Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis Denies Genocide in Gaza like a Holocaust Denier

According to Mirvis Most of Those who Died in the Holocaust weren’t Jewish! Has There Ever Been Such a Moral & Intellectual Lightweight Chief Rabbi? 

Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis' Genocidal Speech Urging Israel on to a Final Solution

Perhaps it’s because my own father was a rabbi that I have taken more than a slight interest in Britain’s racist Chief Rabbi. His ignorance is astounding, even for a rabbi.

I can remember when Israel Brodie, the then Chief Rabbi, came to my parent’s home in Coventry and the excitement in my family. Lots of rabbis came round but I must confess I was never much impressed, even as a child, by any of them. Perhaps the only one I liked was Stanley Cohen, who presided at Wallasey congregation (long since gone) since he stayed at my granny’s and turned the TV on himself on Saturday afternoon!  Orthodox Jews aren’t supposed to do that sort of thing. 

However I digress. It is surprising how seriously Lord Ephraim Mirvis is taken, despite his lack of any academic credentials apart from a BA from the Apartheid University of South Africa. Nonetheless Mirvis is an important player in the imperialist firmament  which is why he has been made a peer of the realm.

However it is also clear that Mirvis is nothing if not the shallowest and most stupid person to have become Chief Rabbi in a long time. Possibly that is because these days there’s not a lot of competition for the post.

The past Chief Rabbi but one, Immanuel Jakobovitz, had a PhD in Jewish Medical Ethics which he later wrote up into a book.  Like all his ilk he was a political reactionary and when the Church of England under Robert Runcie (a radical figure compared to the genocide. paedophile supporting Justin Welby) produced in 1985 a Report Faith in the City lambasting Thatcherite economics and its war on the poor, Jakobovitz replied with “From Doom to Hope”.

It was a reactionary tract that Thatcher loved. All that was needed was self-help as the Jewish immigrants had done. Not only was it a falsification of the Jewish fight against anti-Semitism and their involvement in trade unions but it downplayed the Black experience of racism to say nothing of Thatcher’s enrichment of the rich through privatisation and her attacks on the unions. Jakobovitz was a Thatcherite though he was a relative liberal when it came to Israel.

Douglas Murray's book argued the demographic consequences of muslim migration would destroy white, christian Europe. But it's Corbyn that @rabbisacks compares to Powell? pic.twitter.com/Fe24AHIbRR

— Michael Walker (@michaeljswalker) August 28, 2018

Mirvis’s predecessor Jonathan Sacks held a BA, MA and Ph.D. in philosophy. He authored 25 books, all of them instantly forgettable. He too was an out and out racist, a supporter of the settlers March of the Flags on Jerusalem Day when thousands of settler youth storm Arab East Jerusalem chanting such ditties as Death to the Arabs, May Your Villages Burn etc.

His knowledge of philosophy didn’t stop him recommending as one of the best books of 2017 the far-right Douglas Murray’s Strange Death of Europe which was an exposition of the fascist White Replacement Theory. In its full blown neo-Nazi version it is the Jews who are organising the replacement. Murray wrote of:

the problem in Europe of an existential tiredness and a feeling that perhaps for Europe the story has run out and a new story must be allowed to begin. Mass immigration – the replacement of large parts of the European populations by other people – is one way in which this new story has been imagined: a change, we seemed to think, was as good as a rest.

It is somewhat ironic that when Jeremy Corbyn called out two Zionist thugs, Richard Millett and Jonathan Hoffman, for not understanding English irony like the Palestinian speaker, he was accused by Sacks of echoing Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech.  Yet Murray described Powell as a ‘remarkable man’ who ‘got a lot more right than wrong’

Yet if Sacks was a flawed incontinent philosopher Mirvis makes no pretensions to possess anything in the way of deep thought.

What can one make of Mirvis’ statement to attendees of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance conference in Jerusalem that ‘I am Zionist because I am a Jew.’ Mirvis went on to dig himself deeper into a hole. “If you are anti-Zionist, you are anti-Jews and anti-Judaism.” Before adding that “Israel is not just the geo-political endeavour of the Jewish people, it is the center of Judaism. A strong Israel means a strong Jewish people.’

