EXCLUSIVE: ‘Anti-Semitism Czar’ John Mann declares war on The Canary and Skwawkbox –in the name of fighting ‘anti-Semitism’!

When Theresa May appointed John Mann to lead the fight against ‘anti-Semitism’ it was a case of one racist appointing another racist

Perhaps the best description of John Mann came from the Employment Tribunal case of Fraser –v- University College Union. This was a case brought by a Zionist  academic, Ronnie Fraser against his own trade union, UCU, for anti-Semitism. UCU’s offence was supporting the Boycott of Israel. Their judgment (paragraph 148) concerning Mann’s evidence was that:

Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance [the MacPherson Report]. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to antiSemitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

The Jewish Chronicle, of all papers, accuses the alternative media of 'fuelling' the fake antisemitism crisis. It is such a clear and blatant attempt at censorship that all comment is superfluous

None of this stopped Theresa May, back in July 2019, appointing John Mann MP as her advisor on ‘anti-Semitism’. As his parting shot Mann launched an attack on Jeremy Corbyn for having given the ‘green light’ to anti-Semites.

“Every time I go into a meeting with a group of Jewish people, I wince when they raise the issue of the Labour party and Corbyn. It is impossible to overstate the anger that I have about that. He has not just hijacked my political party – he has hijacked its soul and its ethics. I will never forgive him for that.”

When John Mann talks about ‘ethics’  I feel like reaching for my gun, to quote Goebbels. Mann has about as much acquaintance with ethics as a mafia chief.

Mann's racist handbook which he has never explained

You might therefore be forgiven for thinking that during John Mann’s 18 years in parliament that he was a vociferous opponent of racism in all its forms. If so then I’m afraid you will be disappointed. There was no greater parliamentary racist than Mann. A bigot for all seasons.

Mann was one of the few Labour supporters of Brexit in Parliament. Brexit, which was motivated at its core, by fear and hostility to migrants and dreams of an independent ‘Great’ Britain of Empire past, was at one with the rest of Mann’s toxic views.

John Mann, throughout his time in parliament, has also been distinguished for his pro-war record, voting in support of the Iraq war in March 2003.

Racist Labour MP, Phil Woolas was backed to the hilt by Mann

Not once did Mann speak out against New Labour’s demonisation of refugees and asylum seekers. When the racist Labour MP Phil Woolas was ejected by an Election Court from the House of Commons for having lied about his Lib Dem opponent at the 2010 General Election, he had no greater supporter than John Mann.

Mann was described by the Guardian as Woolas’s “best friend, best man and political ally since the first day at Manchester University”. Woolas, he said, was “never reckless and never thoughtless”.

A thuggish John Mann screamed at Ken Livingstone that he was a 'Nazi apologist' for having mentioned the truth about the Zionist relationship with the Nazis

When Harriet Harman, the acting Labour leader suspended Woolas from the Labour Party after he had been convicted of lying, she faced “a backbench revolt” There were calls for her resignation

Among those to have spoken out in support of Woolas was John Mann, a close friend of his. (UPDATE: Although I should make clear that he was in Canada at the time and has been backing Woolas via telephone calls with a journalist at the Guardian).

Mann was quoted as saying that Woolas’s ejection:

has got profound implications for British democracy. The idea that a judge rather than the electorate can remove an MP is farcical". Woolas's is the first case of an MP being disbarred by the courts for malpractice since 1911.

Let us remember that Woolas did not just lie when he alleged that his opponent supported violent Muslim Jihadists but he deliberately sought to stir up a white working class vote by demonising Muslims by as terrorists and violent jihadists. A decision was taken by his campaign:

to 'make the white folk angry' by depicting an alleged campaign by those who they described generically as Asians to 'take Phil out' and then present Mr Watkins as in league with them.

When it came to the 2014 Immigration Act, which enacted the ‘hostile environment’ policy which led to the Windrush Scandal, Mann abstained, which in parliamentary terms is the equivalent of supporting the government of the day.

In 2007 Mann produced ‘the Bassetlaw Anti Social Behaviour Handbook. It told local residents how to deal with problems of anti-social behaviour. Included amongst those problems were Gypsies and Travellers. It said:

This handbook is designed to help you deal with problems you may face in your street or in your community. There are lots of different types of anti-social behaviour, including vandalism, abuse, noisy neighbours and fireworks.

