Mass Lobby of Labour’s NEC Tuesday July 20th 12.00 - Stop the Purge of Socialists

 Starmer to Expel Thousands of Socialists while Readmitting Islamaphobe Trevor Phillips

It is clear from reports in the yellow press that Starmer is embarking on a purge of socialists and anti-racists in the Labour Party. This comes after Trevor Phillips quietly had his suspension lifted about a month ago. Phillips was suspended in March 2020 after a series of racist comments such as Muslims were ‘a nation within a nation’.

Phillips was also quoted in the Guardian as saying that it was correct for Muslims to be judged collectively: “You keep saying that I make these generalisations,” he said. “But the truth is, if you do belong to a group, whether it is a church, or a football club, you identify with a particular set of values, and you stand for it. And frankly you are judged by that.”

It is accepted by all that blaming all Jews for the actions of an individual is racist, yet when it comes to Muslims this is perfectly acceptable to Starmer and Evans. If ever there were proof that Starmer’s commitment to ‘rooting out anti-Semitism’ was a vicious anti-Palestinian hoax this is it.

And then there was the call by far-right Labour MP Neil Coyle for Jewish Voices for Labour should be expelled too. There is a word for those who call for the expulsion of Jews from the Labour Party – ah yes, anti-Semitism.  However I suspect it was not the same ‘anti-Semitism’ that Starmer  pledged to get rid of.

Four groups are going to be proscribed – Labour Against the Witchhunt (LAW), Labour in Exile Network (LIEN), Socialist Appeal and Chris Williamson’s Resist.

These measures only affect the aforementioned 3 groups.  LAW is a longstanding group first formed in the 1980s when Jeremy Corbyn was its Secretary.  It was refounded in 2017 to fight back against the bogus ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt which Corbyn succumbed to.

LIEN was formed in the wake of Corbyn’s suspension last October. Despite being reinstated to the Party Sturmer refused to reinstate the Whip forcing him to sit as an independent MP.  Over a hundred Constituency Labour Parties passed motions of no confidence in Sturmer and his glove puppet Evans and demanded the reinstatement of Corbyn.

Keir Starmer has none of the above three!

Starmer and the unelected Evans reacted in the way we have come to expect of the Labour Right. Evans declared that CLPs were ‘not competent’ to discuss such resolutions. This Stalinist approach to democracy will be warmly applauded by the capitalist press, not least the Mirror and Guardian.

Those CLPs and officers that refused to be intimidated were suspended and their officers either suspended or expelled if they refused to accept the dictate of Starmer and his big business buddies. 

Starmer was elected leader on a pledge of being the ‘unity’ candidate who would take forward the manifesto pledges of Corbyn. These were lies as was his reason ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy theories’ for sacking Rebecca Long-Bailey as Education Shadow and then Corbyn himself.

Starmer was funded in his leadership campaign by a bevy of wealthy individuals – Bob Latham (£100K), Waheed Ali (£100K), Martin Taylor, a hedge fund manager (£95K), Clive Hollick (£50K), Trevor Chinn, a long-time Zionist & owner of Kwik Fit (£50K), Peter Coates, owner of Bet365 (£25K), Martin Clarke, former AA finance director (£25K) and a former  funder of the defunct Change UK/Independent Group. One of the few examples of a rat joining a sinking ship and Paul Myners (£10K). Just 8 rich individuals contributed nearly half a million pounds yet Starmer used various legal stratagems to hide the fact from Labour members that it was wealthy businessmen who were funding his campaign until the election was over. It might have given the game away if members had been aware that he was funded by a ratbag of Blairite entrepreneurs.

Sir Keir is repaying the debt he owes Chinn and the Israel Lobby by expelling and purging socialists from the Labour Party. He intend to complete what Blair started.  To remake Labour into a second party of capitalism and to purge it of any trace of socialism.

Except that when Blair began his campaign to repeal Clause IV he was riding high in the polls as was Kinnock before him.  Starmer by contrast is in a dire position electorally. He lost one by-election in Hartlepool, a seat Labour had never before lost, nearly lost another by-election and in a third by-election Labour got the worst ever election result in its history, 1.6%.

