Victories in Canada and New Zealand Shows that the IHRA CAN be Defeated - JVL's defeatism is counter-productive

It is because the IHRA is indefensible that the Government is threatening Universities which don’t adopt it with Financial Sanctions

Tommy Robinson explains why he is a Zionist in identical terms to the 3 Labour Party leadership candidates - because Jews have a right to a homeland!

The IHRA is a weapon fashioned to defend the Israeli state and western imperialist interests and targeted at the Palestine solidarity movement. That is its only purpose.  It is irrelevant to a fight against anti-Semitism not least because some of its formulations are in themselves anti-Semitic. That is why its principal supporters lie in the British Establishment.

Why is a definition useful in the fight against anti-Semitism?  Noone seems to have asked this question.  Perhaps because it is so obvious. When my father, like thousands of other working class Jews, opposed Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists march at Cable Street in 1936, the Board of Deputies told Jews to hide indoors, he didn’t need a definition of anti-Semitism to know what the beast is. Amongst its critics are:

Sir Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge who said of the IHRA that it ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite. He described it as

‘placing the historical, political, military and humanitarian uniqueness of Israel’s occupation and colonisation of Palestine beyond permissible criticism.’

David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism described it as ‘bewilderingly imprecise” Hugh Tomlinson QC said the IHRA ‘lacks clarity and comprehensiveness’ and that it has ‘a potential chilling effect on public bodies’

Geoffrey Robertson QC stated that it would ‘chill free speech’ and was  ‘not fit for purpose’  Even Kenneth Stern, the person who drafted it, in testimony to Congress, said:

‘“The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.,”. “It was never supposed to curtail speech on campus.”

Stern wrote in respect of the United States and Trump, a man who is clearly anti-Semitic that:

It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code, but that’s what Donald Trump’s executive order accomplished this week. This order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.

There is of course a very simple definition of 'anti-semitism' for anyone who is in need of one. It can be found in the Oxford English and Miriam Webster dictionaries. It comprises all of 6 words –‘hostility to or discrimination against Jews.’

Even Professor Geoffrey Alderman, a right-wing Zionist and the historian of Britain’s Jewish community, as well as a former Jewish Chronicle columnist, described the IHRA as a ‘a flawed and faulty definition of anti-Semitism.’

Despite this the IHRA has gained traction because of its utility to the political establishment as an effective way of defending Britain’s support for and trading links with Israel.

You might be forgiven for thinking that Britain's Palestine Solidarity Campaign would be eager to drive a nail into the IHRA’s coffin.  Not a bit of it.  It has given up the fight and it has been joined in this by Jewish Voice for Labour.

We were told at the recent PSC AGM by JVL's Professor Jonathan Rosenhead that it was impossible to fight back against the IHRA. We should accept defeat and move on. A message that was music to the ears of PSC’s Socialist Action leadership.

Events, however, as Harold MacMillan once observed, have a habit of upsetting the most austere of political predictions and contradicting even the most noble of Cassandras. Canada and New Zealand illustrate that it is perfectly possible, given the will, to fight the IHRA.

One of the problems with the Palestine solidarity movement is that unlike the Zionists we don’t have think tanks or discuss strategy together. Strategy is made on the hoof and tactics often become a substitute for strategy. Partly this is a consequence of the massive disparity in resources available to us and the Zionists.

However supporters of Palestine and anti-Zionists have one advantage, public support.  Even in countries with the most avid pro-Zionist leaderships such as Germany and the United States, the populace is coming towards our way of thinking.  Although we should be under no doubt that the consequence of the last 4.5 years of relentless ‘anti-Semitism’ barrage in Britain has been to strip off the soft periphery of support for Palestine.

Instead it is left to a few individuals such as Jonathan Cook, Asa Winstanley, Richard Silverstein and myself – writing for different blogs and web sites to act as a substitute. PSC, which should be a haven of fresh and innovative thinking to back up solidarity activists is instead an ideas free desert.

This presents a problem as activists turn away from the politics of what they are doing and why they are doing it and instead make a virtue out of the act in itself. Every occupation, protest, arrest and acquittal is a victory in itself. Like anarchists the deed becomes everything.

Tommy Robinson explains why he is a Zionist - note he is wearing a 'I am a Zionist' badge

It is therefore to be welcomed that there have been significant victories against the IHRA in New Zealand and Canada in particular. It would have been outrageous if Wellington Council had adopted the IHRA, after the murder of 50 Muslims in last year’s shooting. Israel, which the IHRA seeks to protect, is admired by White Supremacists such as Tommy Robinson and Geert Wilders. Israel is their model of a state because of its hostility to Muslims and its ethno nationalism. The IHRA is a definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ that even anti-Semites can support!