Amongst these examples were to be found Travellers. Mann’s advice was

The police have powers to remove any gypsies or travellers, and have powers to direct people to leave the land and remove any vehicles or property they have with them

John Mann who lives off the holocaust and anti-semitism attacked the Gypsies in the same way as the Nazis

In 2016 Mann was interviewed by Police in connection with this pamphlet.  Gypsies are protected from racial discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. 

Ben Bennett, a 13 year old Traveller, who made a complaint to the Police, told Skwawkbox that Mann’s pamphlet made him feel

‘very upset’. I can’t understand why John Mann MP would choose to talk solely about my community in such a derogatory manner.’

The Jewish Chronicle campaigns for a State attack on The Canary and Skwawkbox and anyone who challenges the mainstream media

If Mann was sincere in his opposition to anti-Semitism then his remarks are incomprehensible. We hear a lot about how 6 million Jews died in the Jewish holocaust but little about how between half and one and a half million Gypsies were also exterminated by the Nazis in the Porajmos. They were called a criminal and asocial elements. Precisely what Mann called them in his pamphlet.

It is no surprise that Theresa May, the author of the ‘hostile environment’ policy, should embrace a fellow bigot.

Nor is it surprising that Boris Johnson, who is notorious for his racist including anti-Semitic comments, upgraded Mann’s role to become ‘anti-Semitism Czar’, elevating him to the Lords. It is a rather unfortunate title as the Czars were infamous for their anti-Semitism. Still, on reflection, the title seems apt.

Mann made his intentions known from the start.  He was going to concentrate on the Left press. You might think that someone genuinely concerned with racism would focus on the Daily Mail, Sun, Express etc. However Mann’s targets are the alternative media such as the Canary and Skwawkbox.

Editor Stephen Pollard has a policy of inventing news where it is politically convenient

In an article Report: Corbynite sites feature far-right tropes by ‘Liar’ Lee Harpin, whose inaccuracies have cost the Jewish Chronicle a small fortune in libel damages, the Skwawkbox and The Canary are accused of a “heavily negative coverage of Jewish issues” to audiences that are “associated with antisemitism”. We are told that there are ‘parallels between editorial lines taken by the two sites and that of the extreme far-right online outlet Radio Albion.’

Note ‘editorial lines’ not actual content.  So if, for their own reasons, fascists oppose a war abroad then if the left press oppose those wars they are likewise fascists. This is the reasoning applied throughout the report.

What are ‘Jewish issues.’ We are not told but we can guess. Palestine and Israel/Zionism. The same Israeli state which has just been condemned as an Apartheid state by the country’s main human rights group, Btselem.

What Mann is engaging in is a crude form of guilt-by-association. Mann has learnt well from Joe McCarthy. If you want a text-book lesson in how to corrupt the English language, take the paragraph below which equates The Canary and Skwawkbox on the basis of a supposed opposition to fascism. In fact fascists have never opposed capitalism. Of course they pretend to oppose capitalism. The Nazis called themselves ‘national socialists’ yet the first thing they did when they gained power was to put socialists and communists in concentration camps.

“despite the huge differences in the beliefs that are most foundational to their ideologies, articles published on all three sites share an opposition to capitalism, globalisation, and liberalism, adopt similar positions on many questions of foreign policy, and fulminate against a supposed adversary whose Jewishness is extensively highlighted (even if in different ways).

So even though Mann is forced to concede ‘huge differences’ in their ideology, i.e. the Skwawkbox and The Canary are anti-racist unlike fascist sites,  Mann draws an equals sign between them.

How does Mann’s Report explain the pro-Zionist stance of TR (Tommy Robinson)? 

‘TR News, the official website of far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, popularly known as Tommy Robinson, has intentionally attempted to take the side of Jews and Israel, 

Perhaps that’s because Robinson is an openly declared Zionist, like much of the far-Right today? Mann’s polemics actually have a lot in common with Nazi propaganda, which also sought to portray opposites as being the same e.g. when they equated capitalism and communism, both of which were controlled by the Jews.