Starmer is taking Labour down to what will be a historic political defeat at the next election. Why  Because he has nothing to say.  As the Tories introduce a new NHS reform bill Labour sits silent because under Starmer Labour does not oppose private companies taking over more and more of the NHS.  The same is true for the Labour Party on the Police and Crime Bill.  Starmer has no concept of what opposition is because he and the Labour Right have no fundamental differences with the Tories.

It is time for the Campaign Group of MPs to get off their knees and start fighting back. If Sir Keir is successful socialism inside the Labour Party will be dead. It is regrettable that Jeremy Corbyn has taken the legal route in fighting back rather than campaigning for the removal of Starmer.

We also have to be honest and say that much of the Labour Left under Lansman, Corbyn and McDonnell helped bring this situation about when they introduced the ‘fast track’ system of expulsions. It should be a lesson to all that when you appease Labour’s Right they only demand more.  It is also highly unlikely, given he has already had one legal setback, that Corbyn will be victorious.

Last night representatives of LAW, LIEN, LRC, LLA, Socialist Appeal and JVL met to plan the fightback which will start with the Lobby this Tuesday July 20^th outside the Labour Party headquarters  at 105 Victoria St, London SW1E 6QT.

Unfortunately despite Socialist Appeal making it clear that they wanted to fight the purge politically, by calling for Starmer to go, the majority in the meeting did not agree.

The Right are proposing to revive the McCarthyist list of proscribed organisations that was abandoned in 1973. Anyone who is a member or supporter of the four groups will be automatically expelled.

Membership of the above groups will be held to be “incompatible with membership of the Labour Party”, as they have their own programme, membership, and structures. Three of the four organisations on the list do not do that whereas the right-wing factions Progress, Labour First and the Jewish Labour Movement do qualify. Indeed the JLM is affiliated internationally to the World Zionist Organisation and is the overseas wing of the Israeli Labor Party. All 3 of the above right-wing organisations openly campaigned against Labour under Corbyn’s leadership and the JLM went so far as to refuse to support Labour candidates at the 2019 general election.

We were informed at the meeting that Momentum’s National Coordinating Group will be issuing a statement tomorrow opposing Starmer’s proposals. Apparently the man who did more than anyone to weaken the Labour Left, Jon Lansman, has also made clear his opposition to what is being proposed by the Right.

When Keir Starmer promised to ‘root out antisemitism’ in the Labour Party what he was really saying was that he was going to root out the left. Unfortunately the present Momentum leadership still hasn’t come to terms with this despite dozens of Jewish members being suspended.

 False charges of ‘antisemitism’ have been used to prevent any discussion or expression of solidarity with Palestinians of which the ruling out of order of a motion to Hove Labour Party on the advice of Labour’s racist and anti-Semitic South-East Regional Organiser Scott Horner is but the latest example.

The position of LAW and LIEN is quite clear. There should be no automatic expulsions.  Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and due process. The National Constitutional Committee, an elected body, which is there to hear disciplinary cases has been totally sidelined.

If you have been suspended or expelled you or they are trying to silence your local party then you should come to this protest-lobby of the NEC at 12 noon this Tuesday 20 July and tell your story.  Email Norman on info@labour-in-exile.org to let us know.

Norman Thomas, who founded LIEN said in a statement:

“There is wide agreement Starmer is pretty pathetic at fighting the Tories, but he’s in overdrive when it comes to attacking his own members. He has destroyed democracy in Labour to get rid of the thousands of people who joined after Jeremy Corbyn became leader.”

Thomas said there would be more action to come – including at the conference in September.

 “This is just the beginning of the fightback. We are fighting for the future of the Labour party,” he said.

The whole left must stand in solidarity with these four organisations and oppose this latest purge. If Starmer succeeds on Tuesday then other groups will be added to the list.  

See also Labour’s planned purge is an act of self-sabotage and Sir Keir set to expel 1,000 leftwing members in four ‘poisonous’ groups in the Morning Star and in Canary Labour wants to ban left wing members, but they’re taking the fight to party HQ and on Skwawkbox Exclusive: the FOUR left groups Labour plans to outlaw – and the ‘Labour’ MP who wants left-wing Jews added to the list. 