In a similar vein in May 2016, in an attack on Ken Livingston for having touched on the pro-Zionist policies of Hitler and the Nazis, Ephraim Mirvis had said of Zionism that ‘One can no more separate it from Judaism than separate the City of London from Great Britain.’ 

As I said Mirvis is a simple man not possessed of deep thought. Simple slogans are more his style. So let us try and unpack this.

Firstly his statement ‘I am a Zionist because I am a Jew’. This is clearly nonsensical. There are plenty more Christian Zionists than Jewish Zionists. Trump’s cabinet is full of them. Are they also Jewish? Clearly Zionism is a political not a religious phenomenon.

Far from a strong Israel meaning a strong Jewish people, whatever that means, it is Israel and its barbarism and apartheid treatment of Palestinians which is responsible for most anti-Semitism today. Israel is the curse of most Jewish people who don’t want to be tarred with the brush of genocide.

Nor is Israel the centre of Jews world-wide. Jerusalem is the religious centre of Judaism, as it is of Islam and Christianity. It has been for two millennium when there has been no Jewish State. A religion does not need a state to provide it with a centre.

Sir Edwin Montagu (left)

When Jewish Zionism came on the scene, its bitterest opponents were Jewish.  Its most ardent supporters were Christian. The only member of Lloyd George’s War Cabinet to oppose the Balfour Declaration was its only Jewish member Sir Edwin Montagu. It took till 1939 before the Board of Deputies of British Jews was captured by the Zionists.

When Zionism first appeared in Britain the Chief Rabbi of the time, Hermann Adler was vehemently opposed to it. In For Haredi Jews secular Zionism remains a religious heresy Giles Fraser wrote of:

The walled neighbourhood of Mea Shearim (which) is just a few minutes’ walk from the old city of Jerusalem. Built in 1874, it is home to Jerusalem’s Haredi or ultra-orthodox community...

Posters put up at the various entrances to the area demand modesty from visitors: long dresses and sleeves. Another poster declares: “No entry to Zionists”. Mea Shearim is home to some of the most fervently anti-Zionist Jews in the world.

As Fraser noted, in 1898 Adler’s predecessor and father, Naftali Hermann Adler, also opposed Zionism giving a sermon in which he condemned Zionism as usurping God’s role: “I look at this movement and worry with my heart, since I see it as opposed to the Torah of Hashem.”

If Mirvis is correct then two previous Chief Rabbis were not only not Jewish they were anti-Jewish. As Stuart Cohen wrote in English Zionists and Jews:

Opposition to Zionism was the only thing that united all Jewish religious groups, from Chief Rabbi Herman Adler and the Orthodox to the Reform movement. In 1902 no prominent rabbi responded to a call to form the religious Zionist Mizrahi group and a conference to launch Mizrahi in 1904 had to be abandoned for lack of support. Zionism was variously described as ‘a peril’, a ‘travesty of Judaism’ and ‘a restoration of primitiveness.’

In Germany when Hitler took power just 2% of German Jews were paid up Zionists. In Poland in the 1938 local elections, the last free elections in Poland, Polish Jews voted overwhelmingly for the anti-Zionist Bund. In Warsaw, of the 20 Jewish Council seats the Bund won 17 and the Zionists precisely one. The same was repeated all over Poland, which had over 3 million Jews. Overall in Poland in one-third of the towns the Bund achieved a majority Jewish vote. According to Mirvis the majority of Poland Jews were anti-Semites!

Indeed the majority of Jews who died in the holocaust were not Zionists.  So what Mirvis is saying is that most of those who died in the holocaust were not Jewish! Either that or they were anti-Semitic! This is the intellectual calibre of Britain’s Chief Rabbi.

Indeed not only Polish Jews but Germany’s and Britain’s Jews were all anti-Jewish because they weren’t Zionists according to the buffoon who is Britain’s Chief Rabbi.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that Mirvis is such an ardent Zionist. Mirvis grew up in Apartheid South Africa in a Jewish community that was ardently pro-Zionist and equally pro-Apartheid. It was not until the bitter end that the South Africa Jewish community discovered that they had been opposed to apartheid all along and embraced the Black Sheep of the community like Dennis Goldberg, someone who spent 22 years in prison having been sentenced to life at the 1964 Rivonia trial, for his membership of the ANC.

