Better Late than Never - Jewish Socialists Group Finally Supports Jackie Walker

Unfortunately the statement is extremely weak and it fails to come to terms with Jewish racism

Well it was a long time coming and followed a particularly tetchy response by David Rosenberg to queries by Debbie Fink as to why the JSG was not supporting Jackie Walker.  Our questions were reasonable ones to ask of a group that calls itself socialist.  Why, when the Jewish Labour Movement, the British wing of the racist Israeli Labour Party, had engineered Jackie's suspension from the Labour Party, had the JSG said nothing about either that or Jon Lansman, who was a JSG member and who had been actively complicit in the campaign against Jackie? The latter question is still unanswered.

Gideon Falter - Racist Chair of the racist 'charity' Campaign Against Antisemitism and Trustee/Director of the Jewish National Fund UK, who has been spearheading the attack on Jackie Walker and other anti-Zionists

It would be easy for this blog to claim credit for the fact that we have embarrassed the JSG leadership into finally, reluctantly agreeing to write to the Labour Party supporting Jackie Walker.  However this is a pyrrhic victory in many ways.

i.           The JSG have not publicised their support for Jackie.

ii.          The JSG have not disowned Lansman

iii.         The JSG have still treated aspects of the ‘anti-Semitism witch-hunt’ as bona fide rather than as a disgusting racist witch-hunt of Black and Asian people.

The racist nature of the witch-hunt has been largely ignored.  We can see this in the disgusting attacks on Malaka Mohammed by the McCarthyite Campaign Against Antisemitism.  [see Character assassination as a tool to silence a Palestinian activist].  Malakha is a student from Gaza at Exeter University who has been subject to the same character assassination by the CAA as many other people.  She is someone who has experienced  particular traumas as a result of her experiences at the hands of a self-declared 'Jewish' state.   

Character assassination as a tool to silence a Palestinian activi - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/character-assassination-palestinian/#sthash.s74QmIp7.dpuf

Character assassination as a tool to silence a Palestinian activi - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/character-assassination-palestinian/#sthash.s74QmIp7.dpuf

For a long time the JSG has basked in the golden warmth of a Jewish group seen to say the right things and make the right noises on Israel in progressive circles whilst rarely getting its hands dirty.  It has largely remained absent from the fight for BDS, against Zionism and for Palestine solidarity in this country, apart from carrying its banner at different demonstrations.  It has in particular failed to understand that much of what is called 'anti-Semitism' is a product of the fact that the role of the organised Jewish community institutions and its representatives in this country has been to undermine the Palestine solidarity movement.  

Ian Saville speaking in May 2016 at a Momentum/LRC meeting in Brighton in support of Jackie (pictured)

Despite having a nominally good position on the false anti-Semitism campaign in practice the JSG have not contributed to the campaign.  The first reaction of Dave Rosenberg to questions about what its position on Jackie was that such inquiries were:

‘‘based on ignorance and vituperation, they were not worth responding to. The JSG is solely accountable to its members, not to you, nor to FSOI, nor to any other groups we may or may not be connected with or work with.’ 

Realising that this was hardly adequate, David then issued a ‘Statement of Clarification re Debbie Fink’s questions re JSG, Jews for Jeremy, and John Lansman. This is for information. We won’t be making further comment on this matter as we have more important work to do.’

David Rosenberg - has issued the JSG's a succession of statements concerning the JSG's position on the witch hunt

Unfortunately the 'Statement of Clarification' was anything but clear.  Apart from informing us that 'Our group is anti-Zionist but does not go in for gratuitous and childish demonisation of those who identify as Zionists', which in practice has meant avoiding the subject altogether and defending its removal of critics from both the JSG's own Facebook page and that of Jews for Jeremy it said very little.

David wrote that 'we have, reluctantly, had to block people for misusing our page by posting anti-Corbyn material, abusive sectarian political material, or re-posting material by those who they know have been blocked from the page. [me!] It is for these reasons that J4J collectively decided to block Debbie Fink.'  It would be churlish to even try to unpick this but J4J has never decided anything 'collectively' unless that means David, Julia and Ian Saville having a conversation!

The inadequacy of this statement meant that despite saying it was the last word on the subject, it clearly wasn't, thus why the statement below was issued.  It seems however that the JSG have decided to keep its circulation to the minimum. It is titled ‘For information (and to dispel misinformation which continues to be put about)’ which makes it clear that its purpose is not one of solidarity but an attempt to protect the JSG's reputation.