New Zealand

The Wellington Jewish Council had requested Wellington to adopt the IHRA. But the Jewish Council's request upset some members of the Wellington Progressive Synagogue, who noted the definition had the potential to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism (opposition to the state of Israel), as it had already done overseas.

At the Jewish council's request, the topic was removed from the city council's agenda on Tuesday. It was due to be discussed at a city council meeting on Wednesday.

In an opinion piece published in The Dominion Post on Tuesday, Progressive Synagogue members Marilyn Garson and Fred Albert argued the controversial definition could render criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestine antisemitic.

City councillor Iona Pannett said she supported the decision to have the item removed.

"We want a peaceful and safe way of discussing it, away from the public glare."

She had received correspondence from some members of the Jewish community who did not agree with the wording of the definition.

The proposal would also have been nothing more than "virtue-signalling" because the council did not have a plan on how to implement it, Pannett said.

Ontario

In Ontario activists have been fighting against the introduction of Bill 168 by the legislature. On February 27 the Bill passed by 55-0 and has been sent into Committee. The Bill calls on the government to be “guided” by the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism to “protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to anti-Semitism.”

Two days before the debate members of Independent Jewish Voices of Canada (IJV) held a press conference to urge MPPs to reject the “flawed” bill.

IJV charged that the bill “conflates” anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of Israel, and that as a law, it would be used to silence dissent on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

The following day, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) announced its support for the IJV position on the bill, which “infringes on both freedom of expression and academic freedom on post-secondary education campuses.”

The CFS, which represents 530,000 students across Canada. argued that the bill “threatens to criminalize activists fighting for Palestinian rights as well as critical analysis on Israel and Zionism,”

In arguments reminiscent of those used in Britain, Daniel Koren, executive director of Hasbara Fellowships Canada, said, “It is incredibly offensive that the CFS believes it can dictate what constitutes anti-Semitism and speak on behalf of Canada’s Jewish community, which overwhelmingly supports adopting the IHRA definition.”

Notice Koren doesn’t actually defend the IHRA, because in its own terms it is indefensible. Instead he makes the dishonest Zionist argument that it is ‘incredibly offensive’ for anyone but Zionists to define what is and isn’t anti-Semitism. The fact is that the IHRA frames support for Palestine solidarity and opposition to Zionism as ‘anti-Semitism’. No group, however powerful or prestigious has the right to define their ‘oppression’ in terms of another group which is oppressed.

More than 350 Canadian academics signed an open letter denouncing the IHRA definition, calling it an “imposition” that would “imperil the pursuit of truth and the legitimate expression of dissent.”

See Ontario moves closer to adopting IHRA definition of anti-Semitism

Protest in Calgary

Last month, Montreal joined Calgary and Vancouver in rejecting a motion to adopt the IHRA’s “working definition” of anti-Semitism.

Calgary

On 18 November 2019 Calgary City Councillors Diane Colley-Urquhart and Jeromy Farkas amended their motion on Antisemitism to exclude the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.

Calgary would have been the second Canadian city to vote on the IHRA re-definition following its adoption by the Liberal government as part of its “Anti-racism strategy” in June. Vancouver City Council voted on the definition early this year, but the motion failed, sending it to committee for the development of a comprehensive anti-racism position.

Independent Jewish Voices is not alone in speaking out against the adoption of the IHRA re-definition. It has also been strongly criticized by prominent civil liberties groups–including the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the American Civil Liberties Union–as well as by more than 40 Jewish organizations, who signed a 2018 open letter. The Federal NDP has likewise expressed concern that it could “be a threat for people who legitimately denounce grave human rights abuses by the government of Israel against Palestinians.”

Montreal

Calgary, 18 November 2019–Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV) applauds Calgary City Councillors Diane Colley-Urquhart and Jeromy Farkas for amending their motion on Antisemitism to exclude the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.

Montreal has withdrawn proposals for the IHRA to be adopted

Jewish Group Applauds Montreal City Council for Abandoning Controversial Definition of Antisemitism Montreal, January 28, 2020 –

Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV) applauds the Montreal City Council for abandoning a motion to adopt the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism today.

The motion to adopt the definition was withdrawn this morning by opposition leader Lionel Perez after the administration of Mayor Valérie Plante decided to send the motion to La Commission de la présidence du conseil (“The Commission of the Presidency of the Council”) for further study.