Mirvis is well aware of the deep racism of Israeli rabbis yet he has never spoken out to condemn it - quite the contrary he approves of it

When Mirvis left South Africa it was natural that he would go to Apartheid Israel and live on a settlement in the West Bank. Mirvis received his rabbinical training in the yeshiva of Har Etzion in the settlement of Alon Shvut. He trained among the most bigoted racists and seemingly didn’t notice that the settlement was established on stolen Palestinian land. And no one is more racist than the West Bank’s religious settlers.  The chief rabbi of the settlers’ rabbinical Council, Dov Lior, is famous for his statement that a Jewish fingernail is worth more than a thousand non-Jewish lives.

So it was natural that Mirvis should joined his predecessor Jonathan Sacks and thousands of far-Right settlers on the 2017 Jerusalem Day ‘March of Flags’. Mirvis had no hesitation in joining those who desire nothing more than the expulsion or death of the Palestinians.

Haaretz’s Bradley Burston described the March as:

an annual, gender-segregated extreme-right, pro-occupation religious carnival of hatred, marking the anniversary of Israel's capture of Jerusalem by humiliating the city's Palestinian Muslims....

marchers vandalized shops in Jerusalem's Muslim Quarter, chanted "Death to Arabs" and "The (Jewish) Temple Will Be Built, the (Al Aqsa) Mosque will be Burned Down," shattered windows and door locks, and poured glue into the locks of shops forced to close for fear of further damage.’... And they repeated Samson's prayer in Judges 16:28: "May I avenge (the loss of) my two eyes with one act of vengeance against the Palestinians – may their name be blotted out!"

Clearly Mirvis felt at home as Sacks  extended a “personal invitation” to Diaspora Jews to join him “leading” the March of the Flags on Jerusalem Day and “dancing with our brave [Israeli Defence Force] soldiers” in the settler enclave inside Hebron.

Haaretz Anna Roiser pleaded with Sacks not to attend, saying:

one of the world’s most respected rabbis sends a message of normalization and acceptance of the occupation...  Many Jews in the Diaspora work hard to emphasize that being Jewish is not synonymous with supporting the Israeli government, and that supporting Israel’s right to exist is not synonymous with supporting the occupation. Rabbi Sacks’ actions risk undermining these messages.

Sacks and Mirvis ignored the pleas of liberal Zionists such as Anna Roiser and Nina-Morris Evans, who wrote a blog Chief Rabbi and Lord Sacks should not back this march, with contempt. Sacks and Mirvis marched in unison. But to be fair to him Mirvis finds it difficult to oppose any form of racism bar ‘anti-Semitism’.

Mirvis finds it difficult to oppose Zionist anti-Semitism too. Although he withdrew from a  conference on ‘anti-Semitism’ organised by Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli, earlier this year, because they had invited so many anti-Semites  to attend (there is of course a certain logic in this – who better to invite than those who are experts in the subject!] he did this very reluctantly and without ever condemning this gathering of Europe’s far-right.

Most neo-Nazis today, like Richard Spencer, are in full support of Zionism

Those who were invited included Jordan Bardella, President of the far-right French National Rally party founded by Holocaust denier Jean-Marie Le Pen; Marion Marechal, a far-right French member of the European Parliament and Le Pen’s granddaughter; Hermann Tertsch, a far-right Spanish member of the European Parliament; Charlie Weimers of the far-right Sweden Democrats party and Kinga Gál, of Hungary’s Fidesz party were also invited guests.

But whereas Mirvis is reluctant to condemn outright fascist anti-Semites and Jew haters when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn there was no such hesitation. In 2019, two weeks before the general election, his infamous Times article was published. Casting aside the unwritten convention of chief rabbis abstaining from party politics, Mirvis all but instructed the faithful that the leader of the opposition was unfit for office and told people not to vote Labour. He wrote:

The claims that the [Labour] party is “doing everything” it reasonably can to tackle anti-Jewish racism and that it has “investigated every single case”, are a mendacious fiction....