By Supporting the IHRA Labour’s NEC has chosen to support Racist Zionists over Anti-racist Jews and Palestinians

If there is one lesson Corbyn must learn it is that you cannot appease Zionists or Racists 

Why the IHRA removes Palestinian from history - again

UPDATE

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this report in today's Times but if it is true then the behaviour of the majority of the NEC yesterday was shameful.  This is particularly true of Lansman because in his article Labour’s antisemitism code is the gold standard for political parties Lansman wrote defending the notion that people should be able to criticise Israel as a racist state without being accused of antisemitism. Lansman wrote:

The only part of the IHRA working examples that is not explicitly referenced relates to claims about the state of Israel being a racist endeavour (this is a subset of an example, not a standalone one). Of all the elements in the IHRA examples, this is the one that runs the greatest risk of prohibiting legitimate criticism of Israel. It cannot possibly be antisemitic to point out that some of the key policies of the Israeli state, observed since its founding days, have an effect that discriminates on the basis of race and ethnicity....

If legitimate criticism of Israel were to be curbed, that would infringe on the rights of other oppressed groups, who have suffered at the hands of discriminatory Israeli state policies. The Palestinians have experienced decades of occupation, gross human rights violations, and war crimes. The Bedouins have had their homes destroyed, the latest example being the demolition of Khan al-Ahmar. And ethnic minorities within Israel have been treated appallingly, such as the Sudanese and Eritrean refugees who have been detained and deported, and questions over the treatment of Ethiopian women, including allegations they were given birth control without their consent.

I’ve just been in Israel, where I met people from all different backgrounds, organisations and political persuasions. Those I met, Jewish as well as Palestinian citizens of Israel, spoke about racist state policies, not just in relation to the occupation and settlements, but also within Israel itself – the segregation of housing, education, employment, and systematic economic disadvantage. The Palestinian minority within Israel is as entitled as Jews in Britain to define the discrimination they have experienced as racism. Such criticisms cannot, and must not, be silenced.

It cannot be right that one vaguely worded subset of one IHRA example can deny other oppressed groups their right to speak about their own oppression. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t contexts in which claims about Israel being a racist endeavour are antisemitic or made with antisemitic intent. But the IHRA’s wording is not sufficiently clear. Labour’s code of conduct provides the necessary explanation to ensure that legitimate criticism of Israeli policies is not silenced, while not tolerating comments which deny Jewish people the right to self-determination or hold Israel to unfair standards not expected of other states.

To now refuse to have supported Corbyn's mild statement when he agreed with it in order to appease the Zionist lobby is truly shameful.  And the same goes for all other members of the NEC.

It is clear that given the failure of Lansman to back up his own words and the failure of the Left on the NEC to stick by their principles that we have to campaign around the principle that 'Israel is a racist state.'

Tony Greenstein

 

The decision of Labour’s National Executive Committee to back the full IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, a document whose only purpose is to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, is a gift to the Zionists and the Right in party.  It is another example of the political confusion at the heart of the Corbyn project and the treacherous role of Momentum's Chair Jon Lansman who lobbied for the adoption of the IHRA.

Noone has yet explained why there is a need for a 500+ word definition of 'antisemitism' when the Oxford English dictionary definition - 'hostility to or prejudice against Jews' consists of just 6 words.  Why should a definition described as 'bewilderingly perplexing' by Professor David Feldman an expert in Antisemitism be adopted? Why does support for Israel have anything to do with anti-semitism?

The IHRA has been slammed by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Geoffrey Robertson QC, Professor David Feldman and SirStephen Sedley amongst others, yet despite these criticisms, the NEC took its decision today to adopt the whole of the IHRA.  A definition of 'antisemitism' that the antisemitic Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, and the antisemitic government of Poland have no difficulty accepting.

In do doing the NEC flew in the face of all evidence. For wholly unprincipled reasons – they thought they could buy off their Zionist detractors. In the years ahead they will learn just how wrong they were. The more you pay a blackmailer the higher the ransom.

There is no doubt that this whole anti-Semitism farrago of nonsense has been state directed and driven by the needs of British foreign policy.  Jews are the alibi not the cause.  The fears, which have been deliberately stoked, of British Jews, are being used as a political prop in the war against Corbyn.

