Why did the Corbyn Project collapse? How did Labour go from near victory in 2017 to the biggest defeat since 1935?

 Review of Benjamin Pogrund and Patrick McGuire’s Left Out and Owen Jones This Land

[PM]   Reference to book by Pogrund and McGuire

[OJ]     Reference to book by Owen Jones

There has been a marked reluctance by the Labour left to ask simple questions in the wake of Labour’s defeat at the General Election about where the Corbyn Project went wrong. They seem to fear asking the questions even more than they fear the answers.

Betrayed by Laura Pidcock and Corbyn

Take the Labour Representation Committee, whose President is John McDonnell. On 12^th January it held a meeting Learning the Lessons and Rebuilding the Labour Left. Admirable objectives. I attended and asked in the chat why the Campaign Group hadn’t opposed the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign. I also asked why Laura Pidcock, one of the speakers, instead of defending Chris Williamson had asked him not to attend meetings of the CG.

 

You won’t be surprised to hear that despite putting my hand up first, the Chair Bisi Williams decided to call me last and then found out that as the meeting had run out of time I wouldn’t be called at all!

If the LRC are scared of holding elected Labour representatives to account then clearly they won’t learn many lessons. My letter to Chair Matt Wrack, Chair of the LRC, is here.

Since the defeat of Labour in the General Election two books have appeared which offer different explanations as to why Labour was defeated. One is by journalists from The Times and Sunday Times, Benjamin Pogrund and Patrick MacGuire, and the other is from the Guardian’s licensed radical, Owen Jones.

The analysis in both books is not substantively different. Both concentrate on the internal politics and dysfunctional state of LOTO (Leader of the Opposition’s Office) though Jones lays greater stress on the hostility that Corbyn faced, not least from the feral members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Jones also sets out to correct the narrative that the Corbyn Project was solely defeated by sabotage within the Labour Party coupled with a vicious onslaught from a hostile media. To him the damage was done by internal conflict within the Project. [OJ3/5] What Jones doesn’t mention is that the campaign against Corbyn was led by his own newspaper, The Guardian, and that he had a hand in it.

Jones also believes that an additional cause was the failure to deal with anti-Semitism and reach out to Jews who (except for anti-Zionist Jews) had experienced a ‘collective trauma from two millennia of persecution.’ [OJ6]

I also intend to do a separate article on Jones and ‘anti-Semitism’ since Jones played a key part in spreading the idea that Labour had a problem with anti-Semitism. Jones made a significant contribution to the defeat of Corbyn when he had ‘a period of disillusionment before the general election’. [OJ8] In March 2017 he wrote an article ‘Jeremy Corbyn says he’s staying. That’s not good enough’.

Tom Watson

Both books detail the treachery of Labour’s Deputy Leader Tom Watson, who when elected as Deputy Leader promised to back Corbyn 100%, saying that ‘only through unity comes the strength we need to fight the Tories’. It was one more lie from a man who had every quality of a dog except loyalty.

Watson was in league with Labour’s treacherous staff, ‘many of whom craved electoral disaster’ [OJ135]. When Sam Matthews, head of GLU was forced out, he stole hundreds of files and emails. On 27 February 2019 he met Danny Adilypour, Watson’s closest advisor, to hand over hundreds of documents. The Zionist lobby and Hodge arranged for them to obtain legal representation. It was clearly a criminal offence of theft and breach of Data Protection Regulations. [PM241] These files were the basis of the BBC Panorama hatchet job by John Ware presenting Matthews as a ‘whistleblower’.

It is some measure of the Corbyn’s inability to face down his enemies that he offered peerages to both Watson and Iain McNicol, Labour’s General Secretary who tried to prevent him standing when Owen Smith challenged him for the leadership.

Watson was only prevented from becoming Baron Watson by the House of Lords’s Appointment’s Commission because he sponsored Carl Beech’s false allegations of child abuse.

Jones lays emphasis on the Leaked Labour Report and the war of attrition waged by Labour’s permanent staff whereas Pogrund and MacGuire play the issue down as might be expected from the Murdoch school of journalism. However Jones draws all the wrong conclusions about the existence of anti-Semitism in Labour.

Shortly before Labour’s 2019 Conference Jon Lansman, proposed to the NEC that the Deputy Leadership post should be abolished and with it Watson. Although it would have been better for the Left to have challenged Watson it was a reasonable proposal. Corbyn was the originator of the proposal shouting ‘I want him out of the Shadow Cabinet and I want to abolish the deputy role’. [PM235-237]. Yet, when it came to it, Corbyn backed out. It was another example of Corbyn’s spinelessness. Naturally McDonnell the Appeaser was opposed to it. [OJ266-268]

The Failure to Devise a Political Strategy

One of the most remarkable things about the Corbyn leadership was the complete lack of any political strategy. Corbyn was buffeted by the political winds and failed to take the initiative. Within a year he had been subject to a no confidence vote by Labour MPs, which he lost by 172-40. It is to his credit that Corbyn refused to be bullied by the PLP into standing down despite, in Dianne Abbot’s words, the attempts to break him as a man. [OJ84] A major reason for his clinging on and forcing Owen Smith to challenge him was the fact that Momentum called a massive 10,000 demonstration on Parliament Green (Jones places the demo in Trafalgar Square, thus proving that he for one wasn’t there – OJ83).

Having won against Smith by an even larger majority than the first time, despite the suspension of thousands of members by McNicol, Corbyn was at the height of his power. At this point Corbyn should have called on McNicol to resign. Indeed Corbyn should have accepted McNicol’s offer to resign when he was first elected.

Even after the near election victory of June 2017 when, in anticipation of a coup, McNicol had the passes of Corbyn’s staff to Southside cancelled, Corbyn failed to call for the dismissal of McNicol.[PM21] [OJ160]

The only political strategy that Corbyn had was appeasing the Right, yet it should have been obvious that a hard core of at least 50 MPs would never accept Corbyn as Prime Minister and in the event that he had won the General Election they would not have voted for him as Prime Minister.