Montreal is the third Canadian city council to consider adopting the IHRA definition after similar attempts failed last year in both Vancouver and Calgary. IJV rallied significant grassroots opposition to all three motions. Over 300 IJV members and supporters sent letters to Montreal city councillors regarding today’s motion, and several spoke last night at City Hall renouncing it. 

“This is another major victory for all who oppose antisemitism and support Palestinian human rights,” said Corey Balsam, IJV’s National Coordinator. “We strongly believe that our safety as Jews is intimately tied with the safety and well-being of other communities targeted by hate and bigotry, and that includes the Palestinian people. We congratulate the City of Montreal for its decision to abandon the IHRA’s problematic definition and strongly encourage other cities and provinces in Canada to follow suit.”

Opposition to the IHRA definition has become increasingly widespread around the world, including in Quebec and throughout the rest of Canada. In Quebec, major trade unions such as the FTQ, CSN, FNEEQ, as well as the Ligue des Droits et Libertés have all expressed their support for dropping the IHRA definition.

IJV’s objections to the IHRA re-definition are detailed in its recent report, in which it deconstructs the definition line by line and warns of the dangerous consequences of its adoption both for the fight against antisemitism and the movement for Palestinian human rights.

“The IHRA definition sadly betrays the post-Holocaust ethos of “never again”, instrumentalizing the important fight against antisemitism to silence those who advocate for Palestinian human rights, including Jews themselves,” affirms Balsam. “IJV will continue to challenge the definition at every level of government and at any other institutional body to which it is proposed.” 

Currently there is a private member’s bill before the Ontario legislature that would implement the IHRA definition in that province, and IJV will mobilize opposition to that as well.

For more information, please see www.noihra.ca.

January 28, 2020 IJV Canada

Tony Greenstein’s 40% vote for Secretary of Palestine Solidarity Campaign is a shot across the Executive’s bows

PSC activists express their dissatisfaction with an Executive that puts a Zionist Emily Thornberry on a Palestinian platform

PSC’s November Bulletin boasted that ‘we had our biggest Parliamentary Lobby Day ever’. In ‘an incredible month for the Palestinian solidarity movement.’ there was a photograph of a PSC meeting at the House of Commons addressed by Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry. Thornberry is the same person who boasted that when she became an MP in 2005 she joined Labour Friends of Israel. At the UK Israel Conference 2017’ Thornberry gushed:

‘Let me start by thanking BICOM and the Jewish News for inviting me to today’s historic event and once again for giving me the opportunity to emphasise the Labour Party’s long-standing, unstinting and unequivocal support for the State of Israel’ ‘

and she continued

‘even today despite the challenges that we must address in respect of relations and rights of the Palestinian people modern Israel stands out as a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy... in a region where oppression, discrimination and inequality are too often the norm.’

Electronic Intifada said of her speech that it ‘could have been written by a pro-Israel lobbyist.’ In an address to Labour Friends of Israel annual dinner, Thornberry claimed that BDS was “bigotry against the Israeli nation [that] has never been justified.”

Today Thornberry’s beacon of freedom, equality and democracy is having a General Election. But it’s not an election based on class politics, socialism v conservatism, Green v climate deniers, poor v rich as in most western societies. It is a competition between former Israeli Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, Netanyahu and the New Right of Ayelet Shaked and Naftali Bennett as to who has killed the most Palestinians.

It features Likud MK Yaron Mazuz who teamed up with Elor Azaria, the soldier caught on camera executing a wounded and incapacitated Palestinian in Hebron.  As Elizabeth Tsurkov wrote in The Forward ‘Azaria’s military trial, conviction and incarceration for nine months were deeply unpopular among Jewish Israelis. The ad concludes with the line “Elor Azaria has joined me, you join too!”

PSC AGM: From file photo

As readers of this blog will be aware, I decided this year to stand for the post of National Secretary of PSC.  Apparently it was the first time in 15 years that an officer post was contested. I also produced a leaflet explaining why I was standing .

What led me to stand was not some unfulfilled ambition but a sense of despair at the timidity, caution and passivity of PSC in the face of the ongoing Zionist anti-Semitism campaign. Whilst I don’t think we should respond to every Zionist provocation to simply ignore our enemies attacks is and was foolish.  The failure to mount a serious campaign publicly against the IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ is unforgivable. 

What is unforgiveable it to put onto our platforms people who are our enemies.  Emily Thornberry is not a friend. She has made it clear that anti-Zionists should be expelled from the Labour Party.  What kind of serf mentality operates to think that giving her a platform will be of benefit to the Palestinians? Of course she will make all the right noises about Israeli human rights abuses but at the end of the day she is a signed up supporter of the Israeli State which carries out those abuses.

