Do You Not Have a Shred of Decency? Why did
the Guardian remove from its coverage of Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s death any reference
to the Palestinians?
Dear Kath and Jonathan,
Yesterday’s Guardian has 4 pages dedicated
to the life of Archbishop Desmond Tutu. 60% of the front page was also devoted
to his death. As someone whose first political activity, as a 16 year old schoolboy,
was demonstrating against the 1970 Springbok Rugby tour, I am the last person
to quarrel with the extent of your coverage.
What I find amazing though is that
there wasn’t even a passing mention of Tutu’s support for the Palestinians or his
description
of Israel as worse than its South African counterpart:
your struggle will be harder than ours, as Israel’s apartheid
is even worse than South Africa’s. We never had F-16s bomb our bantustans
killing hundreds of our children. Remember that.”
Tutu never lost an opportunity to
criticise what he termed an apartheid state. This was well before B’Tselem’s Report
describing Israel as ‘A regime of Jewish
supremacy’ and Human Rights Watch’s Report
‘A Threshold Crossed - Israeli
Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution’.
Perhaps I can make a more general
observation? When people pay a tribute to someone and deliberately, for unspoken
political reasons, excise a part of their life, they end up saying more about
themselves than their subject. Your coverage of Desmond Tutu’s death says more
about the Guardian than it does about him.
To do all these things and distort
someone’s life, because it’s politically inconvenient to tell the truth, and is
at variance with the Guardian’s editorial line, is not merely dishonest but politically
odious. It suggests that the tribute you paid to Archbishop Tutu’s struggle
against Apartheid is just hot air. Pious and empty words aimed at convincing
your readers that you retain some integrity.
We all know the reasons for the
Guardian’s dilemmas. You spent five years demonising Jeremy Corbyn and the Left
as ‘anti-Semites’. You lost no opportunity to portray people who were opposed
to apartheid as racists. Even worse you did it in the company of genuine
racists and anti-Semites.
People like Boris Johnson, who in his 2004 novel ‘72 Virgins’ depicted
Jews as controlling the media and being able to “fiddle” elections. Not
forgetting Jacob Rees-Mogg who, apart from tweeting in support
of the neo-Nazi AfD in Germany, described
fellow Jewish MPs John Bercow and Oliver Letwin as “Illuminati who are taking
the powers to themselves.” A comment described
as ‘expressly anti-Semitic’ by
Professor Michael Berkowitz of UCL.
Let me remind you both of one of
Desmond Tutu’s most famous speeches when he said:
“I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of
Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces. Their
humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and
harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid
government.”
What
is there in this that you or your fellow scribes at the Guardian don’t
understand? Either your opposition to what happened in South Africa, the subjugation
of people according to the doctrines of racial supremacy, is a principle or it
is a narrow political calculus dependent on the circumstances of the time.
The omission of any mention of Desmond Tutu’s
longstanding support for the Palestinians was not accidental, an unfortunate
oversight but a deliberate editorial decision. We know this because a critical
comment from Professor David Mond, who pointed this out, was deleted
by the Guardian. It did not accord with your ‘community standards.’ Likewise
two comments from Mark Seddon, the former Editor of Tribune, were also deleted.
Desmond
Tutu was a strong supporter of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel,
just as he supported sanctions against South Africa. That was the real reason
for your selective editing.
Of
course you did not want to mention Tutu’s position on Palestine. Tutu’s
opposition to Israeli apartheid routinely attracted
cries of ‘anti-Semitism’ from those who refuse to understand that opposing the Israeli
state for what it does is not the same as hostility to Jew.
I
fully understand your dilemma. The Guardian has spent so much of its time making
false accusations of anti-Semitism that you don’t know how to handle the legacy
of someone who, according to your definition, was anti-Semitic. Desmond Tutu
was an opponent of apartheid in all its forms, including its Jewish equivalent,
Zionism.
Just
one final thing. The Guardian seems to have gone quiet on Labour ‘anti-Semitism’.
I presume that you are satisfied with the fact that in order to eradicate ‘anti-Semitism’,
Starmer is expelling dozens of Jewish members? If you are Jewish in the Labour
Party today you are 5
times more likely to be expelled as non-Jews. It seems a strange way to
oppose anti-Semitism which is presumably why the Guardian says nothing?
Is
it too much for you now to come clean and admit that the campaign against Labour
‘anti-Semitism’ was never about Jews and always about Israel and its apartheid
practices?