It is a failure of culture. It is a failure of leadership. A new poison – sanctioned from the top – has taken root in the Labour Party.

Many members of the Jewish community can hardly believe that this is the same party that they called their political home for more than a century. It can no longer claim to be the party of equality and anti-racism.

You would have to be even more stupid than the average Zionist not to take the hint.

The false ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign in the Labour Party laid the basis for the support of Starmer, Lammy and Nandy for the current genocide in Gaza.  The Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, the far right Stephen Pollard wrote:

there is just one fundamental issue for the vast majority of our community – doing what we can to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM.

If Mirvis was seriously concerned about anti-Semitism in political parties then he would have asked why the Conservative Party’s MEPs supported the anti-Semitic Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in a no confidence vote in the European parliament.  The reason of course was that Orban may be anti-Semitic but he is also the best friend of Israel.

Likewise he could have asked why Tory MEP’s sat in the same political group (ECR) in the European parliament as fascists and anti-Semites.

If Mirvis had been bold he might have mentioned Boris Johnson’s anti-Semitic comments in his novel ’72 Virgins’. Leaving aside Johnson’s racist comments about ‘Watermelon smiles’, ‘piccaninnies’ and ‘letterboxes’. Johnson wrote:

Maybe there was some kind of fiddling of the figures by the oligarchs who ran the TV stations (and who were mainly, as some lost no time in pointing out, of Jewish origin)

There was ‘the Jewish cabal who run the American media complex’. Even the Jewish Chronicle mentioned how 72 Virgins had

‘described a Jewish character as an unethical businessman with a large nose, who exploits immigrant workers and black women’.

Ephraim Mirvis’s attack on Corbyn had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. In 2016 he spoke out in favour of Norman Tebbit’s ‘cricket test’. The ‘cricket test’ was a device to show that the ‘real home’ of Britain’s Asian population is not in England but India and Pakistan because they cheered for the latters’ cricket teams.

If the same test were applied to British Jews then it would show that many of them belong in Israel!  Which is what the Zionists desire of course.

What made the Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign so effective is the fact that Corbyn, instead of standing up to it from the start and saying that Labour did not have an anti-Semitism problem and that the allegations against it were malicious and without foundation, bought into the narrative. Everytime Corbyn apologised he proved his critics were correct.

Ephraim Mirvis, like his predecessor Jonathan Sacks, is a Zionist in religious garb. Zionism was a secular movement. Herzl’s Deputy Max Nordau was quite explicit that Zionism was a question of race not religion. To Nordau the Jews were ‘a race of accursed beggars.’

Even Colin Shindler, an ardent Zionist advocate and Professor of Israel Studies at SOAS admitted that in Britain:

Orthodoxy also had little time for Zionism. The Kamenitzer Maggid, a brilliant speaker for the Federation of Synagogues, regarded Herzl as a second Shabtai Zevi, the false messiah of the 17th century. Even the Lubavitcher Rebbe of the time announced that religion had been substituted by nationalism. "The Zionists," he argued, "had cast off the yoke of the Torah and mitzvot."

As the Times of Israel reported, the head of the Satmar Hassidic sect Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum

‘accused his followers of increasingly admiring Israel for its military and political accomplishments, imploring them to maintain the Hasidic group’s hardline anti-Zionism.

Addressing thousands of Satmar members at Long Island’s Nassau Coliseum, Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum lamented what he called a “tremendous and terrible spiritual decline” among his followers. …

 “We must yell gevalt, gevalt! To where have we come?” he declared. “We have no part in Zionism. We have no part in their wars. We have no part in the State of Israel.”

The Satmar, one of the largest Hasidic groups in the world, is staunchly anti-Zionist and does not recognize the State of Israel, maintaining a Jewish state should not exist until the Messiah appears.

“We’ll continue to fight God’s war against Zionism and all its aspects,” Teitelbaum said. Rabbis like Sacks and Mirvis have prostituted themselves to a nationalist heresy.

Tony Greenstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mann's racist handbook which he has never explained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mann was quoted as saying that Woolas’s ejection:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Greenstein