Razan al-Najar 21 year old medic gunned down by Thornberry's 'beacon of light' in Gaza last year

Jonathan Rosenhead and Glynn Secker of Jewish Voice for Labour defended PSC Executive at the AGM for having helped pay for the legal opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC and having mailed it out to local authorities.  Fine.  But did they hold any public meetings? Were there any lobbies of MPs over the IHRA? Did they support JVL’s own counter-demonstration outside the House of Commons on March 26^th at the height of the ‘mural’ affair? Did they support the lobby of Labour’s National Executive Committee on September 4^th? Are they going to follow up Liberty’s decision to oppose the IHRA? Or is everything going to be tokenistic?

The adoption of the IHRA is a dagger aimed at the heart of Palestine solidarity. What it means is that you can oppose Israeli human rights atrocities but you cannot oppose the state that perpetrates those atrocities. Imagine that the Anti-Apartheid Movement had opposed the actions of the South Africa state in Soweto but had refused to criticise the State itself? That is what the IHRA does and for PSC not to take it seriously and for leading JVL members to give them their support is unconscionable.  It is also stupid politics.

My advice to JVL is some comradely advice to look to America and follow the example of Jewish Voice for Peace which has now openly declared that it is an anti-Zionist organisation.

I had considerable doubts about standing.  Firstly because becoming a national officer of PSC is not one of my ambitions! Secondly because I was unsure about how my message would go down to a conference that is not normally known for its willingness to challenge the Executive. In the end I did far better than I had expected with about 40% of the vote 67-101 (at least I think so as someone rang me as the results were being announced!). At least 50 people simply abstained. If I was Ben Soffa I would be worried having been elected with a minority of delegates, many of whom were wielding a union block vote!

My motion on Jenny Tonge received 89-129 votes and it is clear that many people were extremely unhappy at the dumping of someone who has been of the fiercest advocates of the Palestinians in Parliament and who has suffered an extraordinary amount of vilification from McCarthite smear groups like the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. Her treatment was at the hands of the new Chair of PSC, Kamel Hawash, which suggests that Hawash is going to continue where the retiring Chair Hugh Lanning left off. PSC needs to learn to stand up to its enemies not retreat at the first sound of gunfire.

There was also a soft motion from Liverpool Friends of Palestine raising the question of a single democratic state. It was soft enough for the Executive to support it. It stated that 'decisions on the strategy for Palestinian liberation will be taken by Palestinians.' which begs the point that Palestinians are in no position to take any decisions on strategy.  It is the Quisling Palestinian Authority which in practice makes such decisions.

Even more amazingly a motion from Exeter PSC which described what Israel is doing as ‘slow motion genocide’ was passed by Conference against the opposition of the Executive.  This is almost unheard of.

Given that PSC Executive can count on a block vote by affiliated unions, who possess 3 card votes it suggests that the Executive is losing the support of activists. This is not helped by the turgid format of the Conferences themselves. Year after year an Executive Report is presented to the Conference. Year after year the Report says much the same thing.  It is as if the Executive has a psychological need to have their lethargy and lack of imagination complimented.

Conference needs to be restructured with breakout sessions and workshops and a genuine interaction between delegates. At the moment it serves no useful purpose. All affiliated bodies i.e. trade unions should have only one vote not three. People should be able to vote the moment they join. Unfortunately PSC Executive is not blessed with either imagination or daring! It fears innovation.

I asked  a question on the Finance Report which was how come with an increased membership the amount of income went down! The Treasurer was unable to give an answer at least not one that anyone could understand. The membership figures were given for the first time ever.  Apparently they have jumped from 4,064 to 5,900 in the last year. I don’t believe it.  I remember Betty Hunter announcing a decade ago that PSC membership was over 5,000.

It is welcome that Jenny Lynn was reelected with the highest vote and a welcome to a Jersey PSC member, Natalie Strecker who spoke strongly in the ‘genocide’ debate of her experiences in the Zionist hell hole called Hebron. Unfortunately Monica Wusterman decided in the end not to stand.

The primary problem is that the Executive is in the political grip of Socialist Action and the Communist League, the remnants from the old International Marxist Group. Their politics are effectively Stalinist and the capitalist Chinese regime is a model of socialism to them.

More importantly they do not believe in rocking the boat and they believe in cuddling up to the Trade Union bureaucracy.  So although most Unions are affiliated to PSC they have nonetheless support the Zionist IHRA definition of anti-Semitism without a word of protest by PSC Executive. At no time has there been an attempt to win the unions to opposing the IHRA in the Labour Party or outside it.