The Charity
Commission Refused to Deregister the CAA in 2017 for Political Campaigning - I
Have Resubmitted My Complaint Before Going to the Charity Tribunal
I have just submitted a renewed
complaint to the Charity Commission against the Campaign AgainstAnti-Semitism who, as people know, I have also sued
for libel. The outcome of the interim hearing to determine the meaning of anti-Semitism
(it didn’t determine any meaning!) is here. I First Put a Link to this Video on my You Tube Channel - Glasman put in a Copyright Objection - a Strange Thing to Do For a Political Non-Commercial Video - Clearly He Feels Embarrassed by What He Said - However I also Saved the Video to Hard Disk and Google Drive
I have also had a longstanding petition against the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which has nearly 8,000 signatures. If you haven’t already sign please do.
According to the Charity Commission this type of abuse is perfectly charitable!
I
have submitted my complaint in the wake of Joe Glasman, Head of Political and
Goverment Investigations at the so-called Campaign Against Antisemitism taking
credit for the defeat of Jeremy Corbyn at the hands of his 'Macabees'.
John Bercow, the former Speaker of the House of Commons, who is also Jewish, in an interview in GQ magazine stated that there wasn't a 'whiff' of antisemitism about Corbyn.
Professor Geoffrey Alderman, a Jewish Chronicle columnist for 14 years and a right-wing Zionist wrote that there was no substance to the allegations of antisemitism against Corbyn
Glasman believes that his vile gang of racists has something in common
with Hebrew tribesmen fighting their battles against the Assyrians 2,000+ year
ago. The reality is that if the Zionists came across these Hebrews toay they and their Israeli friends would be the first to shoot them as 'terrorists' and 'infiltrators'. Their claim to a direct biological lineage is the stuff of which racial myths are made.
Just what charitable purpose was served by calling a demonstration against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party? The Charity Commission doesn't say
In February 2017 I submitted a
complaint to the Charity Commission, which was then chaired by the racist and
Islamaphobic bigot, William Shawcross.
Unsurprisingly the complaint did not get very far.
The Charity Commission was chaired from 2012-2018 by the racist bigot and Islamaphobe
In the light of the CAA’s unremitting campaign
against Corbyn since then, a campaign about which they have
boasted, I have submitted a second complaint and if (when) it is rejected I
will take it to the First Tier Charity Tribunal.
This is the kind of vicious targeting of a vulnerable Palestinian student that the Charity Commission has endorsed as compatible with its charitable objectives
The CAA specialises in demonising people such as Exeter student Malaka - she was accused of being a 'terrorist supporting antisemite' . The allegations the CAA made were completely untrue and the Daily Mail/Express and the local Devon Live apologised for them. Not so the CAA.
Rather than rehearse the evidence
against the CAA please read my complaint and also previous blog posts, here
and here
as well as a report
on my libel action
The one thing that the Campaign
Against Anti-Semitism doesn’t do is to campaign against anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism
of the traditional kind is all but ignored by it but ‘anti-Semitism’ of the
anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian variety
is very much its concern.
The CAA's pamphlet The CAA says in its charitable objectives that its purpose is to create racial harmony yet in its pamphlet British Muslims and Antisemitism it accuses British Muslims of being 'more likely by far than the general British population to hold deeply anti-Semitic views. It is clear that many British Muslims reserve a special hatred for British Jews...'
The photograph above, the cover of a CAA Report on Muslims and 'antisemitism' implies that Muslim supporters of the Palestinians are Hitler supporters on the basis of the actions of one idiot. It is an example of their idiot. Was the paedophile abuse of former President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Lord Janner, typical of Jews? Would that be antisemitic?
This full colour profile was taken down after protests to be replaced by the Black and White version below
The full
report which included a racist full
colour profile of the ‘typical’ Muslim was taken down after
protests. It was replaced by a
black and white version. [1]
The image of a Muslim was accompanied by a strap line ‘More likely to be’ and then there were a series of bubbles:
Male,
In Social Housing,
Older than 35,
Working,
Living in Scotland
or in England South of the Midlands,
Sympathetic to Terrorism,
Extremism or violence,
First Generation Immigrant
It should
not be necessary to point out how racist and offensive this description of
Muslims by a ‘charity’ is. Just imagine that a Muslim charity posted a similar
image of the ‘typical Jew’. One suspects the Charity Commission would not take
more than 3 years to move into action given its previous record of action in
respect of Muslim charities.