The first paragraph is unexceptionable but it really doesn’t seem to grasp the magnitude of the problem, as the Al Jazeera programmes ‘The Lobby illustrated.  What we have seen is an exercise in state-sponsored destabilisation of the Labour Party and we are also witnessing a wholesale attack on the Palestine solidarity movement using the weapon of 'anti-Semitism'

Julia Bard - has been the policewoman of both the JSG and J4J Facebook groups removing anyone who dissented from or criticised the JSG's refusal to speak up over the racist witch-hunt of Jackie Walker

Julia Bard's instruction to JSG anti-racist activist Ruth Appleton not to associate the JSG with opposition to Lansman's witch-hunt of Jackie Walker - it has taken nearly 5 months for the JSG to make up their mind

The statement says that ‘there are a small number of cases of genuine antisemitism expressed by Labour party members that the Party must deal with firmly’.  I have seen no expressions of explicit anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial.  Where people have expressed themselves clumsily using anti-Semitic language or concepts this is entirely due to the fact that the Zionist propaganda campaign deliberately conflates the Jewish community and Israel.  It is not surprising that if you consistently associate Jews with Israeli war crimes and tell people that to oppose Zionism or support the Palestinians is anti-Semitic, that some people, very few, will make that false choice and take them at their word. 

For example I picked up a comrade in Brighton who attended a Momentum meeting for his belief that the Rothchilds were behind the dirty tricks campaigns and the anti-Semitism witch-hunt.  The person concerned was not in any way anti-Jewish or hostile and he would have been horrified to be accused of anti-Semitism.  Nonetheless he had imbibed this particular piece of nonsense, as have a number of other people, as a way of explaining the powerful attack by the Zionists on people like Jackie.

Jeremy Newmark of the Jewish Labour Movement has worked in close collaboration with the Israeli Embassy in furthering the 'anti-Semitism' witch-hunt

The present campaign, led by the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism to tar all Palestine solidarity work with the brush of anti-Semitism is nothing less than a defence of white privilege and racism.  That is the meaning of an alliance that includes  Theresa May, Eric Pickles, figures on the Labour Right such as Chuka Ummuna and Tom Watson, Jeremy Newmark of the JLM and Gideon Falter of the CAA.  I classify someone like C Ummuna as White politically. Included for example in the dossier against Jackie Walker is a statement of condemnation by five figures from the Zionist community including Gideon Falter of the CAA, an out and out racist who is a trustee of the Jewish National Fund.    

This alliance also includes the Police establishment who have happily adopted the Zionists' IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.  It is a campaign that carries the full support of the British state and unfortunately Jeremy Corbyn.  Corbyn’s support for the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is disgraceful and should have been called out long before.  Corbyn’s acceptance of the IHRA definition and the legitimacy of the false anti-Semitism campaign is a weapon that will  and has been used against him.   

Free Speech of Israel picket of Momentum meeting where Jon Lansman, a JSG member, moved the removal of Jackie Walker as Momentum Vice Chair - JSG statement doesn't mention Lansman's role

To try to suppress criticism of Corbyn on this and other matters does not strengthen, it weakens the Corbyn leadership.  In the 'Statement of Clarification' David Rosenberg wrote that 

'The J4J page is NOT a place for those who wish to attack, disparage, abuse or insult Corbyn and the political stance he represents.... On a very few occasions since then we have, reluctantly, had to block people for misusing our page by posting anti-Corbyn material,'

What that means in practice is that as Corbyn has retreated over Zionism and Palestine, going along with the witch hunt whilst assuring people that he himself is not anti-Semitic, it has been impossible on the J4J FB page to criticise him because the whole political purpose of the page, as defined by a small coterie of JSG leaders, is to engage in nothing more than sycophantic adulation of Corbyn.  Regardless of whether his going along with the anti-Semitism witch hunt is actually harming his position, no one is allowed to criticise this.  It has meant that there has been no pushback in a group that could have been influential.  J4J could have put to Corbyn that the 'anti-Semitism' that Falter, Arkush and co. was talking about had nothing to do with discrimination against or hostility to Jews as Jews.

The campaign around the false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign represent white privilege and white racism in this society and the fact that the JSG have finally, belatedly, come on board suggests that they still don’t get it.  Opposition to anti-semitism is an establishment form of anti-racism.  It is an anti-racism entirely divorced from how society operates and is organised. It is a depoliticised form of racism, which substitutes difference for oppression and exploitation.  It counterposes the identity of White minorities like Jews to the very real oppression of migrants, refugees and students from Palestine.

