyone with a few grey cells can see through what is happening.  After all it’s pretty transparent,.  Racists change their targets but their principles never change.

Tony Greenstein

French far-right leader slams BDS to woo Israel lobby

Ali Abunimah 14 July 2015

Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s far right Front National party. (Rémi Noyon/Flickr)

French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen is attempting to win the favor of Israel lobby groups for her far-right Front National party.

Trying to bury the National Front's   anti-semitic legacy

According to the website of the pro-Israel group Europe-Israël, Le Pen told the founder of the European Jewish Parliament, a communal organization based in Brussels, that “anti-Semitism has no place in the Front National.”

Enough to make a fascist wince

Le Pen also reportedly told Ukrainian oligarch Vadim Rabinovich at their meeting in the French city of Strasbourg that “she would not accept Front National members who have anti-Semitic opinions” or “who support a boycott of Israel.”

The far-right leader reportedly characterized the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement in support of Palestinian rights as “racist.”

Le Pen’s conflation of anti-Semitism, of which her party has a long and notorious tradition, on the one hand, and Palestine solidarity activism, on the other, converges with the strategy being pushed by the Socialist administration of President François Hollande.

Why we need BDS

The Front National’s anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim invective are increasingly in tune with mainstream French xenophobia, especially in the wake of the murders at the anti-Muslim magazine Charlie Hebdo and at a Jewish supermarket in Paris in January.

In the US, there is nothing new in prominent pro-Israel figures, such as Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman, pursuing alliances with notorious anti-Semites and Islamophobes for the sake of Israel.

Omar Barghouti - one of the principal supporters of BDS in Israel

But in France, the Front National remains saddled with its history of Holocaust denial and of promoting hatred and suspicion of Jews.

Seeking the endorsement of Israel lobby groups is therefore a shrewd way for Le Pen to try to shed that baggage. In that vein, we can expect that the BDS movement will be an increasingly popular target for ambitious French politicians, just as it is for American ones.

Earlier this month, for instance, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton assured Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban of her determination to fight BDS.

Family feud

The meeting also comes amid a bitter family feud between Marine Le Pen and her father, Front National founder Jean-Marie Le Pen. The party has moved to expel the elder Le Pen and strip him of his title of “honorary president.”

At issue is Jean-Marie Le Pen’s off-message comments minimizing the Holocaust, praising France’s wartime collaborationist Vichy regime and referring to Nazi death camps as a mere “detail” of the Second World War.

Earlier this month, a French court overturned a party ballot to dump him, ensuring that embarrassing litigation will persist in the run-up to the 2017 presidential election.

Flirtation

Marine Le Pen’s comments can be seen as a reciprocation of recent flirtations with her party by certain Israel lobby figures.

In February, Roger Cukierman, president of CRIF, the main pro-Israel umbrella group of Jewish communal organizations in France, raised eyebrows when he appeared to bless the Front National leader.

He acknowledged in a radio interview that the Front National was starting to draw Jewish voters, but said it was a very small minority.

“I think we in the Jewish world are all aware that behind Marine Le Pen, who is personally beyond criticism, there are many Holocaust deniers [and] supporters of the Vichy regime,” Cukierman said, “and therefore for us the Front National is a party to avoid.”

Cukierman’s apparent praise of Le Pen, and his attempt to distinguish her from the rest of her party, drew a sharp rebuke from Serge Klarsfeld, the French attorney and activist whose father was murdered by the Nazis at Auschwitz.

Splits

Similarly, Le Pen’s meeting with European Jewish Parliament founder Vadim Rabinovich has highlighted disagreements among some pro-Israel groups.

“She is not her father,” Rabinovich told JTA of Marine Le Pen. “We have had a constructive dialogue where we accepted the need to combat anti-Semitism, and I believe she is sincere about this.”

But Europe-Israël President Jean-Marc Moskowicz resigned from the European Jewish Parliament in protest over the meeting, stating that it was “not the role of the European Jewish Parliament to interfere in the relationship between French political parties and the Jewish community of France.”

Moskowicz, however, does not seem to oppose meeting Le Pen in principle. Rather, he objected on foreign policy grounds, including that “the party of Ms. Le Pen is still unclear regarding Israel.”