There had to be a strategy of deselecting these MPs yet not only did Corbyn fail to embrace such a strategy but he persuaded Len McCluskey to break UNITE’s mandate in 2018 and oppose Open Selection. With Open Selection disloyal Labour MPs could have been deselected en masse. This was the key failure of Corbyn.

Corbyn had a strategic director in the form of Seamus Milne, the former Guardian Comment Editor. Milne was the son of former BBC Director-General Alisdair Milne. He came from the womb of the British Establishment. I don’t know whether or not Milne was an MI5 operative but of one thing I am sure. He could not have served British Intelligence better if he had been a paid agent.

Both books report Milne as someone whose only contribution, apart from coming late into the office with a coffee in one hand and pastries in another, was to lead Corbyn into Labour’s disastrous Brexit strategy, if one can call it that.

On the question of the fake anti-Semitism campaign, Milne had little to contribute or suggest. His failure to devise a strategy and stick to it, instead of firefighting as the latest Zionist attack was mounted, is as incomprehensible now as it was at the time.

A Dysfunctional Office

When Corbyn was elected leader they found the cupboard was bare. LOTO had been stripped of its furniture and computers. Even the keys to the door didn’t work! Not surprisingly it took some time to get everything in order.

However with the help of what is called Short money from the Treasury LOTO soon employed a considerable number of staff.  I estimate at least 30-40.

Far from getting their act together, LOTO degenerated into squabbles, personality conflicts, empire building and ego trips. Karie Murphy was brought in to sort things out as Chief of Staff but rather than ensuring a smooth running office she became part of the problem. ‘Often chaotic, under Murphy’s aegis the atmosphere of the leader’s office had become poisonous.’ [OJ271] Laura Murray, the Stakeholder, led the charge to the right over ‘anti-Semitism’.

Murphy forced Corbyn to sack the Chief Whip Rosie Winton, although Corbyn was unable to tell her outright her fate. [OJ122] But who was her replacement? Nick Brown, Gordon Brown’s boot boy, the man who is now demanding an unconditional apology in return for the restoration of the Whip. If someone like Ian Lavery had been appointed he could have removed the whip from a dozen Blairites and saved their parties the need to deselect them. It took Boris Johnson, who dispatched 21 rebels at one go, to demonstrate what effective political management is about.

Murphy provoked two staff rebellions over her bullying and intimidation including hounding out Corbyn’s Asian PA Iram Chamberlain because she was held guilty over MI5’s refusal to give her a parliamentary pass. She also had the audacity to attend a meeting at MI5 HQ with Corbyn where she raised the issue of their lack of interest in the far-Right (as opposed to hounding Muslims). A close friend of hers had been murdered by neo-Nazis.

Perfectly proper issues to have raised yet Murphy became incandescent and with Milne’s agreement she was forced out. [PM157] Corbyn behaved in a spineless fashion yet again. Murphy regularly attacked female staff for not dressing appropriately like any traditional employer.

In August 2019 as the days of the Project drew to a close staff submitted a collective grievance against Murphy.[PM273] The outcome was that Murphy was effectively sacked and forced to work at Labour Party HQ with a new glorified title. As was so often the case Corbyn could not bring himself to do the deed.

Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn was perhaps the only person who was capable of gaining the magical number of PLP nominations (15%) to be elected. It was not just an accident of fate but the result of mass lobbying on social media that caused enough MPs to nominate him. I know because my 13 year old son was one of thousands furiously lobbying  MPs! Corbyn became leader as a result of a spontaneous insurgency and rebellion against the Labour Right. Unfortunately he failed to live up to the task of facing down the Right, not that you would know it from these 2 books.

Corbyn was incapable of standing up to his detractors and challenging their ‘anti-Semitism’ narrative. In interviews he simply became incoherent and angry. He was loathe to make decisions such as sacking Shadow Cabinet ministers, directing staff and taking the lead. According to Pogrund and Maguire he became a captive of his own staff, ‘protected’ by Murphy. The qualities that led to the 2017 surprise were the same ones that led to the catastrophe of 2019.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZAn7ZEvwek

For example he was accused of supporting ‘terrorism’ by calling Hamas and Hezbollah speakers his ‘friends’ in an interview before being elected, with Krishna Guru Murphy of Channel 4. Instead of getting angry and defensive (& later apologising) he should have stuck to what he had previously said. Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t terrorists. They are the victims of terrorism, the offspring of massive Israeli violence. If terrorism means anything then it is the Israeli state violence. The problem is that Corbyn bought into an acceptance of the British state and with that comes a definition of terrorism which is that what the State does is never terrorism. It is only your enemies who are terrorists.

Corbyn and Anti-Semitism

Even the title of the chapter about anti-Semitism For the Many not the Jew, which adorned Zionist placards at the March 2018 demonstration outside the House of Commons was anti-Semitic. It assumed that all Jews were part of the few. But then Zionism and anti-Semitism have always been Siamese twins.

Pogrund and McGuire report how the Right believed that Corbyn’s support for anti-imperialism blinded him to anti-Semitism. [99] The idea that anti-imperialists are also racists is only something the press and Labour’s Right could seriously believe.

Siobhan McDonagh, one of the most stupid of right-wing MPs, believed that because most Jews were capitalists, socialism and anti-capitalism were anti-Semitic!

The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign was based on disinformation. Pogrund states that for decades the Labour Party had been ‘the natural political home of Britain’s Jews.’ [PM320] Utter nonsense, since the 1960s, with a blip during the Blair years, British Jews had voted solidly for the Tories. This kind of nonsense permeates their book.

Corbyn’s major failure was his inability  to understand the nature of the ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks. Corbyn took the attacks on him as an anti-Semite personally. For someone who had devoted his life to fighting racism it was the nastiest blow that the Zionists could make. If Corbyn had been a racist then it would not have bothered him.

One cannot imagine Tom Watson, who was a genuine racist, taking offence or losing sleep over accusations of racism. Watson, who was instrumental in the ‘anti-Semitism’ affair, played the race card in the 2004 Hodge Hill byelection, producing a leaflet which declared ‘"Labour is on your side, the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers."