It is no coincidence that those most affected by it have been Black members of the Labour Party and Black Connexions - people like Marlene Ellis and Marc Wadsworth.  Wadworth was set up at the Chakrbarti press conference by that disgusting State agent Ruth Smeeth MP.  

As Asa Winstanley notes in an article for Electronic Intifada, a 2009 US embassy cable from London, revealed by Chelsea Manning and published by Wikileaks, states that Smeeth is a source they should “strictly protect.”  Speaking to the Telegraph in 2011, Smeeth admitted to being at a breakfast meeting in the embassy but said “I have no recollection of saying what has been attributed to me. I would not consider myself to be a source for the US government.”  Perhaps not but clearly the US consider her a source!

There have been numerous Asian activists and councillors such as Cllr. Obaid Khan, who have been targeted as part of this witch hunt.  Yet JSG fails to acknowledge that the witch-hunt was racist and seems to ascribe to it benevolent albeit mistaken intentions.  Part of the reason for this is that they put Jewish people in Britain on the same pedestal as Black people when it comes to racism.  As part of the idea of not having a 'hierarchy of oppression' this results in there being no differences between the oppressed and oppressors.  All difference is oppression.

British Jews however are not the victims of racism or imperialism.  They are White and possessors of privilege in this society.  They are not subject to or victims of state racism in this society.  They are very marginal victims of fascist or far-Right groups and there are many examples of where Zionist activists openly work with far-Right individuals and groups despite their anti-Semitism.  I have pointed before to the collaboration between Jonathan Hoffman, the former co-Vice Chair of the Zionist Federation and the English Defence League.  

To use fake racism against Jews in order to perpetuate a very real racism directed at e.g. Palestinian students in this country is unforgivable.  It is also unforgivable that David Rosenberg on behalf of the JSG has treated the Jewish Labour Movement as some kind of counter culture cuddly Jewish group.  

As Chair of the Cable Street commemorations he clearly had a hand in the fact that the JLM had a speaker at these anti-fascist celebrations despite the lamentable role of the Zionist movement in 1936 at the Battle of Cable Street.  Most Zionist organisations supported the Board of Deputies position of opposition to the anti-fascist mobilisation, not least because they were part of the Board although not yet nominally in control of it.  The Labour  Zionists of Poalei Zion and Dror did not oppose the policy of not confronting the British Union of Fascists although a few Zionists were participants in the Jewish Peoples Council against Fascism and Anti-Semitism.

Yet when supporters of IJAN heckled the JLM speaker, Sarah Sackman, David criticised them not her.  Likewise his position on the JLM sponsored letter criticising Jonathan Arkush of the Board of Deputies for welcoming for Trump was entirely misplaced.  The JLM has a need to strike a radical pose as a way of legitimising their role in the witch hunt of anti-racists.  This so-called letter was a PR exercise.  It was a one-off. The JLM, which never officially endorsed it, has never called out the welcome by Israel Herzog of the Israeli Labour Party, its self-declared 'sister party' for Trump's election.  The JLM is a hostile, reactionary organisation, not an organisation of progressives.

The very fact that the Tory establishment has pioneered the acceptance of a definition of anti-Semitism that conflates anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism whilst demonising opposition to Israel as anti-Semitic, suggests that anti-Semitism in practice is a marginal form of prejudice in this society.  That is why it has become the false anti-racism of the Right, used to beat the real victims of racism such as Malaka Shwaikh, a student from Gaza, who is at Exeter University.  Malaka is the latest victim of this ‘anti-Semitism’ witch-hunt perpetrated by groups like the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.

Although the JSG statement supporting Jackie Walker is welcome, it is unfortunate that it had to be dragged out of the JSG.  In particular the last sentence suggests that they resent having to do the right thing: 

‘We hope too that us sharing this information will dispel misinformation/conspiracy theories about our group that have been spread for malicious and dubious purposes, and which can only serve those who have a political interest in attacking and discrediting Jewish leftists.’

It is to be hoped that the statement supporting Jackie is the first and not the last and that the JSG doesn’t fail to protest Jewish racism too. 