Paul Besser with Paul Golding, Britain First Fuhrer holding a cross.  Despite being a member of a holocaust denial group Besser is happy to join a group of Zionists protesting about 'antisemitism'

Paul Besser with his friend Jayda Fransen, Deputy Fuhrer of Britain First - a loyal Zionist

Jonathan Hoffman, ex-Vice Chair Zionist Federation, removed from office for offensive behaviour to  his social superiors - his sign talks of Jews as one monolithic entity - a racist concept in itself - his main chant throughout was that he represented 95% of Jews (down from 99% a few months ago!)

Harry Markham in hat leaning on the barriers accuses us of racism whilst demonstrating with members of different fascist groups - Besser in the blue cap

The Zionist counter-demonstration - The person in the blue baseball cap is Paul Besser, former Intelligence Officer for Britain First, a neo-Nazi group

Anti-Semitism was the weapon that the Right chose to wield.  It is ostensibly an appeal to people who are progressive.  Of course they could have chosen to attack Corbyn for his opposition to the bedroom tax or cuts in the NHS but I suspect they would not have achieved the same resonance as fake 'anti-semitism. ‘Anti-Semitism’ makes the Right appear radical.

The decision by the NEC to add a rider saying that their adoption of the IHRA will not impair freedom of speech in the Party is a nonsense when the whole purpose of the IHRA, as even its author Kenneth Stern admits, is to chill free speech.

This summed up the demonstration - no to the IHRA yes to a Boycott of Israel

A group of Orthodox Jews also joined us for the protest

The IHRA has no reason to exist other than to inhibit free speech and to make people think twice before they open their mouths. That is why the reaction to today’s decision by Labour Friends of Israel’s Director Jennifer Gerber is completely predictable.  Gerber claimed that the NEC’s decision was “appalling” ‘ and that the “freedom of expression" clause “totally undermines the other examples the party has supposedly just adopted”.

The Times of Israel quoted LFI as saying that Corbyn ‘totally undermines’ the decision to accept the full definition by including ‘unnecessary’ clarification.

Gerber has a point of course. What is the point of adopting a definition of anti-Semitism which seeks to outlaw free speech on Palestine and Israel if you then say that nothing in that definition will be allowed to infringe on free speech? It is the politics of the madhouse.

Naomi Wimborne-Iddrissi speaking from Jewish Voice for Labour

Unfortunately instead of standing up to the supporters of Apartheid Israel and the Zionist movement, Corbyn and Jon Lansman in particular have equivocated throughout and lent credence to the idea that anti-Semitism is a problem in the Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn had a very simple choice when these allegations first arose and that was to say two things:

i.                   That he condemned anti-Semitism and all forms of racism, not least that which is enshrined in the Zionist nature of the Israeli state in the form of Jewish supremacism

ii.                That he opposes the weaponisation of anti-Semitism by supporters of Israel.  He could have even said that accusations of 'antisemitism' are the standard retort by Israeli apologists to criticism of their state .

The Zionists really don't understand why free speech on Palestine is necessary - after all support for the Palestinians is automatically 'antisemitic' 

It was only a day ago that we won a great victory. All 9 left candidates were elected to the NEC (if you count Lansman as on the left).  Despite the best efforts of Lansman and his aide, Laura Parker, who messaged Momentum members on their famous victory, ‘forgetting’ to mention that Pete Willsman had also been victorious.  This victory proves that the Left in the Labour Party remains strong. Yet instead of seeking to shore up the Left Corbyn and his advisers continue to believe that they can appease the Right when experience demonstrates that whatever concession is made they will take it as a sign of weakness.

John McDonnell’s stupid and cowardly statement that Labour should adopt the IHRA in its entirety in order to put the false anti-Semitism campaign to bed beggars belief. It is cowardly because instead of defending Palestinian rights McDonnell chooses to appease the Zionists, the oppressor, and to prioritise the views of racist settlers over their victims.  