Watson declared that he had ‘lost sleep’ over ‘poor Phil’ when the racist Labour MP Phil Woolas was ejected from the House of Commons by the High Court for having lied about his opponent during the 2010 General Election. Woolas had run a campaign which was explicitly about ‘making the white folk angry’ i.e. stirring up racial discord.

It is inexplicable why Corbyn, who had been involved for 30+ years in Palestine solidarity work did not get it that ‘anti-Semitism’ is the first resort of the Zionists. When Zionists say ‘anti-Semite’ they mean ‘anti-Zionist’. That Corbyn and Milne did not get this is bewildering.

Corbyn became an automaton He went into a routine of stressing how much he opposed anti-Semitism. It was absurd as the anti-Semitism that the Zionist Board of Deputies was talking about was hatred of Israeli racism not hatred of Jews. Milne, if he had not spent all day loafing around, would have realised this.

Corbyn took to parroting the line that those who denied that Labour had a problem with anti-Semitism were ‘part of the problem’. It was called ‘denialism’. It was a form of cognitive dissonance. Corbyn did not relate the false allegations of anti-Semitism against him to the fact that other people too were falsely accused of anti-Semitism.

It should not have been difficult to understand why the charge of ‘anti-Semite’ is made at opponents of Zionism. Israel finds it difficult to justify the torture and sexual abuse of Palestinian children or the demolition of Palestinian homes. It is easier to attack the messenger than the message. This was the context of Corbyn’s failure.

When the ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis took on a momentum of its own, Corbyn should have made one or more big speeches in which he declared that of course he opposed anti-Semitism but at the same time he opposed those who weaponised anti-Semitism in order to defend Israel. Corbyn should have called out all those Labour MPs, from Ian Austin to Watson, who were so concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ yet had failed to oppose the 2014 Immigration Act which had introduced the hostile environment policy and thus the Windrush Scandal. Just 6 Labour MPs had voted against the Act.

Corbyn came into the leadership determined to appease the Right. No one seems to have told him that the Right could not be appeased. They could be fought, they could be deselected, but you could no more appease Austin or John Woodcock than you could pat a rabid dog on the head and get away unscathed.

Austin openly declared ‘I want to do everything I can to stop him getting into government.’ [PM162] Likewise Mandelson ‘I work every day I some small way to bring an end to his tenure in office.’ [OJ]

Of course there were a few anti-Semites in a party of 600,000. There were also a few paedophiles.  But no one said that Labour was overrun with paedophiles. It was a wholly contrived controversy.

The IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is hostility to or prejudice against Jews according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Yet Corbyn, of his own volition, adopted the 38 word IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. In September 2018 Labour’s NEC adopted the 11 examples attached to the IHRA, 7 of which refer to Israel. The IHRA definition read:

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

Anti-Semitism isn’t a perception it is also a practice. And what is this certain perception? What else may it be expressed as?  This wasn’t a definition but a ramble. It is difficult to know what went through Corbyn’s mind when he adopted it but he made a rod for his own back. The definition is a model of obfuscation.  In the words of Professor David Feldman the IHRA was ‘bewilderingly imprecise.’ 

The sole purpose of the IHRA was to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. When Theresa May adopted it in December 20016 Corbyn felt the need to follow suit.

Corbyn,  who had long been friends with Jewish anti-Zionists like Mike Marquesee, must have been aware of the record of the Zionist Board which has never fought anti-Semitism. In the 30s the Board advocated Jews staying at home during the Battle of Cable Street against Moseley’s fascists. During the 1970s as the National Front gained over 100,000 votes during the 1977 GLC elections the Board chose to attack the Anti-Nazi League not the NF. As  Maurice Ludmer, editor of the anti-fascist Searchlight magazine wrote :

In the face of mounting attacks against the Jewish community both ideologically and physically, we have the amazing sight of the Jewish Board of Deputies launching an attack on the Anti Nazi League with all the fervour of Kamikaze pilots... It was as though they were watching a time capsule rerun of the 1930's, in the form of a flickering old movie, with a grim determination to repeat every mistake of that era." (Issue 41, November 1978)

It should have been obvious that the Board, which has support for Israel embedded in its Constitution, was concerned with Zionism not anti-Semitism. When Corbyn met the Board in April 2018 he left ‘with one request ringing louder in his ear than any other’ [PM105]. They wanted the IHRA adopted in full. To Pogrund /MGuire this was ‘relatively uncontroversial’.

Yet the same Board said nothing about Boris Johnson’s 72 Virgins book which depicts Jews as controlling the media or Jacob Rees-Mogg’s references to the ‘illuminati’ – an anti-Semitic trope.

The Board of Deputies never raised the issue of Tory MEPs sitting in the Conservative Reform Group as anti-Semitic MEPs from Poland, Latvia and Sweden. The same is true with the European Council. Boris Johnson sacked Lord Balfe who complained about these people. The Board remained silent. The Board also said nothing as Tory MEPs voted alongside fascists to support Hungary’s anti-Semitic Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

When Labour’s NEC endorsed an anti-Semitism code largely based on the IHRA, the Board threw a fit.  It wanted the whole IHRA adopted. Starmer weighed in to support them. [PM111]

Yet when the Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement Ivor Caplin met with Jennie Formby he agreed to the Anti-Semitism Code that amended the IHRA without any objection. [PM110-111] When the JLM Executive heard they threw a fit (Caplin was heavily defeated at the following AGM). Why? The answer was supplied by Len McCluskey in an article for Huff Post headed ‘Jewish Community Leaders Refuse to Take Yes for an Answer’. [123PM]

In other words the Zionist demands were not intended to be met and if they were then new ones would be made. This makes sense if your real objective is removing Corbyn.

Corbyn initially tried to woo the Zionists. At a hustings with Owen Smith Corbyn was asked what he most liked about Israel. Instead of responding that he liked their censorship of the press and their locking up and torture of Palestinian children he replied the separation of powers between Israel’s Supreme Court and the government.

The neutrality of Israel’s Supreme Court is a myth. It has totally disregarded international law and sanctioned the theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza. It has never questioned the ‘security arguments that are the favourite excuse for Israeli racism.