Tony Greenstein

Jewish Socialists Group Statement on Jackie Walker and anti-Semitism 

The Jewish Socialists’ Group in its public statements, articles by members, and submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry, has consistently opposed the false and distorted charges of antisemitism targeted at Labour members. We have decribed most of these charges as being weaponised by forces hostile to the Labour Party to damage Labour (especially its democratically elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn), and to undermine free speech by Labour Party members on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

We have acknowledged that there are a small number of cases of genuine antisemitism expressed by Labour party members that the Party must deal with firmly, but stated that the majority of cases we were aware of fell into the categories of being forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and are not antisemitic; or Incidents where genuine critics of Israeli policy unintentionally blur distinctions between Jews and Zionists or between the Israeli government and Israeli people; or unknowingly borrow and apply traditional antisemitic tropes to Israel and its supporters. In such instances argument and education were far more appropriate responses than severe disciplinary measures such as expulsions, suspensions or bans. 

We expressed our support for the Chakrabarti Report based on the Inquiry, which we and many others made submissions to, especially with regard to: 

• its insistence that members against whom complaints are made are absolutely entitled to a transparent, fair and just process; 

• that free speech within the party must be protected, 

• and that conflicts and disagreements are to be approached primarily through education.

Last week the JSG made a submission to the Labour Party with regard to Jackie Walker’s case in which we called for her suspension to be lifted.

In that submission we explained that our group has a long record of opposing antisemitism and other forms of racism from whichever corner; that we reject the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism (and indeed acknowledged that certain forms of pro-Zionism sit happily with antisemitism);and reiterated the positions and principles above. 

We stated that we did not believe that Jackie Walker has been treated to a transparent, fair and just process and condemned the manner in which “evidence” against her was collected by secretly filming comments she made in an exploratory workshop, and presenting them in a manner where they are removed from their context, and open to distortion.

We stated that although there was no consensus within our group on the merits of Jackie Walker’s statements with regard to slavery, Holocaust Day commemorations, or the security requirements of Jewish schools,  and that her interventions did not necessarily reflect the tone in which we would comment on such matters, we feel that it is legitimate to discuss such issues.

We added that through our involvement in anti-racist/antifascist activism, we are aware of Jacqueline Walker’s impressive record in this sphere, especially with regard to her work against UKIP in Kent.

We hope our submission will help to bring about the right result at the hearing. We hope too that us sharing this information will dispel misinformation/conspiracy theories about our group that have been spread for malicious and dubious purposes, and which can only serve those who have a political interest in attacking and discrediting Jewish leftists. 

Baroness Zionist Royall’s Flawed Report on ‘anti-Semitism’ at Oxford University Labour Club

Now we know why the Labour Party failed to publish the Royall Report

Labour's Baroness Royal

Front cover of Royall Report

Background to the Royall Report on anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club

Earlier this year, as a result of the artificial media manufactured story about rampant ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party and at Oxford University Labour Club in particular, the Labour Party set up an inquiry under Baroness Janet Royall into allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’.

the good Baroness is not quite with it

Royall, was a former adviser to Neil Kinnock and someone always sympathetic to Zionism and Israel, (she went on a Labour Friends of Israel trip to Israel in 2007).  When the Executive Summary of her Report appeared back in May she wrote on the web site of the Jewish Labour Movement:

 ‘I know that you will share my disappointment and frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.’ 

This was an extremely strange thing for someone who is genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism to say.  Why on earth should anyone be disappointed with the fact that there is no anti-Semitism at OULC unless they were a Zionist who wanted to find anti-Semitism? 

Chalmers made it clear that it wasn't anti-Semitism that was the problem

The Jewish Labour Movement, on whose web site she wrote, is the British wing of the Israeli Labour Party and it is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation.  The WZO directly funds the establishment of settlements in Palestine and it is one of the main organisations responsible for the apartheid structures of dispossession, discrimination and ethnic cleansing in Israel. As I wrote in May: [Zionist Royalle Finds What She Wanted to Find]

‘the ‘findings’ from Baroness Royall’s ‘investigation’ into anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club were written before she even entered the hallowed portals of Oxford.  It is fitting that they weren’t accompanied by anything as grand as evidence.  Indeed that was the whole purpose of the report.  It is evidence free.’

Chalmer's Linked In profile

Out of her depth

The overriding impression that comes across is that Royall is simply out of her depth.  By her own admission she was ‘daunted’ by the task.  She not only does not understand the differences between Zionism and anti-Semitism or related issues, she also doesn’t seem to understand that one of the purposes of compiling her Report was to investigate whether in fact there was anti-Semitism at OULC.  Instead she proceeds by assertion and takes for granted that which she is supposed to be proving.  