The CAA called for the University to dismiss
Dr Gould. As its scare quotes
demonstrate, it has complete contempt for academic freedom. Perhaps this is in
furtherance of their charitable objectives?
Kenneth
Stern, who drafted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, in written testimony to the US House of
Representatives Committee on the Judiciary argued that “The definition was
not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a
college campus.”[4] Stern cited the case of Professor Gould:
“Perhaps most
egregious, an off-campus group [CAA] citing the definition called on a university to
conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for
antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before.The
university then conducted the inquiry.And while it ultimately found
no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and
McCarthy-like.”
Mr Gideon Falter, Chief Executive of the CAA called on the university to dismiss
Dr Gould. The University concluded that “the article is not
anti-Semitic and does not breach the proper bounds of freedom of speech and
academic freedom.”
Perhaps
the Charity Commission would care to explain how targeting academics for
McCarthyite witchhunts is compatible with the CAA’s charitable objectives.
Jackie Walker – the CAA accuse the first Israeli
Prime Minister David Ben Gurion of Holocaust denial
Jackie was expelled from the
Labour Party for ‘“prejudicial
and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party” not anti-Semitism. However
the CAA has no less than 67 articles on its website attacking Jackie as an
‘anti-Semite’.
‘If
I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is
normal. We have taken their country. It is true G-d promised it to us, but how
could that interest them? Our G-d is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism,
the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz but was that their fault? They see but one thing:
we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?’
It is difficult to understand the psychopathology
and mental gymnastics by which the above statement could be read as a denial of
Hitler’s responsibility for the Holocaust. However the CAA managed it.
What the CAA did not realise that this
quote was taken from The Jewish Paradox, a book by Nahum Goldmann, the first President of
the World Jewish Congress and President of the World Zionist Organisation . The quotation came from David Ben
Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel. Ben Gurion was responsible for the
ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians but even he was capable of reflecting
reflecting on the situation of his victims. Ben Gurion understood that what
Hitler had done was not the Palestinians’ fault even though they had paid the
price. But to the CAA any attempt to
understand the Palestinian point of view, especially when the Holocaust is
mentioned, is tantamount to Holocaust denial.
When they realised their mistake the CAA
quickly removed the article and pretended nothing had happened. No apology was
ever offered for having all but accused Jackie Walker of being a holocaust
denier. Before this post had been taken down it was widely publicised on social
media and many people, including the idiot political correspondent of Jewish News,
Jack Mendel, commented on it.
To date there have been 535 hostile articles attacking Jeremy
Corbyn.Given that charities are
supposed to be non-party political this is outrageous and the fact that the Charity
Commission has done nothing to date about it is symptomatic of how all wings of
the State mobilised against a radical leader of the Labour Party.It is confirmation of the Marxist belief that
the bourgeois state is never neutral politically between capital and labour,
left and right.
The Upper Immigration Tribunal overturnedTheresa
May’s Deportation Order yet Freedland still accuses Raed Salah of
‘anti-Semitism’
I was wondering, when
writing this article, whether a new verb might be in order. To Freedland trans:
to deliberately distort or falsify an argument e.g. through concealment of evidence esp. by a journalist
When
writing a letter
to Jonathan Freedland regarding his latest attack
on Corbyn I asked myself – is this the most dishonest journalist in
Britain? Admittedly the competition is strong but given the Guardian’s
reputation as a left-liberal paper it would seem to me that Freedland is head
and shoulders above the competition.
John Bercow has failed to detect the anti-semitism in Corbyn that Freedland detects a plenty
Freedland’s
attack on Corbyn as anti-Semitic is tawdry, even by his standards.
He cobbles together 3 examples of Corbyn's 'antisemitism' and ignores the testimony of the Jewish Speaker
of the House of Commons, John Bercow, that there is not a ‘whiff’ of anti-Semitism
about Corbyn.
He ignores Corbyn’s record as an MP and the defence of Corbyn by the foremost
historian of the Jewish community, Professor Geoffrey Alderman and instead attacks him for associating with a Palestinian cleric.