Intellectually Corbyn is lazy. He never once bothered to understand the racist, Jewish supremacist nature of Zionism. He was simply content to give bland support to Palestinian rights. 

The Witchhunt

What was most galling was the way Corbyn was prepared to throw his friends under the bus.  There were a whole series of people he betrayed, such as Christine Shawcroft a left wing member of the NEC who was ambushed by Labour staff when she became Chair of the Disputes Committee. Corbyn asked her personally to resign from the NEC. Chris Williamson, loyal to a fault, was suspended on the basis of a speech to Sheffield Momentum where he attacked both anti-Semitism and the making of false allegations of anti-Semitism. His words were twisted to mean their opposite.

Corbyn stated that he wished Chris Williamson would ‘shut his fucking mouth’. [OJ253] When Chris was readmitted by the NEC there was a petition of 150 Labour scabs organised by Watson calling for him to be suspended again. Corbyn’s reaction was to ‘angrily aske(d) his aides why the decision had been made; with his support, Williamson was resuspended two days later.’ If true then Corbyn should hang his head in shame.

By throwing his friends overboard Corbyn guaranteed his own demise. Corbyn introduced ‘fast track’ expulsions at the 2019 Labour Party Conference to deal with ‘egregious’ cases of anti-Semitism. It has been used since then for all such cases, including that of Corbyn!

When Labour’s report on the treachery of full-time staff was leaked I read it very carefully. On page 306 it reported that:

Well we were all expelled. Was trust rebuilt? Of course not. The Zionists just made more demands and Formby and Corbyn rushed to fulfill them. And when they came for Corbyn there was no one left. 

Jones says that LOTO ‘was unhappy with the NCC panel’s decision to suspend Ken Livingstone for another year rather than expel him.’ Ken said nothing that could remotely be termed anti-Semitic. Likewise Marc Wadsworth who introduced Nelson Mandela to the Steve Lawrence campaign. It was sad and shameful. Corbyn brought about his own suspension by bringing Sturmer back into the Shadow Cabinet despite him having walked out in the chicken coup.

How John McDonnell Stabbed Corbyn in the Back

When John McDonnell said of Corbyn that he was his best friend in the Commons, his wife Cynthia joked that he was his only friend! [PM13] That friendship was sorely tried. From being a hard line IRA supporter who refused to adopt a budget under Ken Livingstone at the GLC, McDonnell went on to become the appeaser-in-chief.

When Margaret Hodge accused Corbyn of being a ‘fucking anti-Semite’ Karie Murphy insisted on disciplinary action and Jennie Formby issued a Notice of Investigation. If any other member of the Labour Party had spoken in these terms they would have been suspended if not expelled.

I was expelled for calling Louise Ellman MP a supporter of Israel’s abuse of Palestinian children, which is documented by Defence of Children International – Palestine and UNICEF. Yet McDonnell declared that Hodge had a ‘good heart’ (OJ242). This tax-dodging, millionairess had a long record as a racist. She had even been praised by the BNP for her support for a ‘whites only’ housing policy.

In his determination to appease the Right McDonnell betrayed Corbyn. It caused ‘the most profound breach between Corbyn and McDonnell the Project would ever experience’ [PM115]  Corbyn wanted to see disciplinary action taken. According to both books it led to a complete breakdown between the two for 6 months.

McDonnell also spoke out in support of reinstating Alistair Campbell after he admitted voting Lib-Dem in the European elections.

Campbell was treated no differently to thousands of others. Campbell and Mcdonnell had ‘forged an improbable alliance’. [PM195/284]

‘The defining difference between the two [was that] McDonnell obsessed over the pursuit of power.’ [PM84] There was no right-winger that McDonnell wouldn’t appease. Not once did he consider that the more he appeased the Right the stronger they became and the less likely he’d ever sit in a ministerial limousine.

When it came to international affairs McDonnell went out of his way to ‘prove’ that he was as loyal to the British state as any jingoist. When Corbyn doubted Russian involvement in the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, McDonnell made his disagreement clear, even going so far as to Boycott RT the Russian radio station. Presumably the BBC, with its support for British imperialism, posed fewer problems.

McDonnell was quoted as ‘tearing his hair out’ over ‘anti-Semitism’ saying that Jewish people ‘were really suffering out there’. Total drivel. It is Black and Muslim people not British Jews who were suffering. Yet this man is still President of the LRC.

BREXIT

Brexit and its fall out dominate both books. The more that Corbyn and LOTO struggled to come to terms with it the more intractable the problem became. Labour ended up with a policy which repelled both supporters of Leave and Remain. It was a struggle of Sisyphus. Corbyn bowed to pressure from Starmer and Andrew Fisher, amongst others, to accede to the demand for a second referendum but it was never clear what the Party’s position would be in that referendum.

McDonnell had bowed down to the Right and Alistair Campbell and had become a Remainer without conditions. With McDonnell, Emily Thornberry and Andrew Fisher pushing one way and Milne, Lavery, McLuskey and Murphy pushing the other way, Corbyn came to resemble nothing so much as a cork bobbing on the water.

The problem of Brexit was approached purely from an electoralist calculus. A Marxist approach would have been to ask why so many in the northern working class supported Brexit. The clear and obvious answer was that it was a consequence of deindustrialisation and the succession of working class defeats over the past 30 years symbolised by the defeat of the miners.

Those who voted for Brexit weren’t racists but they were motivated by the belief that migrant workers were responsible for taking their jobs and undermining their wages and conditions. The fact that there was no basis to these fears made no difference. ‘Taking back control’ for Johnson meant British bosses taking back control from Europe in order that they could lower wages and conditions as we can now see with the abolition of the Working Time Directive being discussed.

It pains me to say it but Tony Blair was right when he said that Corbyn and Labour should have pressed for a referendum before an election. [PM283] As it is Johnson, against all expectations, obtained a deal and with it went on to win an election. Johnson had calculated, unlike Theresa May, that Europe and in particular German capitalism, did not want to see no deal with all the disruption. Johnson faced them down. Instead it was Burgon and Carden from the left who ‘harried their leader for an election.’ [PM291] They were turkeys urging an early Xmas, which is exactly what they got.