Unfortunately Socialist Fight fall into a trap that the Zionists have laid

I carry below a report from Gerry Downing of Socialist Voice on the conference. The Report is a fair one but I have to say that their continued characterisation of the Israel or Zionist lobby as a Jewish ethnic lobby is unhelpful. The fact that the Zionist lobby describes itself as Jewish is no reason for SV to adopt this anti-Semitic meme.

It is also not true.  People like Lord Pickles of CFI are not Jewish but are nonetheless ardent Zionists. The fact that many Jews are Zionists is irrelevant. That is not the reason why the British and US states supports Israel. There is nothing Jewish about the Israel lobby.

Tony Greenstein

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign AGM 26-1-2019

27/01/2019 by socialistfight

The woman on the right on the Gaza border is just about to be shot dead by an IDF sniper in what is clearly a war crime.

Report by Gerry Downing

Approximately 250 in attendance. Most of the AGM was routine apart from some questioning of the finance report – how come with an increase of 31% in membership income receipts from members declined from £84,142 in 2017 to £80, 775 in 2018? Answer: If you joined in August only that portion of your membership from August to January would be counted. Satisfied?

Four contested events: two motions and the elections for the Secretary and for the eight lay members of the Executive.

The first controversial motion was that from Exeter PSC on the Nation State law. The Executive wanted to remove that part of the first paragraph which said, “which in relation to Palestinians in Israel or Occupied Palestine Territories can be described at best as apartheid … and at worst as attempted (slow motion Exeter addendum) genocide … These are both crimes under international law.”

So, the Zionist lobby attacked the PSC Executive viciously, expecting a robust response, but the Executive cleverly fooled them by running away.

Exeter accepted the addendum of the Executive but not the deletion.  A heated discussion took place, Socialist Fight’s two delegates strongly defending the Exeter designation of the actions of Israel as genocide. We pointed out that South African apartheid was different to the intent and actions of Israel. The South African racists wanted to exploit the labour of the oppressed black population, Israel wanted to get rid of the Palestinians. The Naqba had ethnically cleansed up to 800,000 Palestinians in 1948, the Nation State Law showed its intent to legally designate the remaining Palestinian who were citizens of Israel as second class and the constant bombing of Gaza was another strong indication of their intent. Supporters of Exeter’s motion defeated the Executive amendment with no count of the votes necessary and so their designation of Israel’s actions as ‘slow motion genocide’ stands.

The desire to conciliate Zionist reaction was even clearer in the other controversial motion, Motion 3, proposed by Tony Greenstein. This defended Jenny Tonge against the action of the Executive in forcing her resignation because, in response to the Zionist use the murder of 11 Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pennsylvania on 27 October she tweeted: “Absolutely appalling and a criminal act, but does it ever occur to Bibi and the present Israeli government that its actions against Palestinians may be reigniting anti-Semitism? I suppose someone will say that it is anti-Semitic to say so.”

They did, beginning with the right wing Tory bigots, Conservative Friends of Israel Lords Pickles and Polak. The motion pointed out that “nothing that Jenny Tonge said was antisemitic” and that Israeli Minister Naftali stated that “the hand that fire missiles is the same hand that shoots worshippers”.

The debate was heated, with all defenders of the Executive’s appalling treatment of Jenny essentially arguing that we had to bow to the Zionist onslaught, and she said the wrong thing at the wrong time. Basically, you could no longer speak the truth about Israel during a vicious Zionist campaign of lies and slanders against the left. So, the Zionist lobby attacked the PSC Executive viciously, expecting a robust response, but the Executive cleverly fooled them by running away. The motion was lost by 89 votes to 129 with 22 abstentions because it was basically a vote of no confidence in the Executive and they would have been forced into a humiliating climb down and the new Chair, Kamel Hawwash, who took the main responsibility for the conduct of the affair, would have to resign.  But 89 thought he should and 22 were not sure about him at all.

Tony Greenstein stood for the Secretary’s position against Ben Soffa but lost by 67 votes to 103, a creditable performance. Socialist Fight putout a leaflet critically defending him (he did motivate our expulsion from Labour Against the Witchhunt). In his blog and in the leaflet he put out at the conference he attacked the PSC Executive because their: “Self-congratulation, timidity and caution bordering on obsequiousness is not the stuff of a solidarity campaign! He goes through their list of failures, failure to defend Jeremy Corbyn and the left anti-Zionists in Labour against the bogus charges of left anti-semitism. “Israel is NOT a democratic state – that should be our message” so why did the PSC Executive have “a PSC meeting in the House of Commons with Emily Thornberry, Shadow Foreign Secretary addressing the meeting. This is the same Emily Thornberry who is quoted as stating that:

‘People who believe Israel does not have the right to exist should be drummed out of the Labour Party.’