It is stupid because the Zionists are not going to call off the attacks until Corbyn is gone and if McDonnell thinks they are going to let him slide into power he is very much mistaken.  They are already gearing up to demonise him too in terms of what he has said in the past. See for example the Jewish Chronicle article at the end of July. Revealed: John McDonnell signed Early Day Motion welcoming launch of extreme anti-Zionist group

What both McDonnell and Corbyn don’t get is that the aim of the false anti-Semitism campaign is to effect the removal of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader.  It has no other purpose. The demand from former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown that the IHRA be adopted in full is part of this campaign.  Does anyone seriously think that Brown, who campaigned on the slogan ‘British Jobs 4 British Workers’, the exact same slogan of the BNP and National Front, is seriously concerned with combating any form of racism?

Margaret Hodge   genuinely doesn't understand why there is any need for free speech on Palestine - quite understandable in the circumstances

This is confirmed by Margaret Hodge.  She made it crystal clear that the anti-Semitism campaign would continue as long as Corbyn is leader. What is it that McDonnell or Lansman for that matter don’t get.  As the Guardian noted:

‘Margaret Hodge has signalled that Labour MPs critical of Jeremy Corbyn are digging in for a long struggle against his leadership as she suggested that the antisemitism row would only end if he stood aside.

It is time to take a principled stance.  Labour’s Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct is not only dead in the water but it is also completely inadequate resting as it does on nearly all the IHRA examples as Brian Klug demontratedf

On a brighter note the joint demonstration today by Jewish Voice for Labour, Labour Against the Witchhunt and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network was magnificent.  Over 400 people turned up to show their opposition to the IHRA and to demonstrate their anger at the false accusations of anti-Semitism.  A number of Momentum groups were present as Lansman slunk in without saying a word.

There was a small Zionist counter demonstration of about 10 people.  Quite amazingly it consisted entirely of the Zionist fascists that I have documented here, here and here thus proving that Zionism is today moving further and further to the far Right.  Prime amongst those in attendance was the former Intelligence Officer for Britain First Paul Besser.  Others in attendance like Jonathan Hoffman and Mel Gharia are Tommy Robinson supporters.  Despite this these fascists had the cheek to call Labour a fascist party.  Hoffman, who isn’t even a Labour Party member is also active in the so-called Labour Against Anti-Semitism.

Britain First's Paul Bessser giving the V sign at the back and Mad Mel Gharia at the front - her main claim to fame, apart from being an ex-page 3 Sun model is her  tongue

Gary Benjamin (back left), Paul Besser with camera in blue cap

A new group - Fascists Against Antisemitism

This is the Zionist counter-demonstration - consisting of members of different fascist groups such as Britain First, Jewish Defence League and Pegida including the notorious Jonathan Hoffman (with megaphone)

It was good to see so many Momentum banners – Brent, Newham and of course Brighton and Hove.  In Brighton we had quite a tussle between Lansman’s supporters and his opponents before we finally secured the right to take the banner.

One difference of opinion that I feared beforehand, between those opposed to Labour’s Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct and those supporting it did not manifest itself on the demonstration.  We were all opposed to the IHRA which of course was what the NEC was discussing.

One thing is for certain. The IHRA will not stop the fake anti-Semitism campaign.  On the contrary the NEC’s decision will give it renewed strength.  That is why we must redouble our efforts to go back to an anti-racist position.  Anti-Semitism is not a problem in either the Labour Party or indeed British society.  It is Islamapobia, anti-Roma racism and anti-Black racism which should be our key priority.  It isn’t Jews who are being deported, it is Black people.  It isn’t synagogues which are being firebombed it is mosques. It isn’t Jews who experience police stop and search or deaths in custody.  It is about time that the Labour Party, if it means what it says about racism, stops pandering to a small but vocal group of people whose only concern is the State of Israel.

When Labour Friends of Israel say that the free speech addition to the adoption of the IHRA is an ‘unnecesary’ clarification we should respond that far from being unnecessary, free speech is integral to what we believe in and stand for.  Free speech may not exist for Palestinians in Israel but we are not going to introduce Israeli ‘democracy’ inside the Labour Party.