Thanks in no good measure to the ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis Corbyn was at the election as ‘weak, indecisive and a flip flopper.’ [OJ209]

The End

When Andrew Fisher resigned during the 2019 conference he predicted that Labour would be defeated at the forthcoming election. Internal Labour polls had forecast that Labour would do worse than at any time since 1918.  By the time of the election the Corbyn Project ‘was barely a coherent entity’.  McDonnell had ‘sowed a corrosive distrust’. [PM359]

It was no surprise that Keir Starmer became leader. He had the support of many ex-Momentum supporters like Laura Parker and Paul Mason. As Pogrund says, ‘Keir Starmer won power by embracing Corbynism rather than repudiating it.’ [360PM] It speaks volumes that Starmer’s record as Director of Public Prosecutions and his voting against an inquiry into the Iraq War were not part of the campaign against him. See the blog I wrote in February 2019 Keir Starmer is the candidate that the Deep State & the British Establishment want you to vote for

No sooner had Starmer become Leader then he gave Formby her marching orders and installed Blair’s adviser David Evans as the new General Secretary. It was a marked contrast to Corbyn who had embraced those out to destroy him.

Part of the problem with the Corbyn Project was that he was elected when the class struggle was at its lowest. That meant being honest with workers and telling them that Labour would fight neo-liberalism in the EU but at the same time the proposal to hand back control to British bosses who, like Dyson, were busy exporting their factories abroad anyway, made no sense.  Unfortunately there doesn’t ever seem to have been such a discussion and Corbyn’s Strategic Adviser Milne was incapable of framing the issue in class terms.

Owen Jones believes that McDonnell would have been a better leader. I disagree. McDonnell has already shown that he would bow down to the demands of British capitalism. The Labour Left is incapable of critiquing the British state. That is why the Left doesn’t attack Starmer the way that the Right attacked Corbyn.

The problem today is that the left in the Labour Party is incapable of analyzing where it went wrong and without that it has no chance of regaining the leadership. That is the truth that Momentum and the LRC are trying to avoid.

Tony Greenstein

Please Sign AND Share the Petition to reinstate Asa Winstanley's Press Pass for Labour Party conference

This attack on free speech is a shameful act of appeasement – Israel’s Apartheid Press will be accredited unlike Electronic Intifada

SIGN THE PETITION

If anyone had any doubts about what the witchhunt means in practice then the refusal to issue Asa Winstanley with a press pass should remove those doubts. It is about silencing the voice of Palestine and allowing the voice of Zionism and the Jewish Supremacist State to rule unchallenged.

It is shocking enough that Asa was ever suspended.  His only ‘crime’ has been to show through painstaking journalism that the fake anti-Semitism allegations in the Labour Party were a put up job. Asa has written a series of well researched articles such as:

Jewish Labour Movement worked with Israeli embassy spy

How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis and

Jewish Labour Movement was refounded to fight Corbyn

These article have caused great discomfort amongst the ranks of the Jewish Labour Movement and the operatives of the Israeli Embassy. They have have resulted in complaints by the JLM and to the Labour Party.  Free Speech is something that these racist bastards hate and the Labour Party, UNDER JENNY FORMBY’S DIRECTION has silenced Asa Winstanley.

Of course in Israel Palestinian journalists are shot at and detained whereas in Britain they rely on the useless bureaucrats of a Corbyn led Labour Party to deny press passes and suspend dissenting voices.

Employing the ‘logic’ of the Salem Witch Trials in America, which Arthur Miller used as an allegory for the McCarthy witchhunt in America, in The Crucible, denial that the Labour Party is anti-Semitic is proof that you are anti-Semitic. It is the logic of every fascist and police state the world over.  An accusation is tantamount to guilt which is what the JLM have been arguing for ever since they mounted their slow coup in 2015.

The suspension of Asa is shameful and the denial of his press pass is even more shameful.  Don’t just sign the petition share it and share this story too.

Bombard these racist bastards in Southside. Unfortunately whilst the hated Iain McNicol is gone his underlings still remain behind and in charge.  Jenny Formby has proved a wash out. 

SIGN THE PETITION HERE

Tony Greenstein

 

 

Labour’s Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct – Be careful of what you wish for

It’s time to go on the offensive and say it loud and clear ‘Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism’ and it’s not anti-Semitic to criticise the Apartheid State of Israel

Labour’s newly drawn up Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct has set the cat amongst the Zionist pigeons.  It has also caused confusion amongst those who are our allies such as Jewish Voice for Labour who have given the code a fulsome welcome.

I believe the reaction of JVL and others on the Left to the new Code is mistaken and naive.  It is based on the idea that you can ignore the Code’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, a definition whose sole purpose is to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and nonetheless make a silk purse out of a sow. 

The fake anti-Semitism smear campaign was not driven by a lack of an anti-Semitism code or definition anti-Semitism. The expulsion of myself, Marc Wadsworth and Cyril Chilsom was the consequence of a political campaign by the representatives of the Israeli state inside  the Labour Party.  This code of conduct is not going to prevent the expulsion of Jackie Walker.

On the contrary, Jennie Formby, Jeremy Corbyn and Jon Lansman are going to be eager to demonstrate that even with this code Jackie is going to be expelled.  The case of Jackie Walker is going to be a litmus test as to whether this code rationalises false accusations of anti-Semitism.

Those who believe that this code marks the end of the false anti-Semitism campaign are sadly mistaken. They are guilty of wishful thinking. People are choosing to ignore the content of the Code and instead are  bowled over by vacuous phrases about ‘civility of language.’ This code deserves a much more rigorous analysis.

The fake ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks of the last 2 years have been about Israel, despite the howls of anguish whenever such a suggestion is made, this is what the leaders of British Zionism themselves say. In their Open Letter to Corbyn, the Presidents of the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council, Jonathans Arkush and Goldstein were quite open about this:

‘Again and again’ they wrote, ‘Jeremy Corbyn has sided with anti-Semites rather than Jews. At best, this derives from the far left's obsessive hatred of Zionism, Zionists and Israel’. 