Far from challenging Thornberry to disavow her support for Labour Friends of Israel PSC uncritically gives her a platform. In an interview with The Standard she boasted that “I joined Labour Friends of Israel when I became an MP in 2005. I support the Palestinians’ right to have a state and I support the state of Israel.’

The meeting was addressed by His Excellency Husam Zomlot, Palestinian Ambassador to the UK. Tony’s flyer correctly states that “the Palestinian Authority is a Quisling authority”:

“The PA openly collaborates with Israeli security forces, something which Mahmoud Abbas has described as ‘sacred’. The PA is an enemy of the Palestinian people, yet PSC has never uttered even one word of criticism. On the contrary it maintains close relations with the Palestinian ‘Embassy’ in London.”

The National reported that Mr Zomlot told Sky News on Tuesday (2 October 2018) that,

“Mr Zomlot said the UK should take on the role of lead mediator between the Palestinians and the Israelis for the benefit of both the US and Britain. Best friends are there to fill the vacuum, if the vacuum is going to be dangerous for your old friend which is America, fill it. This is a moment of leadership.”

Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is the President of the Palestine Authority recognised by the ‘International Community’ i.e. the USA and its global stooges, including in this instance, the EU, Russia and China. He abolished elections when his term of office expired 15 January 2009. He is a member of the Fatah party and was elected Chairman in 2009. On December 16, 2009 he was voted into office indefinitely by the PLO Central Council. Why hold elections you would certainly lose to Hamas when you have the backing of Israel and the USA and the acquiescence of the entire imperialist world?

Lastly, we were entertained by a dance troupe trio from the Palestine Hawiya Dance Company just after the break, who put on a really excellent show for us all.

Lest We Forget - The Dog That Failed Even to Whimper

Ella Rose, the JLM's new Director was none too happy at her former employment  being revealed

If you annoy me you are a fucking anti-Semite!

The Jewish Labour Movements fragrant Ella Rose giving vent to her feelings about anti-Zionists

I have taken this amusing but very true piece by Jonathan Rosenhead, a Professor at the LSE, from the newsletter of Bricup - British Universities Palestine.  It echoes the piece I did when the Al Jazeera  revelations first broke - why wasn't the story of state and Israeli interference in the Labour Party and the false anti-Semitism allegations revealed by the British press.  The answer of course is that our 'free press' was up to its ears in manufacturing stories about 'anti-Semitism'

Tony Greenstein

Al Jazeera's 'The Lobby' and the British Media

Jonathan Rosenhead

Iain 'Crooked' McNicol, Labour's General Secretary, has just exonerated the fragrant Rose despite her threats of violence

we couldn't put it better ourselves - the winning is all that counts with Ella Rose

Many readers of the Newsletter will already be aware of the ground-breaking Al-Jazeera English series The Lobby, broadcast on 4 consecutive nights from January 11th. Some will not – and in this they will be in the good company of the vast majority of the UK’s population. It got a front-page splash in the Daily Mail (of all places), but this was not followed up by the sort of in depth coverage elsewhere that its explosive contents deserved.

However that silence is not the one this article’s title refers to. This silence is analogous in its essentials to that of the dog in the Sherlock Holmes story The Silver Blaze. The crux of the plot is the disappearance one night of a famous race horse, and the violent death of his trainer. The dog slept in the stables where this happened. The celebrated dialogue runs like this:

Joan Ryan MP, LFI Chair inquiring about the money she had applied for

Labour Friends of Israel Chair Joan Ryan MP receiving the good news that she had won over £1m for her slush fund.  Her only other claim to fame is claiming more expenses than any other MP in 2005 and 2006

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident.”

The dog that signally failed to bark, not for one night, or over the last month, but for year after year is the entire British mainstream media – print, radio, television. What is the story that they missed and why did they miss it?

Labour Friends of Israel's Parliamentary Officer and Fabian Michael Rubin letting us know that he works closely with the Israeli Embassy

The set up

The Lobby is still viewable at  and if you haven’t seen it you should. It makes gripping viewing.

The programmes depend on ‘Robin’, whose face we never see. He created a cover story as an aspiring Labour party activist with strong Israeli sympathies, and for 6 months managed to penetrate the shadowy world where Israeli embassy officials set up sham organisations to support Israel, mingle with very willing activists (both Labour and Conservative) and make funds available to them. And all the while Robin wears a concealed camera.