TR News has resorted to defending those Muslims who were seen to embrace pro-Western right-wing ideology, the two left-wing websites sought to declare allegiance with the minority of Jews who supported their own viewpoint.

In other words pro-fascist Black and Asian people, such as the racist supporters of India’s BJP government are no different from anti-Zionist Jews who oppose all forms of racism. This is the kind of intellectual sleight of hand that Mann has made into a fine art.

The ‘research’ for Mann’s Report was carried out by Daniel Allington, Senior Lecturer at King’s College London, and Tanvi Joshi. They selected the 20 most recent articles on each site that featured the words ‘Jew’ or ‘Zionist’ for analysis. Perhaps it did not occurred to Mann that what fascists mean by ‘Zionist’ might differ from what socialists mean and therefore his whole matrix isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The whole Report is based on the assumption that ‘Jew’ = ‘Zionist’.

Dr. Allington is the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s favourite academic. His research is deliberately tailored to achieve the results he wants. He basically reaches the conclusion first and then reverse engineers his research! This work is wholly bogus and contrived. 

Together with Zionist academic David Hirsh he devised a Generalised Anti-Semitism Barometer for the CAA which found that anti-Semitism was more prevalent on the Left than the Right. Of course the Zionist and Tory press lapped it up.

What had changed from all previous surveys that found anti-Semitism was far more prevalent on the Right than Left? If true this was a staggering finding. However what the CAA didn’t put in their press releases was that they had only achieved this result by adding 6 questions to the original 6 questions (which were themselves debatable as Anshel Pfeffer showed in Ha'aretz).

That the CAA is a dishonest political organisation masquerading as a charity is one thing. That Dr Allington and Dr Hirsh should allow their support for Zionism to colour ostensibly neutral academic research should raise questions as to their academic integrity. The questions were

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

2.    “Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.”

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

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

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

6.    “Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews.”

None of these statements are in any way anti-Semitic according to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of anti-Semitism: ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’

I wouldn’t be comfortable spending time with supporters of General Franco.  Does that make me anti-Spanish? Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for Jews assumes that Jews aren’t already at home where they live. Israel having the right to defend itself assumes that it is under attack for existing rather than for its racist policies. Clearly Israel’s supporters are bad for democracy, as the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism demonstrates. And yes the supporters of Israel do control the media.  Rupert Murdoch is not an anti-Zionist and neither is the BBC! It’s only anti-Semitic if you assume Zionists and Jews are the same, which is an assumption built in to supposedly academic research.

The most popular ‘anti-Semitic’ statement was no. 6; comparisons between Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and how the Nazis treated the Jews.  But this is a political statement.  It may be right or it may be wrong but how is it evidence of anti-Semitism?

If Mann is correct then a number of holocaust survivors such as Israeli Professors Ze’ev Sternhell and Yehuda Elkana were also anti-Semitic. This is the academic employed by Mann. Both are charlatans. One example of Skawkbox’s 'racism' was

“making throwaway references to ‘a former Chief Rabbi with a history of supporting racism’ could contribute to the creation of an impression of Jewishness as inherently suspect.”

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks accused Corbyn of echoing Enoch Powell when he himself recommended a book by Powellite Douglas Murray which advocated the racist (& antisemitic) Great White Replacement Theory

So if you accuse former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks of being a racist, which he was, that is anti-Semitic because he is Jewish!

When Sacks died, I wrote an Obituary ‘An establishment bigot.’ and blogged it. Sacks, who had the audacity to compare Jeremy Corbyn with Enoch Powell endorsed an openly racist book which advocated the White Replacement Theory by Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe. Even Owen Jones found the hypocrisy too much.

Owen Jones, an identity politics supporter of the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ drivel was also guilty of ‘the creation of Jewishness as inherently suspect.’ This kind of logic would fail a high school student yet its part of a government report.

Dishonesty permeates the Report. Because the far-Right indulges in Jewish conspiracy theories, the support of Skwawkbox and Canary for the undercover Al Jazeera programme The Lobby about the influence and activity of the Zionist lobby is therefore anti-Semitic.  No matter that the latter is true unlike the former. What all these allegations have in common is a deliberate confusion of ‘Jew’ and ‘Zionist’.  And who does this regularly?  The same anti-Semites and fascists that Mann purports to oppose.