It is worth
examining this.In 2011 Raed Salah,
leader of Israel’s Northern Islamic Leagues came to Britain. He was the subject
of a banning order but Theresa May’s Home Office was incompetent enough not to
have told anyone. See Theresa May's haste to ban Raed Salah will be repented at leisure
Smugness and superciliousness is written all over this ex-public schoolboy's face
Raed Salah
sailed through Britain's immigration controls and addressed a meeting at the House of
Commons.The next day he was arrested
and the First Immigration Tribunal upheld May’s decision. However in 2012
the Upper Immigration Tribunal overturned it, partly because the evidence relied on by the First Tribunal was a poem
of Salah’s which had been doctored by the Zionist Community Security Trust which had supplied the evidence against Salah to the Home Office. The Zionists
had included the phrase ‘we Jews’ in his poem.
How did
Freedland report this in his Guardian article?
when a Palestinian Islamist preacher was found by a British tribunal to have peddled the
medieval and lethal myth of Jews feasting on the blood of gentile children,
Corbyn declared that man a very “honoured citizen”, and invited him for tea in
the House of Commons.
What did
the Upper Tribunal find about this allegation of support for the allegation of
a blood libel? I quote:
First, and as pointed out by Professor Pappe, there is no reliable evidence of the appellant using words carrying a reference to the blood libel save in the single passage in a sermon delivered five years ago.
Similarly, the reliable evidence relating to
calls to martyrdom is confined to the
same occasion. The absence of other evidence
is striking, for at least two reasons.
The appellant is a prominent public figure
and a prolific speaker. The first indictment
shows that his speeches are of interest
to the authorities in Israel. In these
circumstances we think it can
fairly be said that the
evidence before us is not a
sample, or ‘the tip of the iceberg’: it is simply all the evidence that there is
In other
words there is no reference nor was there to Jews feasting on the blood of
gentile children. This phrase is entirely fictional, a creation of Freedland's fertile mind. In short it is a lie.Indeed Salah didn’t even mention Jews.He made an allegorical reference to the blood of children. Salah stated
“We have never allowed ourselves, and listen well, we have never allowed ourselves to knead the bread for the breaking of the fast during the blessed month of Ramadan with the blood of children. And if someone wants
a wider explanation, you should ask what used
to happen to some of the children of Europe, whose blood would be mixed in the dough of the holy bread. God Almighty, is
this religion? Is this what God wants? God will
confront you for what you are doing”.
You could
argue that the reference was ambiguous. Salah argued it was a reference to the
Spanish Inquisition. Possibly he got carried away by his rhetoric but this was a speech made in
2007, five years' previously.It was only in 2012, as a result
of the proceedings in the British courts that the Israeli authorities prosecuted
him. In fact the first court, the Jerusalem magistrates court acquitted him of
racial incitement in 2013 but the prosecution appealed and in November 2014 he was convicted and
sentenced to 9 months.
The fact that both these cases, relating to events in 2007, were only prosecuted after the events in Britain demonstrates the artificial political nature of the proceedings. Israel's courts are, for Palestinians, colonial courts.
No Israeli Jew, ever, has been prosecuted for
chanting ‘Death to the Arabs’. The authors of a book Torat Hamelech which
justified the murder of non-Jewish children and infants were not prosecuted.
Rabbi Dov Lior - his view is that one Jewish fingernail is worth a thousand non-Jewish lives
According to the Jerusalem
Post the book, published in 2009 and written by Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and
Yosef Elitzur of Od Yosef Hai Yeshiva in the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar,
was 'an analysis of the Jewish laws of the permissibility of killing
non-Jews during times of war and peace.' This wasn't some academic tome, it
relates to the rulings of military rabbis during the attacks on Gaza and
Lebanon who encourage the killing of civilians, including children in 'war'. Yet this kind of racism goes unremarked by
Jonathan Freedland. His writings are
effectively an accompaniment to Israel's targeting of Palestinian civilians.
In other
words Jonathan Freedland deliberately lied and distorted the facts about
someone that the Israelis tried to murder on the Mava Marmara but got the wrong
man.Raed Salah is a dignified man who
has been subject to the most horrendous persecution in Israel yet Freedland, in order to bolster his attacks on Corbyn, uses the victim of Zionist
racism as a tool in his armoury.Disgusting or what?
In my
letter to him I quoted an old saying. It bears repeating:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
(thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
I am sure
that Freedland is unbribed but I’m equally sure that what he does is in
conjunction with state actors both in Israel and Britain.