Tony Greenstein

Meet Jessica Elgot - the Guardian & former Jewish Chronicle 'Journalist' Whose Articles are Regurgitated Press Releases

It's a sad commentary on the Guardian which once boasted journalists like Michael Adams and David Hirst that it employs a Zionist Presstitute  

When I read anything by Jessica Elgot I am reminded of that old saying:

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

You cannot expect every journalist to have the talents of a John Pilger or Jonathan Cook.  However you do expect a certain ethical integrity, to say nothing of intelligence.  Unfortunately Jessica Elgot possesses neither.

What used to distinguish ‘journalists’ on the tabloids from the quality press was the ability to separate fact and opinion. The latter were confined to the Editorial or Comment pages. Jessica Elgot wouldn't even understand this proposition. She is a propagandist. Every piece she writes is biased against understanding. She mistakes cliches for prose from the latest press release.

Today Labour’s National Executive Committee discussed a new Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct. Apparently it has stuck to its guns and rejected the Zionist attacks. Labour NEC defies Chief Rabbi to adopt new anti-Semitism code.

I have already made it clear, as has Labour Against the Witchhunt, which picketed the meeting today, that the new Anti-Semitism Code is weak, based as it is on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.

Elgot's pathetic propaganda masquerading as journalism

The Zionist movement in this country has been waging a campaign against the Code.  After crying about 'antisemitism' for the past 3 years it is afraid that Labour might take it seriously and forget to confuse it with anti-Zionism.

Their complaint is that Labour hasn't adopted the complete IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism. Instead the most egregious examples of the conflation of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have been either omitted or toned down.  The Zionists therefore demand that Labour adopts the whole of this Liar's Charter.

For Elgot and her Zionist compatriots this is unacceptable.  In the words of the Jewish Chronicle’s far-Right editor, Stephen Pollard, the problem with the new Code is that 

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

Lord Bracadale's Recommendation - anti-Zionism is not a hate crime

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are two completely different things.  Don’t take my word for it. Retired Senior Scottish Judge Lord Bracadale has just completed an Independent Review of Hate Crime Legislation in Scotland.  In his review Lord Bracadale, an Establishment Judge par excellence, no radical he, concludes that you can’t make criticism of Israel and Zionism into a a Protected Characteristic and therefore a hate crime.  You hate people not states.  To make it a criminal offence to criticise Israel would be an outrageous attack on freedom of speech and contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

In the words of Hugh Tomlinson QC this would have ‘a potential chilling effect’ on free speech.  Of course Zionists and Elgot aren’t in the slightest bit interested in free speech.  All they are bothered about is protecting their bastard offspring, the apartheid State of Israel.

One of the illustrations of ‘anti-Semitism’ in the IHRA is describing Israel as a 'racist endeavour'.  As Ahmed  Tibi, an Arab member of Israel’s Knesset asks in Middle East Eye,  how else do you describe a state where nearly 1,000 towns and communities are Jewish only, where a Bill is before the Knesset to legalise the segregation of communities and where attempts by Arabs to buy houses in ‘Jewish towns’ are met with demonstrations by the residents wanting to keep their towns all White Jewish.  A situation where 93% of the land is national, i.e. Jewish national land.

One wonders what Elgot and the Board of Deputies would say if, in Britain, there was a Christian National Fund which owned and controlled 93% of land and refused, on principle, to sell or lease its property to Jews or non-Christians.  Ant-semitic or merely defending Christian identity?

Israel is a state where mobs chant ‘Death to the Arabs’ without any penalty whatsoever, whereas an Arab poet, Dareen Tatour is facing a lengthy prison sentence for talking about ‘resistance’ in a poem.  Racist?  You judge. 

But to the despicable Elgot, who masquerades as a journalist, none of this matters. She like her editors is devoted to one thing only – selling Israeli Apartheid as a Western Democracy.

For reasons unknown Jessica decided to block me

It is no surprise, that in the course of researching this article, I found that Ms Elgot had blocked me on Twitter even though we have never exchanged a single word.  I can’t imagine why should want to block me but I’ll take it as a compliment that I have been blocked by a racist.

The moral of the story?  As long as the Guardian employs people like Elgot no self-respecting anti-racist or socialist should buy The Guardian.

Below is a letter I have sent to the Guardian on Elgot’s latest piece.  I don’t expect it to be published!