Liar Lee’s article concludes with a quote from Dr Allington:

 “Government and civil society must encourage use of high quality, reputable sources of information at the expense of low-quality fringe sources,” it said. “We need not be helpless in the face of hatred.”

One wonders just who they mean by ‘high quality reputable sources of information’ Could it be Britain’s tabloid press, the Mail, Sun and Express? Clearly there is no criticism of Britain’s rabidly racist tabloids. Clearly Mann’s real concerns are not Jews or anti-Semitism but Zionism and Israel.

The only good thing about Mann’s Report is that it reflects his own mediocre intellectual talents.  It is so poorly argued and makes such obviously devious and dishonest analogies that only a simpleton or a rogue like Boris Johnson would fall for it.

It would seem that Mann has deliberately leaked his Report to the Jewish Chronicle where it can be guaranteed a warm reception. Let us see whether the rest of the British press is going to go along with this tendentious and transparent nonsense

Tony Greenstein

Born Black, Politically White – Why Class Negates Race in the Identity Stakes

Chuka Ummuna prefers to fight ‘anti-Semitism’ - the new anti-communism - rather than the Windrush Scandal

Even Labour MP Keith Vaz has joined Clive Lewis in opposing Marc Wadsworth’s racist expulsion. Even Vaz can see the naked racism that was evidenced in the lynch mob when 20+ White Labour MPs accompanying Ruth Smeeth to Marc’s disciplinary hearing.  Even Keith Vaz, who has long been on the right of the Labour Party has been sufficiently angered by the blatant racism of Maggi Cosins and the National Kangaroo Court.  But not Chuka Ummuna, Progress's ever faithful lap dog.

Last Monday, two days before the beginning of Marc’s hearing, the Independent carried an article by Chuka Ummuna on Labour’s false anti-Semitism campaign. Chuka is too modest or rather dishonest to acknowledge that, as a loyal Blairite, he failed to vote against the 2014 Immigration Act, which led to the Windrush Affair. Let us remind ourselves that this Act, whose purpose was to create a ‘hostile environment’ to ‘illegal immigrants’, set a new low in British racism by effectively removing citizenship from those who had previously been granted it automatically by virtue of section 1(1) of the 1948 British Nationality Act.  Only Israel removes citizenship en masse from its (Arab) citizens.

First the Tories destroyed thousands of landing cards which were the proof of the right to citizenship of Black people from the West Indies under the 1948 Act. The 2014 Act then shifted the burden of proof from the State to the individual to prove they were citizens. In effect if you are Black it was assumed that you weren’t a citizen unless you could prove otherwise. Those without passports or who hadn’t formally acquired citizenship, had to prove that they were British citizens which meant proving when they entered Britain.  They also had to prove that they were in this country for every year since their arrival and to do that they had to supply 4 sets of documents for each year.  An almost impossible task.

Chuka however is not interested in the Windrush scandal.  It is beneath him. Racism against Black people bores him.  He is an honorary White.  Black people have described him to me as a coconut.  I pass no judgement.  Thus he has set himself up as an expert on ‘anti-Semitism’, the false anti-racism of the Right.  All of Chuka’s parliamentary career demonstrates that he is not in the slightest concerned about  state racism against Black people. 

The idea that ‘money whitens’ used to be applied to the Brazilian and other slave economies of South America in the 19^th century and to Mulattos in particular. It is equally applicable to Chuka’s politics and his support of Israel, the world’s only apartheid state.

A response to Chuka’s Labour can't talk with credibility about racism until we tackle the antisemitism in our ranks 

Chuka Ummuna tells us that we can’t attack the racism that ‘may’ (not must) lie behind the ‘mistreatment’ (that’s the mildest term he can think of) of the Windrush generation until we tackle ‘anti-Semitism’.  Why not? Note how Chuka excuses the racism behind Theresa May’s immigration policy by promoting ‘anti-Semitism’ into an equivalent form of racism.

How is it that on 30^th January, when the 2014 Immigration Act which brought in these hostile measures was voted on in the House of Commons, Chuka abstained alongside all those others who are also concerned about Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ such as John Mann, Smeeth and Ian Austin?