Your latest anti-Corbyn
screed is possibly the most dishonest of all those you have penned since Corbyn
became leader of the Labour Party. It is, of course, timed to do most damage to
Labour’s election campaign. However your objective is so transparent that it is
unlikely to achieve its objective, other than confirming that the Guardian has
gone to rack and ruin.
As Gary Younge, one of the
few good journalists left departs for pastures anew what are you left
with?A bunch of ageing hacks without an
original thought between them – Rafael Behr, whose pomposity is his only attribute,
Suzanne Moore, whose acid pen is directed only at people like Julian Assange
and Polly Toynbee who is fading fast.
Where are people like
Jonathan Steele, Hugo Young, John Palmer, David Hirst, Michael Adams, Richard
Gott, Victor Zorza (who you won’t remember)? You would do well to recruit the
only decent Tory columnist on the market, now that the Mail has released him. I
refer to Peter Oborne but I suspect that even he is too radical for you.
I digress. Your connections
with the British state and Chatham House are a matter of record. I have no
doubt that your article was in accord with the consensus amongst your friends
that Corbyn, with his opposition to US imperialism would be harmful and
dangerous to Western interests. It is that and that only which explains your
concern with ‘anti-Semitism’.
If you were seriously
concerned about anti-Semitism then you would have written something about a
Tory party whose MEPs are members of the same political group in the European parliament,
the ECR,
as the representative of fascist and anti-Semitic parties.
10 years ago you wrote about
this very subject. Your article Once
no self-respecting politician would have gone near people such as Kaminski’
was immediately responded to by the leader of today’s ‘Corbyn is an anti-Semite
campaign’, Stephen Pollard, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle. Pollard wrote
that ‘Poland's Kaminski is not an antisemite:
he's a friend to Jews’. And historically he was right. Anti-Semites have
always been friends to Zionism.
In the scale of things, sitting down with Latvian
MEP Roberts Zile, who marches each year with the veterans of the Latvian Waffen
SS, is somewhat greater in the order of things than accusing someone of failing
to understand British irony. As Monica Lowenberg wrote
in an open letter to the Latvian government, her uncle Paul was murdered by
these same thugs, including the 15th SS Division, the most decorated
of all SS Divisions, in the Riga Ghetto.
Yet despite your obsession with Corbyn you
have not written for over a decade about the Tories’ links with Ziles or
Kaminski, the Polish MEP who told the remnants of Polish Jewry to apologise to
those who had burnt their fellows alive in Jedwabne.
Instead you construct a nest
of lies and half-truths in order to substantiate your accusations against Corbyn.
This despite the fact that the Jewish former Speaker John Bercow testified
that there is not a whiff of anti-Semitism in Corbyn, having known him for 22
years. Similarly the foremost historian of the Jewish community, Professor Geoffrey
Alderman, a right-wing Zionist like yourself, wrote
that Corbyn has devoted himself to supporting Jewish causes in Islington
including the preservation of the West London Jewish cemetery in the face of
plans by Margaret Hodge’s council to demolish it.
Instead you rely on 3 bogus and
dishonest examples of Corbyn’s ‘anti-Semitism’. A mural that Corbyn defended on
free speech grounds, which contained 2 (not 6 as you implied) Jewish bankers. Nor
were they hook nosed. The example of British irony not being appreciated by 2 Zionists
born in this country was a contrast with a Palestinian speaker who was not born
here.Nothing anti-Semitic about
that.
Not forgetting your demonization
of a Palestinian preacher, Raed Salah. You ‘forgot’ to mention that the Upper
Immigration Tribunal had overturned Theresa May’s deportation order because his
poem, upon which the prosecution relied, had been doctored. The Tribunal did not find that Salah was a believer in
the medieval Jewish blood libel myth and indeed Salah himself made that clear in
the pages of the Guardian.
We are left therefore with
the conclusion that your only concern was to defend the most racist state in
the world. Your concern with ‘anti-Semitism’ might be taken seriously if you
devoted the same time to protesting the racist actions of Israel, the ‘Jewish’
State.
Imagine that the Bishop of
Manchester decreed that non-Jews should not rent their homes to Jews?Yet that is exactly what the Chief Rabbi of
Safed did in 2011 when he ruled
that Jews should not let their homes to Arabs.He was supported by dozens of Israeli rabbis yet he is a paid state employee.
Imagine that hundreds of British
Christians demonstrated against the sale of a house to a Jew? Yet in Afula, a
northern Israeli city, such demonstrations
have occurred in the past two years. Your silence on these and other
manifestations of the racism of Zionism is revealing.