Arkush and Goldstein framed the anti-Semitism attacks within the context of ‘the far-left’s obsessive hatred of Zionism’. Arkush subsequently accused the Jewish group Jewdas, with whom Corbyn had shared a Seder night of being a ‘source of virulent anti-Semitism’. As a parting shot Arkush, who had effusively welcomed Trump’s election together with his anti-semitic entourage, when retiring as President of the Board of Deputies accused Corbyn of being an anti-Semite. Nonetheless Arkush had no difficulty in demanding that ‘Corbyn must ensure Labour branches adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which some hard-left activists have lobbied against.’

Katie Hopkins with war criminal Mark Regev - Israel's Ambassador to the UK - apparently Regev tops Katie's list of eligible bachelors - a marriage truly made in hell

Why have the Zionists demanded that Labour adopts the 250+ word IHRA definition of anti-Semitism? Well the events of the past few weeks in Palestine supply the answer.  There is a very simple definition of anti-Semitism drawn up Dr Brian Klug, in a lecture ‘Echoes of Shattering Glass’ at the Jewish Museum in Berlin in 2014. It consists of 21 words:

antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.

Indeed even this is somewhat wordy.  The Oxford English Dictionary definition, ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews’  takes up just 6 words.  Why does the IHRA need 250+ words?  Because that is what you need in order to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  Anyone who has any doubts should read the intemperate and barely literate attack on Labour’s Anti-Semitism Code by the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard

‘instead of adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies, Labour has excised the parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic.’

This is the problem as far as Pollard and friends are concerned.  The new anti-Semitism code doesn’t specifically say that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism and therefore it is not kosher.

Marie Van der Zyl, Arkush’s successor and Goldstein complained this week that “It is for Jews to determine for themselves what antisemitism is. The UK Jewish community has adopted in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Definition of Antisemitism.’  What this means is that there is no rational or objective basis to allegations of anti-Semitism.  It is whatever Israel’s supporters say it is. So if someone is accused of anti-Semitism then we can dispense with examining such trifles as evidence and move to the sentence.  Kafkaesque or what?

So if someone suggests that the behaviour of the Israeli state in seeking to ethnically cleanse the West Bank is no different in principle from that of the Nazis then that is anti-Semitic if someone thinks it is. Of course although Van der Zyl and Goldstein say it is for Jews to determine what anti-Semitism is, there are some Jews, such as anti-racist or anti-Zionist Jews who don’t count.  They are the ‘wrong sort of Jews’.  It is the racist and chauvinist Jews who get to decide.  By allocating one single view to the whole Jewish community Goldstein and Van der Zyl are unwittingly engaging in the very anti-Semitism they decry!

Palestinian children going to the soon to be demolished school in Khan al-Amar

The reasons for this obsession with definitions of anti-Semitism are not hard to find. You don’t have to look very far. This week saw a violent attack by Israel against the Palestinian village of Khan al-Amar, an exercise in ethnic cleansing. Now that is real racism. We have only recently witnessed the murder of 120 unarmed demonstrators by Israel in a clay pigeon shoot in Gaza, an action defended by Labour Friends of Israel.

This code is problematic because it is a continuation of the same muddled approach to what is a very simple problem, which is the weaponisation of anti-Semitism against critics of Israel and anti-Zionists.  Although in principle it concedes that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are separate and distinct, in practice it gives hostages to fortune. People are in danger of being deceived by the Code’s vague and deceptive wording into sacrificing agreed principles.

Of course the Code has led to the predictable denunciation by the apostles of intolerance and bigotry, prime amongst them Stephen Pollard, the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle. Anything other than a statement saying that anti-Semitism equals anti-Zionism would be unacceptable to Pollard or the Board of Deputies.

Pollard, in what even for him is a remarkably illiterate, angry article, Labour's new guidelines show it is institutionally antisemitic openly compares Jeremy Corbyn to a Nazi. He says that ‘you would not accept a definition of antisemitism drawn up by Nazis. Ok, so who else would be on the shortlist of the least suitable people to draw up a definition of antisemitism? Perhaps you can tell where this is heading.’ Yes Stephen we do and ironically the comparison of people to Nazis is deemed anti-Semitic by the very definition he defends.

Ivor Caplin, the new Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement had a meeting with Jennie Formby and others this week, just before the announcement of the code and he was more than happy with it.  Not realising or understanding that one of the objectives of the anti-Semitism witch-hunt is that it should never end he declared himself quite happy with the Code.

One has to say of poor Mr Caplin, who got it in the neck from fellow Zionists, that he clearly doesn’t understand that the main target of the anti-Semitism smear campaign is Corbyn not anti-Semitism, which means that you can never reach agreement about anything other than the terms of surrender i.e. Corbyn’s resignation. Nothing else will suffice.

However if we were simply to take our guide from the Zionist reaction then yes, we should support the new Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct. However this would very foolish and I would summon in my support Comrade Leon Trotsky. In a ‘Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra Leftists’ entitled, appropriately ‘Learn to Think’ he wrote

The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each time orient itself independently in the internal as well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to the interests of the proletariat. This rule applies just as much to the war period as to the period of peace.

In other words, just because the Zionists say they oppose the new Code of Conduct, that is no reason to support it. Their argument is tactical. In fact Caplin is correct. The Zionists have got much of what they want. However it suits them to pretend that the Code is awful because in that way they can ensure that in its implementation it will be their interpretation of the Code that prevails.  We should heed Trotsky’s advice and learn to think and examine the Code from our perspective not theirs.

The Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct

Introduction

The first thing to ask is whether or not this Code is going to stop the expulsion of Jackie Walker and lead to the reinstatement of those already expelled. If not then it is useless.  The witch-hunt is not about words on a piece of paper or abstract definitions of anti-Semitism but a state-driven politically motivated attack by the supporters of imperialism and Zionism.