Home Affairs Select Committee

It is worth reminding ourselves that those who voted against the 2014 Act included Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbot.  Isn’t it strange that those who are apparently responsible for ignoring anti-Semitism in the Labour Party today were the only ones who opposed what was happening to Black people in 2014?  According to Ummuna's 'logic' being an opponent of 'antisemitism' he should also have voted against the 2014 Act.

As Marlene Ellis from Momentum Black Connexions observed, Chuka may have been born Black but politically he was part of the racist White Establishment.

Ummuna’s support for May’s ‘climate of hostility’ is not unrelated to his views on his own constituents, Black or White.  Ummuna seems to have forgotten what he said on an elite social networking site when he asked how he could avoid meeting ‘trash’, i.e. the people who are unfortunate to have elected him.  Labour's Chuka Umunna under fire for labelling people 'trash' on elite social network

George Orwell's Animal Farm

Ummuna quoted from the Report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee,  which was published in October 2016, of which he was a member. This was not however a neutral report.  Its primary purpose was to denigrate and attack Jeremy Corbyn, Shami Chakrabarti and others in the Zionist firing line such as Jackie Walker and NUS President Malia Bouattia.

David Plank, a former specialist adviser to the House of Commons Social Services Committee, made a devastating critique of this Report in Open Democracy.  David said that ‘the Committee’s Report was not worth the paper it was written on’ firstly because ‘A Select Committee must be clear about what it intends to do, which is why clear terms of reference for inquiries are essential.’  It had no terms of reference.

David also criticised the methodology of the report which was ‘to invite certain bodies to give evidence to them which came from a particular strand of British Jewish hues of opinion which happened to be heavily identified with a pro-Israel perspective’ and ignore others.

David asked why those criticised in the Report, Jackie Walker and NUS President Malia Bouattia were not called to give evidence.  ‘I would expect as a basic that the Committee would call for evidence. But I see no sign of such a call for this enquiry. Why not? I find that stunning’.  David states that ‘there are pages of criticism in the Committee Report in relation to the NUS President, and she was not given any opportunity to read the draft and comment upon it. That is disgraceful.’ Likewise Jackie Walker ‘offer(ed) to give evidence and her offer was declined... (she is) traduced in the report. She is readily identifiable: her name appears in one place, and it is assumed that she is guilty.’

Racist cartoon from the Campaign Against Antisemitism

In short Chuka Ummuna and his Tory friends, the same friends who were behind the racism of the Windrush scandal, who were engaged in what is colloquially known as a ‘stitch up’. In David Plank’s words it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Chuka states that ‘when talking about antisemitism, it is important to define the term.’ I agree.  There is however a very simple definition used by most dictionaries.  For example the OED states that anti-Semitism is ‘Hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’  Or perhaps the de luxe definition by Dr Brian Klug of Oxford University, an expert on anti-Semitism: 

“Antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are”

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism which Ummuna and his Select Committee pushed for consists of some 450 words not the above 21 words. Why?  Because it comes with 11 ‘examples’ of anti-Semitism, 7 of which related to opposition to Zionism and Israel.  The Select Committee Report said, echoing the IHRA, that it is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies. 

The problem with this is, as Sir Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge said in Defining Anti-Semitism that this assumes that Israel ‘is a country like any other’ which it isn’t and thus the IHRA ‘places the historical, political, military and humanitarian uniqueness of Israel’s occupation and colonisation of Palestine beyond permissible criticism.’ Sedley goes on to state that ‘the official adoption of the definition, while not a source of law, gives respectability and encouragement to forms of intolerance which are themselves contrary to law...’

The current wave of suspensions and expulsions in the Labour Party are evidence of this.  Not only was I, a Jewish anti-fascist and anti-Zionist expelled recently, but Jackie Walker, another Jewish anti-racist has been suspended and been targeted for expulsion.  Marc Wadsworth, a Black anti-racist activist who was interviewed for the 3 part BBC documentary ‘The Murder that Changed a Nation’ on the murder of Stephen Lawrence, has also just been expelled for having dared to criticise Labour’s racist drama queen, Ruth Smeeth MP.