If British Jews experienced
even a fraction of the discrimination that Palestinians citizens of Israel experience
then your charge of anti-Semitism would be justified.As it is you are a dishonest scribe, a paid
propagandist, with an agenda that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.If as you claim 87% of British Jews believe that
Corbyn is an anti-Semite then it is because of dishonest journalists like you.
I have submitted a response
to the Comment pages but since you are the Editor I am sure it will not see the
light of day.It is such a pity that the
brainchild of the late Georgina Henry is now in the hands of Chatham House’s
servant. As the old saying goes:
You cannot hope to bribe or
twist
(thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
Ten Years Ago Stephen Pollard, the JC's Editor DEFENDED antisemitic Polish MEP, Michal
Kaminski, because he was pro-Israel
John Bercow, the former Speaker, denies that there is any trace of antiSemitism about Jeremy Corbyn
‘Anti-Semitism’ has become one of
the key weapons in the Establishment’s war on Corbyn and the Labour Party, as I
predicted in a letter to The Independent over 3 years ago. I wrote that:
‘Incidents of anti-Semitism in
the Labour Party have been shown to be mainly froth without substance. It is
time to end the weaponisation of anti-Semitism. The only people who benefit
from this are real anti-Semites. It is the “boy cried wolf” syndrome.
If only Corbyn had listened to me rather than the idiot Seamus Milne then all could have been different!
Events
unfortunately have proven me correct.A
series of anti-racist figures in the Labour Party – from Ken Livingstone to
Jackie Walker to Chris Williamson have been targeted by the supporters of
Zionism and Israel.All in the name of
the fight against ‘anti-Semitism’.
Today
the Jewish Chronicle is in full throttle.It is literally becoming hysterical as the Tory campaign flounders.Last week Stephen Pollard wrote to his
readers:
‘Over the
next 6 weeks we will discover whether the British public are prepared to put an
anti-Semite into No. 10.’
The Jewish Chronicle's hysterical front page this week
And
he wasn’t talking about Boris Johnson or Jo Swinson! This week it has gone
further.In a front
page editorial entitled ‘To All Our
Fellow British Citizens’ it informs us that
‘The vast
majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite. In the
most recent poll, last month, the figure was 87 per cent.’
As
I wrote yesterday on this blog
‘If as the Jewish Chronicle claims 87% of British Jews
consider Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite then British Jews are amongst the most
stupid people on this planet.’
Of
course British Jews have had a 4 year barrage of propaganda designed to make
them fearful, telling them that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semiteand that the Gestapo is around the corner.
However
that doesn’t excuse their inability to work out what is happening nor does it
excuse the utter stupidity of Labour leaders, prime amongst them Jennie Formby
and Corbyn himself, who have proceeded on the basis that if they did everything
their accusers told them to do then all would be alright.
Ironically
UNITE leader Len McLuskey got it right when he wrote
in the Huff Post that ‘Jewish Community Leaders Are Refusing To Take 'Yes' For An Answer’. UnfortunatelyLen didn’t draw the
obvious conclusions which was that the Zionists, which is what they are,
weren’t interested in answers.They
wanted Corbyn’s head and until they got it they would proceed with their
campaign.
Week after week the same message - Corbyn is a racist
But
Corbyn and his advisors should have worked that out a long time ago too. The
first thing that Corbyn should do if he gains office is to give Seamus Milne,
his useless advisor the sack. Milne should have put two and two together and
then proceeded to devise a strategy for standing up these petty businessmen.
It
doesn’t take much to work out that supporters of Donald Trump and Netanyahu are
unlikely to really believe in fighting anti-Semitism. Did Corbyn not know that
the Board of Deputies has never fought fascist anti-Semitism always
advising the Jewish community to keep its head down?
Pollard Gets Around - The paper that supported Hitler, opposed Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany coming in and employed Katie Hopkins opposes 'antisemitism'
When 29
Orthodox Jewish rabbis wrote supporting Corbyn and attacking the Board of
Deputies Corbyn should have thanked them and then utilised that support.
Despite the pathetic
attempt of Pollard to suggest that the letter wasn’t genuine.
Only
this week John Bercow, one of the few principled members of the parliamentary
establishment, stated
outright that there wasn’t a whiff of anti-Semitism about Jeremy Corbyn.