If there is anti-Semitism at OULC then Royall fails to provide the evidence.  Royall retreats into generalities such as ‘there appears to be cultural problem in which behaviour and language that would once have been intolerable is now tolerated.’ Apart from benefiting from a proof reader the Report substitutes vague generalities and sloppy phraseology for concrete actualities and specifics.  

Chalmers was part of the unsuccessful disaffiliation from NUS campaign

The catalyst for the Royall investigation

It should have been a very simple Report to write.  Asa Winstanley investigated the background to the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations at OULC.  It is clear that they consisted of nothing but reheated versions of the traditional libel that is levelled against opponents of Zionism and Israel's racism.  In his article  How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis, Winstanley revealed that Alex Chalmers, who resigned as co-Chair of Oxford University Labour Club because of ‘anti-Semitism’ had been an intern in the Israel advocacy and propaganda group BICOM.  

In his resignation statement, which Royall makes Appendix 1 to her Report, Chalmers stated that his resignation ‘comes in the light of OULC’s decision at this evening’s general meeting to endorse Israel Apartheid Week.’  What has this to do with anti-Semitism?  Perhaps Royall considers the fact that more Israeli Jews support the expulsion of Arabs than oppose it to be  irrelevant to the question of whether Israel is an Apartheid state.  More likely she is ignorant about this and other matters, but such a belief isn’t anti-Semitic.  Yet Royall is seemingly incapable of making what is quite a simple judgment, viz. that Chalmer’s resignation was a propaganda ploy.

When Royall produced her original findings, Labour’s National Executive Committee agreed that the ‘evidence’ on which it was based would be printed at the same time as the Chakrabarti Report, of which Royall was a Vice-Chair.

When Chakrabarti reported, there was no mention of Royall’s Report or the evidence it apparently contained.  Clearly a decision had been taken that there was so little evidence and so much conjecture, that it would be best forgotten.  However the Jewish Chronicle, like a dog with a bone, decided that it would publish the Report that Royall herself leaked as part of an article Baroness Royall report reveals Oxford Labour students engaged in antisemitism

As I wrote at the time the Executive Summary was published, one of the more ludicrous findings of the Report was that

"Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark 'as a Jew…' they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying 'as a woman...' or 'as an Afro-Caribbean…' 

Ludicrous because it begs the question, in what role are Jewish students claiming that being Jewish is relevant?  If it is to do with Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians it is a complete irrelevancy.  After all it is agreed by everyone that holding Jews responsible for the actions of Israel is anti-Semitic.  The Zionist authored Working Definition of anti-Semitism defines one of the manifestations of anti-Semitism as ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’ 

Why then should it be considered relevant if someone claims to be Jewish in the context of a discussion of Israel or Zionism?  Because this is what Royall’s ‘as a Jew’ finding is about?  Unless of course what is really being suggested is that as Israel is a Jewish state, Jews do have a special role, in which case this is another example of Zionists trying to have their racist cake and eat it!

Ironically, at almost exactly the same time as Royall was reporting, David Aaronovitch penned an article ‘Have I got Jews for you!’ in the Jewish Chronicle of 5^th May 2016.  Aaronovitch waxed lyrical about Jews who spoke up as Jews:

‘my online world was invaded by the Asajews…. The "these people" were the Asajews. I heard quite a few of them on Any Answers last week. "As a Jew myself, I want to tell you that…" And there followed something that would say that the contributor believed that Labour had no antisemitism problem and that the real problem was those who kept on going on about antisemitism when what they were truly objecting to was any criticism of the state of Israel…. The Asajews used in this way are just a stage army and their deployment, frankly borders on the disgraceful.’ 

Of course Aaronovitch was complaining about Jews who spoke out as Jews against what Israel was doing in their name.  Royall is complaining about the reaction to Jewish students who use their Jewishness to justify what Israel is doing. 

As Asa Winstanley comprehensively demonstrated in another article, Instigator of anti-Semitism scam kicked out of Labour one of the other instigators of the anti-Semitism allegations at Oxford, former co-Chair David Klemper, was expelled from the Labour Party for having signed the nomination papers of a Lib Dem candidate at the local elections.  Chalmers left the Labour Party soon after his resignation and he too signed the same nomination papers.  On his FB page he demonstrated that he is an extremely reactionary Zionist operative when he displayed a ‘No thanks NUS’ graphic during the ballot as to whether Oxford University Student Union should remain affiliated to  the National Union of Students.  In fact those supporting affiliation to NUS won the ballot by a thousand votes.