We have known about ‘The Israel Lobby’ in the US, and its most notable unit AIPAC, for years. Mearsheimer and Walt wrote a celebrated book with that title. The Lobby however is about the UK’s own Israel Lobby. To UK activists its existence has been known, in principle, for years. There has been circumstantial evidence galore - the inside track which Israel so evidently makes use of, the lavish funding of pro-Israel organisations, the sabotage of pro-Palestinian events. So we ‘knew’. But now we really know.

Joan Ryan MP has tropes on her brain and precious little else

It is worth pointing up here the reason why the activity revealed in The Lobby is taking place at all - the growing world-wide success of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. This is now seen by Israel as the principal strategic threat to its continuing domination over the Palestinian people. The frenetic and multi-headed activity of Israel’s friends, supporters and proxies revealed in these programmes is, paradoxically, a measure of BDS’s success. Israel can no longer afford to rely just on discreet words in sympathetic ears; it is mobilising on many levels. In the process, they run a greater risk of their slips showing.

For supporters of academic boycott, such as BRICUP, and of BDS as a whole, the revelations of The Lobby are both an education, and a motivator.

It is tempting, I'll agree

The plot

There is so much material in these programmes that I can only be selective. But I’ll give a fairly detailed rundown of what is in the first programme, and then get more selective.

In Episode 1 we see Robin swanning around in the milieu of Labour Friends of Israel, the Israel Britain Alliance (a Zionist Federation Project), BICOM, Sussex Friends of Israel, Jewish Labour Movement. He is under the wing of Shai Masot of the Israeli Embassy, an unimpressive but gregarious character, anxious to be popular. He is quite deeply embedded – claiming for example to know all 200 London-based members of the Young Fabians. And in fact he did organise a trip to Israel for the Young Fabians in 2015. As Masot says in conversation: “Delegation to Israel – always a good start”.

The subtlety of fragrant Rose's analysis leaves us speechless

The revelations come thick and fast. We meet a couple of NUS Vice-Presidents plotting against their President Malia Bouattia, who supports Palestine. (The Chair of Labour Students is in on the plot.) One of them, not I think Jewish, had been taken on an expenses-paid Union of Jewish Students trip to Israel. The Israeli Embassy actually funds UJS itself! A University College London pro-Israel student activist has set up the Pinsker Centre which channels funds from AIPAC to appropriate causes.

We eavesdrop on the summer barbecue of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). We meet Ella Rose, who has been President of UJS, and has just been appointed Director of JLM. As she herself says, her CV didn’t have the most Labour Party experience among the candidates. But hey, what does that matter if you are applying from a staff position within the Israeli Embassy? (Later, unknowingly on camera, Rose boasts that with her martial arts training – from Israel – she could easily ‘take’ anti-racist campaigner Jackie Walker.)

Joan Ryan can't contain her glee at learning that she's won the Zionist jackpot

And then Masot invites Robin to chair the Young Labour Friends of Israel. It doesn’t exist – Robin’s job is to set it up. He is invited to apply for a job at the Embassy, first by Masot and then by its Head of Civil Affairs, who says his job would be to research the UK’s BDS movement.

What we get is a picture of a heady swirling mix of right-wing politics, ambition, wads of Israeli and US money, fake and shadow organisations, and over-weening self-confidence. Stirring the mix is an Israeli diplomat who isn’t even a diplomat.

Later episodes

We are really spoilt for choice. Episode 2 shows the famous JLM training session (on antisemitism!) at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool. This was the session at which Jackie Walker was set up, and secretly filmed so that an edited version of her interventions could present her in a bad light. It worked – she was ousted as vice-Chair of Momentum and suspended from Labour Party membership.

Shai Masot is on the scene at the conference, sometimes in convoy with Regev, or sitting hugger-mugger with him and the Chair of JLM Jeremy Newmark at a private meeting with pro-Israel supporters. (Regev says that people on the 3 left are very opposed to Israel “and probably antisemitic”.)

We share the delight of Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, when Masot tells her he has more than £1 million from Israel needed to fund trips to Israel by influential Labour MPs. We share her fury when a conference delegate persistently asks her how a 2-state solution can work – persistently because her interlocuter is dissatisfied with the non-answers she is getting. Ryan then persuades herself that the questioner has indulged in an antisemitic trope (about Jews working for banks – which we can see is Ryan’s own subconscious interpolation of material that wasn’t said). Ryan makes a complaint; the delegate is suspended from party membership.