The Jewish Telegraph doesn't like its columnists thinking for themselves - apparently they think Alderman needed their permission to post the video!
Likewise
the foremost historian of the British Jewish community and himself a Zionist,
but an honest one (they are few and far between these days) Professor Geoffrey
Alderman, in a video and a Spectator article last May, made it clear that
Jeremy Corbyn has stood
up for his constituents against genuine racists like Margaret Hodge, who
was all in favour of demolishing a Jewish cemetery.
The JLM is the overseas wing (or in its works the ‘sister
party’ of the almost defunct Israeli Labour Party. Because in Israel there
is no space left for ‘Left’ Zionism any longer.The sole purpose of Labour Zionism is to prettify the State of Israel.
What is truly outrageous is that the JLM has refused
to endorse or support Labour’s election campaign and yet it still remains
an affiliated socialist society.
Every time Corbyn promised to do better, to kick
the ‘anti-Semites’ out of the party, then their enemies used that to ‘prove’
that Labour was ‘anti-Semitic’.By
accepting their enemies narrative they sharpened the weapon against them. If
they had called these shysters out from the start they would have nipped it in
the bud. Instead it has grown into a Frankenstein. It cannot be emphasised
enough
THIS CAMPAIGN AGAINST
‘ANTI-SEMITISM’ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTI-SEMITISM.
That is why the Zionists were so insistent in the
summer of 2018 that the Labour Party had to adopt the IHRA
definition of anti-Semitism. Slated
by academic and legal scholars it nevertheless was a crucial weapon in the
attack on supporters of Palestinians and anti-Zionists in the Labour Party.
Even the person who wrote the damn thing, American academic Kenneth Stern has
now accepted that it is ‘chilling’ free
speech in his testimony
to Congress.
Instead of anti-Semitism being hostility to or
prejudice against Jews, the OED definition,
it was now defined by hostility to Israel, the ‘new anti-Semitism’ that
Zionists have been promoting for over 30 years.11 illustrations of anti-Semitism accompanied the IHRA, 7 of which
relate to Israel. Calling Israel a racist state (or endeavour) was now
anti-Semitic even though Israel is a racist state.
Exercising ‘double standards’ when criticising
Israel by not criticising every other dictatorship was now ‘anti-Semitic’. This
was precisely what apologists for Apartheid in South Africa alleged.Why criticise us when there are far worse
states?
A few of this week's Jewish Chronicle headlines - it's all go to stop Hitler Corbyn
The irony in all this is that the person who has
led the charge, former Express editor Stephen Pollard is himself is a virulent
racist. He is a founding
signatory of the Henry Jackson Society, the Associate
Director of which is none other than Douglas Murray, a man who even the
Tory Front Bench cut
their links with such was his racism. Statements such as
‘There
are certain things in Britain about which it is impossible to speak frankly.
The birth rate of the Muslim population is a prime subject”
Former Tory MP Paul Goodman in an article
explaining why the
Tory frontbench broke off relations with
Murrayon the Conservative Home website cited how in2006
Murray made a speech in the Dutch Parliament arguing that
"Conditions
for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look
like a less attractive proposition".
Suggestions
as to how this might be achieved included ‘demolishing
mosques in certain circumstances.’ and that "all immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop"
The Trump remedy. This is the kind of person Pollard finds congenial company.
Not
once has the Jewish Chronicle campaigned against genuine racism such as
Windrush. Indeed Pollard had the audacity to berate
Corbyn for not having shown the same ‘passion
you have shown over the Windrush scandal?’ for anti-Semitism. The JC has
never once concerned itself with racism against Black and Muslim people. Not
surprisingly since it acts as a mouthpiece for the Israeli state.
What is even worse though is that Pollard is unconcerned
about genuine anti-Semitism, hatred or hostility to Jews as Jews. His only
condition is that they should support Israel. The JC has no criticism of Viktor
Orban, the anti-Semitic Prime Minister of Hungary who is rehabilitating Admiral
Horthy, the pro-Nazi ruler of Hungary during the war, who presided over the
deportation of half a million Jews to Auschwitz in 1944.In Orban’s view
Horthy was an ‘exceptional statesman’.Orban was an honoured guest in Israel last
summer and Netanyahu was a guest the year before.
Even worse was the scandal that arose in 2009. The Tories
left the mainstream European Peoples’ Party in the European Parliament for the European
Conservative Reform Group. The ECR contains a host of anti-Semitic and
racist parties such as Poland’s Law and Justice Party, the Latvian
LNNK/Fatherland and Freedom Party, the Danish People’s Party and the Swedish
Democrats.