Naturally Katie Hopkins was a guest at the Zionist Federation's annual dinner - she must have felt at home for once

The second thing to ask is why anti-Semitism?  Why should there be a separate definition of anti-Semitism? This focus on a form of racism which is a marginal form of prejudice is itself racist.  It is the victims of the Windrush scandal, the targets of mosque bombings and racial attacks, the hounding of Roma by vicious racists like John Mann MP and the police and state racism against Black and Asian people which should be the subject of Labour Party codes.  The focus on a privileged white group which suffers not at all from state racism is in itself racist. If there was a real problem of anti-Semitism today why would the very tabloid press which employed Katie  Hopkins and Richard Littlejohn stand opposed to anti-Jewish racism?  The fact that the Sun and the Mail oppose ‘anti-Semitism’ (whilst not hesitating to attack George Soros as an alien Jewish financier) should suggest what the real agenda is.

Thirdly the Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct, instead of rejecting outright the bogus IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism takes it as its starting point.  Yes it negates its most offensive examples but the fact is that it nonetheless adopts the definition, including many examples. It is unfortunate that the JVL and others didn’t reread the Opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC:

‘The IHRA Definition does not purport to provide a legal definition of antisemitism. It does not have the clarity which would be required from such a definition.’

As Stephen Sedley said in Defining Anti-Semitism the IHRA ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite.’  Not only that but it is ‘protean in character and as open-ended’.

Tomlinson observed that

‘The use of language is unusual and therefore potentially confusing. The phrase “a certain perception” is vague and unclear in the context of a definition. The use of the word “may” is also confusing. If it is understood in its usual sense of “possibility” then the definition is of little value: antisemitism “may be expressed as hatred towards Jews but may also be expressed in other (unspecified) ways”. This does not work as a definition.

The apparent confining of antisemitism to an attitude which is “expressed” as a hatred of Jews seems too narrow and not to capture conduct which, though not expressed as hatred of Jews is clearly a manifestation of antisemitism. It does not, for example, include discriminatory social and institutional practices.

Tomlinson goes on to argue that because it ‘lacks clarity and comprehensiveness’ it has a

‘potential chilling effect on public bodies which, in the absence of definitional clarity, may seek to sanction or prohibit any conduct which has been labelled by third parties as antisemitic without applying any clear criterion of assessment.’

Tomlinson’s third criticism revolves around the structure of the IHRA. Because the actual definition itself speaks of ‘hatred’ all the illustrative examples ‘must be regarded as examples of activity which can properly be regarded as manifesting “hatred towards Jews”.

Analysis of the Code of Conduct

1.             The Code begins with a lie in Para. 5: ‘Labour is an anti-racist party.’ This is not true.  For most of the time that South Africa Apartheid was in existence Labour gave support to the white settlers. Labour was historically as much a party of Empire as the Conservatives. It was in this spirit that Poale Zion, the workers of Zion, who campaigned for a Boycott of Arab Labour were affiliated to the Labour Party in 1921.  This lie is best demonstrated by the Windrush scandal. This was a consequence of the 2013 Immigration Act which all but 8 Labour MPs supported (they abstained but when an Opposition abstains that can be treated as support).  All those ‘anti-Semitism’ activists, Ruth Smeeth, Luciana Berger, John Mann, Wes Streeting – all of them sat on their haunches and supported Theresa May’s ‘hostile environment policy.’

2.             The Code says of the 38 word IHRA definition:

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

that ‘The IHRA definition captures the idea of hostile conduct towards individuals and institutions on the ground that they are Jewish.’ This is unmitigated rubbish. A lie.  The definition doesn’t even mention ‘hostile conduct’ – it defines anti-Semitism in terms of hatred not hostility – thus raising the bar to actual anti-Semitism.

Secondly you cannot be racist against institutions.  The inclusion of ‘Jewish community institutions’ is itself absurd as well as non-Jewish individuals.

3.             Although it is welcome that Para. 7 accepts that ‘the expression of even contentious views in this area will not be treated as antisemitism unless accompanied by specific antisemitic content (such as the use of antisemitic tropes) or by other evidence of antisemitic intent.’  It begs the question as to what ‘anti-Semitic tropes’ mean in  practice since experience so far is that anything can count as an anti-Semitic trope.  One only has to remember the way Joan Ryan, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel tried to set up Jean Fitzpatrick at the Labour Party conference two years ago to realise that.

Louise Ellman MP for Liverpool Riverside and Tel Aviv South

4.             The National Constitutional Committee  took exception to my statement that Louise Ellman MP was a supporter of Israeli abuse of Palestinian children despite her having intervened three times in a debate on Palestinian child prisoners to support the Israeli military’s treatment of these children. I was guilty of ‘incivility’ a concept that lies at the heart of this code.  There are times when people rightly get angry at those who support torture and abuse of children, as I was but according to this Code of Conduct my expulsion was justified and Ellman was innocent.

5.             The Code of conduct quotes approvingly the examples that the IHRA definition gives of anti-Semitism. For example ‘Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.’ Now one cannot dispute that calling for the killing or harming of Jews is anti-Semitic.  But why add ‘in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion’?  Would it be ok if it was in the name of a conservative ideology or a mainstream view of religion?  This formulation plays into the hands of Islamaphobes who contend that Islam is a murderous religion.

You might think that the example ‘Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective’ was uncontroversial but the reference to ‘Jews as a collective’ is a reference to Israel.  Israel is a nuclear state, a regional superpower.  So referring to Israel’s military might could be termed ‘anti-Semitic’ even though it is true. There has been much talk of the Jewish vote in places like Barnet recently.  Is this anti-Semitic since it refers to Jews collectively or is it only when supporters of Palestine refer to Jewish support for Israel that it is anti-Semitic?

Likewise ‘Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.’ Why mention the Israeli state? Isn’t it enough simply to define Holocaust denial as an example of anti-Semitism? Given the way Zionists use word association, referring to the blood  that Palestinians shed is quickly likened to the medieval blood libel. Is it too much to expect that references to Israel’ s use of the Holocaust as a propaganda weapon might also come under this illustration?

Then there is the example ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’.  Yes this is anti-Semitic but Israel calls itself a Jewish state so that is precisely what it is doing – claiming that Jews throughout the world support its war crimes.

Paragraph 12 is particularly problematic because it states that ‘the Party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any other people. To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of antisemitism.’ Historically the idea of a Jewish state would have been held to be anti-Semitic.