Of course it isn’t only happening in and around the Labour Party. Masot seems to be best buddies with Maria Strizzolo, the young chief of staff to MP Robert Halfon, a Minister in the Government, and deputy chair of the Conservative Party at the time the recording happened. Simultaneously she is also a Westminster-based civil servant. Their highly indiscreet conversation is recorded as ever by Robin’s attentive camera. They talk about setting up a ‘City Friends of Israel’ for young finance professionals, with AIPAC’s assistance.

The crunch point, politically, is when she and Masot discuss the possibility of ‘taking down’ some non-compliant Tory MPs. As Strizzolo says “If you look hard enough, I’m sure there is something that they are trying to hide”. The one name that they put in the frame for this treatment is Sir Alan Duncan – certainly well known for showing more sympathy for the Palestinian predicament than most of his colleagues. But he was, and is, Deputy Foreign Minister! This small indiscretion has lost Maria Strizzolo both her jobs, and got Masot sent back to Israel in disgrace. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is now investigating “How UK policy is influenced by other states and interested parties”.

Strategic Affairs

So that’s all right then? Well, not really. This is the tip of a rather large iceberg. Craig Murray has ferreted out of a reluctant Foreign Office the fact that Masot was supposed to be a member of the embassy’s ‘technical and administrative staff’, a grade well below the diplomatic salt. But as we see in the series, Masot is Ambassador Regev’s chosen travelling companion to the Labour Party conference – not really a technical and administrative duty. Evidently this is not all above board.

In fact Murray has examined the register of Israeli Embassy employees, and believes he has discovered what he calls ‘a large nest of Israeli spies’. It is, he says, “simply impossible” that the FCO would normally grant seventeen technical and administrative visas to support sixteen diplomats, when six of those sixteen are already support staff. So it seems that we have quite a bunch of supernumerary staff at the Embassy, up to something, and connived at by the UK government.

There is certainly some circumstantial evidence for this reading in Masot’s own biography, in so far as it is known. Until quite recently he was a major in the IDF. London was his first ‘diplomatic’ assignment, it was temporary, and he was not a regular member of the diplomatic service. The very credible suggestion has been made that his placement in London was the responsibility not of Israel’s Foreign Ministry but of its Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The MSA was set up in 2010 to counter Israel’s perceived ‘strategic threats’, principally the international BDS campaign. In the last year or two it has been on a spending spree for new ‘talent’, quite affordable from its $50 million budget. The new employees are “mostly former officers from Israel’s intelligence community”. All this fits Masot’s profile rather well. And then there is the fact that when the Minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan visited London last September, Masot was among the Israeli officials he met.

No wonder, then, that Israel removed Masot from the UK at something approaching the speed of light, and that the FCO in an unseemly rush pronounced the matter satisfactorily closed. We must hope that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee will not so easily be deflected from its task.

The second scandal

In fact the fiasco of Masot’s incompetent machinations is only one, and perhaps the lesser, of two scandals. The other scandal is how this can have been going on, evidently for years, yet no British news organisation with the resources to do so thought it worth investigating. Why do we have to rely on Al-Jazeera to cleanse our stable? It is that overwhelming silence that shouts complicity.

There is one honourable exception to this charge sheet. In 2009 the respected right-wing journalist Peter Oborne made a television programme Inside Britain's Israel Lobby for the Dispatches series. He concentrated then on the Conservative Friends 4 of Israel (barely touched on in The Lobby), which the programme makers describe as "beyond doubt the most well- connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups". (The full text is available on line.)

Oborne is interviewed for comment on the Al-Jazeera programme, and is almost incandescent with indignation about the revelations of Israeli interference with UK political processes. But some of that rage should surely be diverted and redirected at our own media. In the USA the operations of big oil and the gun lobby in distorting the political agenda are well known and visible. This relative transparency doesn’t just happen – it needs an alert, vigilant media with the courage and freedom of its convictions.

The British media is a watch dog that hasn’t barked. It is as appropriate to ask why that is so, and perhaps more useful, than to fulminate about the iniquity of Israel’s ruthless pursuit of what it perceives to be its interests. Are the watchdog’s teeth rotten beyond repair? Is it muzzled? What are the mechanisms that have maintained this complaisant silence in the presence of a blatant affront to open democracy?

Postscript

We left Conan Doyle’s dog in the stables waiting for Sherlock to sort out the mystery of its silence. But nowadays the government has adopted a problematic ‘definition’ of antisemitism, and the Anti-Antisemitic Tropes patrols are out in force. So I won’t draw any possible analogy. You’ll just have to read the story yourself.