Chuka referred to his late father, who always supported the Labour Party because Labour ‘historically have always been anti-hate and anti-racist.’  This is however untrue.  Labour was traditionally as supportive of the British Empire and colonialism as the Tory Party.  It was Labour that presided over the horrors of the Malayan counter insurgency which began in 1948. When the Tory Party turned Kenya into a concentration camp and perpetrated the most horrific tortures and abuse on those deemed to be members of the Mau Mau in the 1950’s, the Labour Party (with the exception of Barbara Castle and ironically Enoch Powell) was silent.

 Indeed Labour historically combined both avid support for Zionism with anti-Semitism. For example Lord Passfield, Colonial Secretary in the 1929-31 Labour government exclaimed that ‘there are no Jews in the British Labour Party” and that whereas “French, German, Russian Socialism is Jew-ridden. We, thank heaven are free”, something he put down to there being “no money in it”.  The Labour Party, anti-Semitism and Zionism

 The examples Ummuna gave of ‘anti-Semitism’ were no such thing.  If someone accuses you of being ‘in the pockets of ‘The Lobby’.”  why is that anti-Semitic?  It is self-evident that there is a pro-Israel and Zionist lobby in Britain.  Joan Ryan, Chair of the Labour Friends of Israel was secretly recorded accepting £1m from the Israeli agent Shai Masot on its behalf.

The accusation that Ummuna and friends are “a bunch of embittered Zionists who are intent on smearing” Jeremy Corbyn is a statement of fact.  Chuka seems to have a problem in distinguishing between a political ideology, Zionism and Jews.  Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews as Chuka demonstrates.

Another example of ‘anti-Semitism’ which Chuka gave was that of Peter Kirker, a member of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy executive who wrote in the Morning Star under the headline “Enough already with this Zionist frenzy”, that “the noise around anti-Jewish racism has been engineered from within the murky right-wing world of British Zionism.” What is anti-Semitic about this?

Chuka seems to have forgotten the evidence of Sir Mick Davies, former Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council  to his own Select Committee (para 27) that ‘criticising Zionism is the same as antisemitism, because Zionism is so totally identified with how the Jew thinks of himself.’  

If you believe this is true then opposition to Zionism is clearly anti-Semitic and anti-Semitism is therefore rife within the Labour Party.  But this is a verbal conjuring trick because if Sir Mick is correct then 95% of pre-war German and Polish Jews were also anti-Semitic!  It means that all anti-Zionist Jews are anti-Semitic today. That is the kind of argument we expect from white racists like Donald Trump. It is clear that Chuka Ummuna has become an honorary White racist.

It is somewhat unfortunate that someone who helped produce a Report on Anti-Semitism is so ignorant of the differences between Zionism and Anti-Semitism.

Chuka also suggested that concerns about ‘anti-Semitism’ have been met with an ‘avalanche of “whataboutery”’ such as ‘what about Gaza?’ Isn’t it strange that Ummuna is so concerned about non-existent ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party but has nothing whatsoever to say about the shooting dead of 41 unarmed Palestinians, so far, in Gaza. 

The Board of Deputies, from whom Chuka takes his lead and which is so concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ issued a statement justifying the actions of the Israeli government. 

Chuka asked “Why should any Jewish person vote Labour?” to which there is a simple answer.  Because British Jews also have an interest in fighting racism, anti-Semitism included.  There is no Jewish interest in supporting Israel and Zionism.  Chuka claims to have experienced racism.  Unfortunately the conclusions Chuka has drawn are that now he has made his escape racism can be ignored.  That is why he refused to vote against the 2014 Immigration Act.  Chuka should hang his head in shame that he is supporting a State that has been described by anti-Apartheid activists in South Africa, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, as worse than Apartheid.’

However it is de rigeur among the Labour Right not to criticise Israel’s slide into a form of clerical fascism.  That is why Chuka is silent about Israel’s proposed deportation of 40,000 Black African refugees.  He is one of those Black reactionaries who are only concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ when Israel is up for discussion

The only question in my mind is why Labour members of Streatham Labour Party haven’t deselected this honorary white racist.

Tony Greenstein