Lucien Wolf, a leading member of the Board of Deputies and the Conjoint Committee, its Foreign Secretary before the first world war, noting that  the Zionists claimed that ‘all the Jews as forming at the present moment a separate and dispossessed nationality’ , commented that

‘I have spent most of my life in combating these very doctrines, when presented to me in the form of anti-Semitism, and I can only regard them as the more dangerous when they come to me in the guise of Zionism.’

In short if the ‘Party is clear’  that Jewish people form a nation, which is what the right to self-determination means, then it is adopting an anti-Semitic position!  Only anti-Semites maintain that Jews are a nation apart rather than a member of the nations amongst whom they live.  Let us be charitable and assign this to political ignorance, it is nonetheless unacceptable that in a document supposedly devoted to combating anti-Semitism, at its heart lies an anti-Semitic postulate.  The whole basis of the world Jewish conspiracy theory rests on the idea that Jews are a nation apart.  Of course the Zionists agree with this because Zionism is a form of Jewish anti-Semitism.  As the founder of Political Zionism Theodor Herzl, who is buried in a grave on Mount Herzl in Israel, explained at the height of the Dreyfus Affair:

‘In Paris... I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism.’

We should instead point out that far from anti-Zionism equalling anti-Semitism the exact opposite is the case.  Zionism shares with anti-Semites the belief that Jews do not belong in the diaspora.  Historically Zionism accepted most of the anti-Semitic libels against Jews, that they were asocial, absorbed in money and allied trades because they lacked a homeland.  Zionism was a movement of blood and soil nationalism.  It is a movement that never fought anti-Semitism, which is why the current crop of allegations of anti-Semitism are so comical.

It is the Zionist movement which argues that Jews should be loyal to Israel and Zionism and accuses anti-Zionists of being 'traitors' 

Paragraph 14 is politically incoherent. It states that ‘It is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.’ In paragraph 12 Jews formed a separate nation of their own and two paragraphs later they are members ‘of their own nations.’  Furthermore it entirely reverses the dual loyalty principle. It is Zionism which holds that Jews should be more loyal to Israel than their own nations. One of the most repeated forms of abuse levelled at Jewish anti-Zionists is that they are ‘traitors’.  How can one be a traitor unless one’s first loyalty is to Israel?  It is Zionism which demands a dual loyalty.  That is why in October 2013 the American Embassy distributed to American Jews a Questionnaire asking them ‘to indicate where their allegiance would lie if there was a crisis between the two countries.’

The Code states, quite correctly that it ‘is not permissible to use “Zionist” ... as a code word for “Jew”.  Which is true but in that case why is the Jewish Labour Movement allowed to call itself Jewish when it only represents Zionist Jews (& non-Jews)?  It is this hypocrisy and double standard that runs throughout this politically incoherent code.

Likewise the suggestion that the term ‘Zio’ ‘should have no place in Labour Party discourse’ is another concession to the Zionist narrative.  ‘Zio’ is short for Zionist. To suggest that it is anti-Semitic means that Labour is effectively saying that Zionist is equal to Jew, the very thing paragraph 15 warns against!

Paragraph 16’s statement that ‘It is not antisemitism to criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli state by reference to such examples unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent.’ is welcome but it is immediately contradicted by the reference to Chakrabarti’s comment that ‘Labour members should resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel-Palestine’ because they are ‘incendiary’. 

On the contrary people should feel free to make comparisons between Israel’s policy of ethnic cleansing and the Nazi practice in this regard.  If only to bring Israelis face to face with the consequence of their own policies and politics. Israeli politicians never hesitate to accuse their victims of being Nazis.  Why should we not compare e.g. the demonstration last week in Afula against the sale of a house to an Arab in a ‘Jewish city’ to when it was the policy of Nazi Germany that Jews should not live in ‘Aryan’ towns and villages?

Many on the Left will be tempted to welcome this document as being better than might be expected.  Perhaps it is, but unfortunately it goes down the road of confusing and conflating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  We should be stating that today the advocates of Zionism are to be found holding hands with the far-Right including anti-Semitic politicians. 

Netanyahu's closest ally in Europe, Viktor Orban, wants to rehabilitate the pro-Nazi ruler who sent 437,000 Jews to Auschwitz

It is no accident that the Israeli government has just reached an accord with the Polish government over a Holocaust law which renders it an offence to publish books on Polish complicity in the crimes of the Nazi occupiers and on occasion it was Polish nationalists who initiated the attacks on Jews as was the case in Jedwabne in 1941 when villagers herded up to 1600 Jews into a barn which they then set alight.  Netanyahu has invited over, on a state visit in the summer, Viktor Orban of Hungary who not only waged an overtly anti-Semitic campaign against George Soros, but he has described the pro-Nazi dictator of Hungary during the war, Admiral Horthy, who presided over the deportation of nearly half a million Jews to Auschwitz, as an ‘outstanding statesman’. When Ken Livingstone pointed to the support of the Nazis for Zionism he forgot to say that this support was reciprocated. 

Le Pen combines antisemitism with Zionism

All over Europe anti-Semitic politicians and far-Right and fascist parties combine support Zionism and Israel with Islamaphobia.  From Marine Le Pen in France to Geert Wilders of The Netherlands to Germany’s Alternatives for Germany [Loathed by Jews, Germany’s far-right AfD loves the Jewish state, Times of Israel, 24.9.17] to neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, the founder of America’s alt-Right who describes himself as a White Zionist.

The implicit assumption running throughout this Code of Conduct is that there is a thin line dividing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and that anti-Zionism is often a cover for anti-Semitism.  Although this does occasionally happen what is far more frequent today is the reverse – it is anti-Semites who use support for Israel and Zionism as a cover for anti-Semitism.  No better example is there than Tommy Robinson, the British fascist who combines support for Israel with befriending anti-Semites and holocaust deniers.

The Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct is not the panacea that many people are hoping it will be.  By avoiding the topic of weaponisation of anti-Semitism my prediction is that it is going to prove all but useless in the battle against the false anti-Semitism smears.

Tony Greenstein