The Law & Justice Party which is deeply anti-Semitic also
had as its leader in the European parliament one Michal Kaminski, who had been
a member of a neo-Nazi group.Kaminski
was the MP for Jedwabne, a village where in 1941 up to 1,600Jews were herded into a barn which was then
set alight.Not by the SS but local
Poles, supporters of the Nationalist Party. When in 2001 the Polish President Aleksander
Kwasniewski. offered a formal apology
and a memorial was erected in Jedwabne on the 60th anniversary of
the massacre Kaminski was heading the Committee to Establish the Good Name of
Jedwabne.
When Vivien Wineman, then President of the Board of Deputies
raised the issue, he was attacked bitterly by the same people who are now part
of the anti-Semitism smears. Dean Godson of the Policy Exchange think tank, attacked
Wineman’s intervention at a meeting of the Holocaust
Educational Trust one of the organisations that is a signed up member of
the anti-Semitism smear campaigns.Wineman came under sustained attack and in the end backed off.Genuine anti-Semitism was of no concern to
these people.
David Miliband as Foreign Secretary attacked
the Tories over these links and Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian columnist found
it too much. He wrote
that ‘Once
no self-respecting politician would have gone near people such as Kaminski.’Pollard
replied
two days later ‘
‘Poland's Kaminski is not an antisemite: he's a
friend to Jews’.And what was the basis of his friendship? ‘Kaminski is... one of the greatest
friends to the Jews in a town where antisemitism and a visceral loathing of
Israel are rife.’
In
other words if you support Israel, as many fascists (Tommy Robinson, Richard
Spencer, Steven Bannon) do then that cancels out Jew hate. Kaminski had argued
that ‘Poles should not
apologise for what they did [at Jedwabne] until Jews apologised to them for
their actions which had included "murdering Poles".
The Tories Got Into Bed With This Man and Pollard Supported It
Pollard
even defended Latvia’s MEP Roberts Zile: ‘I
can think of no source for evidence against Zile other than those who so
disgracefully besmirch Kaminski.’ Well the evidence was there in abundance.
Every year Zile marched with the veterans of the Latvian Waffen SS, which was
the most decorated out of all the SS divisions.
In
an open
letter to the Latvian parliament Monika Lowenberg described how they had
taken part in the murder of her brother in the Riga Ghetto in 1941. She wrote of
her
‘deep
concern that British Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament work with the
Latvian MEP Roberts Zile and have made an unholy alliance with the party to
which he is connected.’
So
how do we square Pollard’s defence of genuine anti-Semites with the Pollard who runs, week after week, editorials
denouncing ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party. The only answer is Zionism and Israel.
These
facts are known in abundance and it is perplexing that Corbyn and his advisors
haven’t once had the guts or the gumption to respond to Pollard and the Board
of Deputies over their nauseating hypocrisy.
The
only concerns of the Board of Deputies are the Israeli state.When Israel began murdering unarmed
protestors last year at the Gaza fence, the Board of Deputies defended
the Israeli military. That is their only
concern yet Formby believes that if she expels a few more Palestinian
supporters everything will be right.
There
is one lesson that should have been learnt, even by the most stupid member of
Corbyn’s entourage and that is that if you appease an aggressor they only
become stronger. Instead of standing up to the Zionist lobby they have been
appeased and every time they have been appeased they have grown stronger.
Now
we face a full-on broadside from racists like Pollard and what is Lansman and
Momentum’s response?To throw Chris
Williamson, the only MP who had the guts to call out these racists for what
they are, under the bus. That is why my position is very simple.
Full Support for Chris
Williamson
I
am giving my full support to Chris Williamson as an Independent Socialist
candidate in the Derby North by-election. I understand that the Labour Party
nationally have imposed a Blairite on the constituency. Those, like Lara
MacNeill, a Lansman toerag who suggest
that Chris is splitting the vote are looking at the world upside down! It is
her boss who engineered the NEC vote that refused to endorse Chris as a sitting
MP.If anyone is splitting the vote it
is Lansman and the NEC.Unlike the
imposed Blairite, he will support Jeremy Corbyn if and when he is elected.
I
am pleased to see that the Morning Star has run
an article today from Chris.It is
well worth reading.