Letter I have sent to the Guardian concerning Elgot's fake news article

Anti-Semitism and Labour: Muzzling free speech silences rightful criticism of Israel

Longstanding Knesset member Ahmad Tibi urges Labour not to change its definition of anti-Semitism at its meeting on Tuesday

The British Labour Party’s recent efforts to define anti-Semitism, and to put clear water between a racist act (which is a criminal offence) and legitimate criticism of Israel, is deeply appreciated by those who strive for truth and justice.

Conversely, the push by supporters of Israel to bully and browbeat the Labour Party into adopting a distorted definition of anti-Semitism is sad and disheartening.

“It is impossible to understand why Labour refuses to align itself with this universal definition,” complained the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the UK’s Jewish Leadership Council.

The definition’s controversial examples are not even accepted as such by the man who wrote it

The second half of this sentence is patently false. These groups’ desired definition, through politically slanted examples, is most definitely not a universally accepted test to decide which statements should be struck from the political discourse – and for good reason.

Five years ago, the Fundamental Rights Agency – the European Union body dedicated to combatting racism and discrimination – dropped the definition from its website.

In fact, the definition’s controversial examples are not even accepted as such by the man who wrote it.

As Kenneth Stern, the lawyer and lead author of the document explained in a 2016 op-ed in the New York Times, the text was only ever “intended for data collectors writing reports about anti-Semitism in Europe. It was never supposed to curtail speech”.

The fog of 'whataboutery'

Now on to the first claim, that it is “impossible to understand” why the UK Labour Party, or any body dedicated to human rights and opposed to racial hatred, would reject the definition or associated examples championed by pro-Israel groups.

Allow me, a Palestinian citizen of Israel and member of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, to explain why this definition of anti-Semitism is problematic in the extreme, and why it amounts to an attempt to muzzle public discourse on the rights of Palestinian people.

Anger at the Labour Party stems not from its decision to accept the broad definition of anti-Semitism written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), but its refusal to accept four examples of anti-Semitism which relate explicitly to Israel. These are:

• “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”
• "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”
• “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”
• "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”

The first of these examples is just an eloquent ”whataboutery". Responding to reports about state racism, Israel’s defenders cry out: "What about Syria? What about Saudi Arabia? What about Iran?"

Of course, these aren’t honest appeals to discuss the alleged crimes of those other countries, but rather, efforts to derail discussion of Israel’s. No victim of racism should ever be required to compile lists of other equally reprehensible acts of racism, just to earn the right to describe their own suffering.

If other countries are guilty of similar or worse crimes, they should also be called out for those crimes. The responsibility to do so, however, falls on every single citizen, every political actor.

Any effort to burden those who would advocate Palestinian rights with the demand that they first lobby for the rights of every other aggrieved group in the world is nothing more than a strategy to silence them, and to ensure Israeli impunity.

Where are rights for Palestinians?

Another way Palestinians are being silenced is with the assertion that those who accuse the State of Israel of inherent racism, of being a “racist endeavour“, are really inciting hatred of Jews in general and wherever they happen to live. Founding the state was the common wish of Jewish people, say supporters of Israel: denying that wish amounts to anti-Semitism.

In fact, creating a state that would give preferential treatment to Jews over others, including over the indigenous Palestinian people, was a minority opinion among Jews around the world before Israel was established.

Since the state’s founding in 1948, admittedly, Jews who support a territory of their own in Palestine have grown in number and proportion.

Still, no right of self-determination could ever supercede the right to equal treatment of every other person living on the land. Why should support for Israel – even if such support was unanimous among Jewry around the world – absolve Israel of racism at its core? 

At the time of Israel’s creation, its founding fathers drove out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and did not permit them to return when hostilities had ended. They refuse a right of return to this day. In the seven decades that followed, there was only a single year in which Israel did not control the Palestinian masses that remained by military occupation.

Palestinians now make up a majority of the population in all the territories Israel controls, but only a quarter of those people are accorded citizenship, and even they are subject to discrimination by at least 66 state laws.

Almost 1,000 villages and towns in Israel – more than three-quarters of the total – do not permit non-Jews to live within them.