He cited statements of Le Pen deputy Florian Philippot “in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state without negotiations with Israel.”

Calling the meeting “more than premature,” Moskowicz said it “would have been better to wait for Marine Le Pen to take positions in support of Israel, against anti-Semitism and to fight the boycott, which she has not done for the moment.”

The implication seems to be that if Le Pen affirms pro-Israel and anti-BDS positions as a matter of party policy, Europe-Israël too might be ready to give her a second look.

Divide and rule

Le Pen’s comments underline the advantage French politicians – even those who head notoriously anti-Semitic parties – see in posing as champions in the fight against anti-Semitism.

But the approach they are taking may only deepen divisions in French society, rather than effectively addressing the problem, according to Parti des Indigènes de la République (PIR).

PIR – the Party of the Indigenous Persons of the Republic – is an anti-racist and decolonial political collective that says that Black people, Arabs and Muslims still occupy an inferior place in contemporary France, just as they did in French colonies.

In March, PIR took aim at what it called “state racism” and “state philo-Semitism” that pit Jews against other segments of French society under the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.

“It is true that traditional anti-Semitism exists in France, fueled by the far-right,” PIR observes. “But there is no state anti-Semitism. Jews are not discriminated against in housing or employment, are not harassed by the police and are not subjected to large-scale anti-Semitic propaganda in national media.”

This contrasts with the condition of millions of French citizens and immigrants of Arab and African ancestry or Muslim faith.

But, PIR warns:

There is a state policy, rooted in colonial history, that is being reactivated in light of contemporary issues. This policy is based on the preferential treatment given to the fight against anti-Semitism as against other racisms. This is helping to deepen the tensions between different segments of French society, exposing Jews to the condemnation of the most disadvantaged in the hierarchy of racisms. Based on this logic, we see a racist offensive against young indigenes [people of Arab and African ancestry or Muslim religion], accusing them of being the vector of a new anti-Semitism. [The state] claims to be the protector of the Jews, all the while using them … as a baseball bat to hit Blacks and Arabs.

Since the January attacks in Paris, there has been a big leap in Islamophobic attacks in France, but little government effort to fight the phenomenon.

Many critics accuse the government itself of stigmatizing young Muslims in its fight against “radicalization.”

There has been a fivefold increase in physical attacks against persons and numerous acts of vandalism against mosques, according to a recent report from the nonprofit group Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France (Collective Against Islamophobia in France).

In June, French interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve admitted that the number of anti-Muslim acts “is certainly underestimated because too many victims are reluctant to report them,” fearing that they would not be believed or that nothing would be done.

By contrast, President François Hollande, announcing a raft of new laws and policies aimed at fighting anti-Semitism, stated in February that anti-Jewish statements online should be treated with the same severity as child pornography.

According to PIR, this differential approach is being supported by pro-Israel organizations in the Jewish community – with the effect of further conflating Judaism and Jews, on the one hand, with Israel and Zionism, on the other.

In an expansive essay, PIR’s Houria Bouteldja writes:

Those who use the Jews for Israeli interests are indeed Zionist organizations in complicity with Official France, which attends the CRIF dinner every year and makes Zionist organizations its privileged interlocutors. This attitude of French rulers has been denounced by Jewish organizations – UFJP [French Jewish Union for Peace], IJAN [International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network] and Another Jewish Voice, who rightly see the danger for Jews all over the world. It is important to note that these activists, who previously claimed internationalist and class identities, now feel obliged to identify as Jews to distinguish themselves from those who are confiscating Jewishness for political ends.

Among those now joining in – with the apparent collusion of at least a few pro-Israel activists – is one of France’s most pernicious organizations: the Front National.

For Bouteldja, the message of recent political developments in France is clear: “If one is clearly anti-racist, and worried about the rise of the extreme right that will target first and foremost the populations of the [predominantly Arab and Black] neighborhoods; and if one is concerned about Jews who have become targets of terrorist groups, one must have the courage to attack the current forms of state racism: Islamophobia, anti-Blackness and Romaniphobia, as well as state philo-Semitism, which is a subtle and sophisticated form of anti-Semitism of the nation-state.”