To ensure that Israel’s High Court cannot quash any of these laws that discriminate against non-Jews, the Netanyahu government is now advancing new legislation which would sanctify the superior status of Jews in Israel.

These and many more travesties of justice are not bugs of the Jewish state; they are features of it. Where then are the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination, after the State of Israel has systematically eliminated them?

The hatred against Palestinians and others

In recent years, though, the elected and appointed leaders of Israeli Jews have incited hatred against Palestinians, African refugees, non-Jews in general, even against Israeli Jews who are not sufficiently nationalist in their eyes.

It gives me no pleasure to write this, but it must be clearly stated for the record: of late, top Israeli political and religious leaders have even incited genocide against the Palestinian people. Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef ruled in March that non-Jewish people, including Palestinians, have no right to live in the country.

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said in May 2015 that all Palestinian people, including mothers and babies, are enemies who must be destroyed.

Most worrisome, this racist rhetoric is increasingly influencing the Israeli public, shifting it further and further to the far right. What human rights horrors could this lead to, if left unchecked?

In May 2014, Israel’s most highly respected author, Amos Oz, used a variation on the N-word to describe the country’s Jewish supremacists. “We also have Hebrew neo-Nazi groups,” Oz said. “There is nothing the modern-day neo-Nazis in Europe do that those groups don’t do here.”

Baby  Ali Dawabsheh was burnt alive with his parents and his surviving brother when his home was firebombed by neo-Nazi settlers - at the trial this month of the perpetrators, his supporters turned up to taunt his grandfather 'Ali is dead, Ali is on the grill' - the Police chose not to intervene

Just weeks later, some of those neo-Nazis kidnapped Mohammad Abu Khdeir, a Palestinian teenager in Jerusalem, beat him, forced gasoline down his throat, and burned him to death from the inside out. In July 2015, another group of Hebrew neo-Nazis firebombed a Palestinian home in the West Bank, murdering the Dawabsheh family’s father, mother and one-year-old baby.

In recent weeks, I accompanied the baby’s grandfather to court to support him in his quest for justice. Meanwhile, my fellow deputy speaker of the Knesset, Bezalel Smotrich, accompanied to court the young Israeli men on trial for committing the murders.

Khan al Ahmar where Israeli soldiers are grapping with residents whose homes they are intending to demolish

Two years ago on Yom HaShoah – Holocaust Remembrance Day itself – the Israeli army’s deputy chief of staff, Major General Yair Golan, told a group of assembled soldiers: “If there's something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance, it's the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then – 70, 80 and 90 years ago – and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016.”

Golan’s harsh observations were not divorced from reality, but rather, reflected it accurately. A Pew poll published just two months earlier found that four-fifths of Israeli Jews want the state to accord them more legal rights than Palestinian citizens of Israel, and half – half! – of Israeli Jews want to strip non-Jews of their citizenship, and to outright deport them.

Stifling free speech ensures racism continues

This state of affairs is nothing to be happy about; like other public figures, I regret to inform you of it. But I am left with no choice: unless you are made aware of these frightening facts, there is no chance that these trends can be curbed, and reversed, so that ultimately, everyone living in the land can enjoy the equal rights they are entitled to, Jew and Gentile, Israeli and Palestinian.

The Labour Party’s new statement, which slams anti-Semitism but defends criticism of Israel, is a huge improvement over the anti-Palestinian policy that preceded it, and should be praised as such.

Attempts by the Labour Party or any other body to stifle free speech about Israeli racism will only ensure that the racism continues and increases unabated.

Ahmad Tibi is the most senior Arab MK, having served since 1999. He is one of the founders of the Arab Movement for Renewal (Hatenua Ha'Aravit le Hithadshut, or Ta’al) and a member of the Joint List (Hadash, Ra'am, Balad, Ta'al). In 1993, after the signing of the Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat, then-chairman of the Palestinian Authority, appointed Tibi as his special adviser. Since his election to the Knesset, Ahmad Tibi has managed to pass 12 laws, most of which focus on social, economic and consumer issues. In 2010, Tibi gave a speech about the Holocaust, which then-Speaker Reuven Rivlin called “the finest speech ever given in the history of the Knesset”.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.