A Shoddy Report

By any stretch of the imagination, Royall’s Report is shoddy and insubstantial.  It is no wonder that according to the Jewish Chronicle report, Chalmers was ‘"disappointed" Royall's report had not gone into more detail about the "problem" at the club.’  The problem was there was no details.

Royall begins with a favourite Zionist meme, namely that anti-Semitism was an ‘ancient virus [that]… had infected our Party’ and for good measure she later repeats the comparison as well as quoting Gordon Brown to the effect that ‘Together our renewed efforts can rid the world of this

ancient virus.”  This is an integral part of Zionist ideology.  An early Zionist, Leo Pinsker, the founder of the Lovers of Zion, wrote in his pamphlet ‘Auto Emancipation’ that 

'Judaephobia is then a mental disease, and as a mental disease it is hereditary, and having been inherited for 2, 000 years it is incurable. [L. Pinsker, Autoemanzipation, ein Mahnruf an seine]

Pinsker was a doctor and therefore defined anti-Semitism as Judaephobia.  It is part of the Zionist fable that anti-Semitism applies to all of history and all classes equally.  It is an incurable disease that may mutate and change its form but it bears much the same characteristics.  And of course, if it is incurable, then why fight it.  Traditionally Zionism represented an abandonment of the fight against anti-Semitism.

According to the Zionists, anti-Semitism and racism don’t have any relationship to class or material factors, they aren’t a product of particular types of societies.  Anti-Semitism although a product of non-Jews and their reaction to Jews must ultimately relate to something about Jews themselves.  Traditionally this was indeed the attitude of Zionism.  Herzl wrote in his pamphlet The Jewish State that

When we sink we become a revolutionary proletariat... when we rise there rises also the terrible power of our purse. [The Jewish State, p.26]

Anti-Semitism was the product of the Jewish presence in non-Jewish society.  In his autobiography, Trial and Error, the President of the Zionist Organisation, Chaim Weizmann, who later went on to become Israel’s first President, wrote that:

Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches saturation point, that country reacts against them. In the early years of this century, Whitechapel and the great industrial centres of England were in that sense saturated... The determining factor in this matter is not the solubility of the Jews but the solvent power of the country. England had reached the point when she could or would absorb so many Jews and no more.

Like all diseases anti-Semitism affects everybody though some non-Jews, for example Muslims, might be more susceptible.  Fortunately today we have strong political retrovirals so this disease can be treated but the main thing is that it is a form of pathology unrelated to society or surroundings.  In other words Royall starts off her Report with a racist analysis of racism.

Royall is nothing if not unoriginal.  She just loves to repeat without question commonly held beliefs, no matter how wrong they are.  She states in her introduction that ‘For many years, Jews of all ages have strongly supported Labour’.  In fact Jewish support for the Labour Party has been declining ever since the 1960’s.  A Jewish academic and Jewish Chronicle journalist, Geoffrey Alderman, explained this in some detail in The Jewish Community in British Politics, in a chapter, ‘Return to the Right’:  As early as 1961 ‘over 40% of Anglo-Jewry was located in the upper two social classes whereas these categories accounted for less than 20% of the general population.’  The conclusion Alderman drew was that ‘at the time of the 1964 general election which Labour won, ¾ the top 2 social classes supported the Conservative Party.’ (p.137)  In other words Jews voted like any other of their social class and predominantly for the Tory Party.  The myth that Jews have always voted for the Labour Party is exactly that – a myth.

This however is but one example of the problems with the Royall Report.  Another example is where Royall declares that she would be bound by the ‘London Declaration (2009) of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism’. 

You can gauge the nature of this Declaration by the section ‘Challenging Antisemitism’, point 1 of which states that ‘Parliamentarians shall expose, challenge, and isolate political actors who engage in hate against Jews and target the State of Israel as a Jewish collectivity.’  Since, according to the Zionists’ Working Definition on anti-Semitism, it is anti-Semitic to hold Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli state, then the London Declaration, which declares that Israel is part of a ‘Jewish collectivity’ must by definition be anti-Semitic!

What a muddle Royall gets herself into.  The only explanation of Royall’s logic is Humpty Dumpty’s dictum that ‘Words mean what I want them to mean.  The only question is who is master!’.  If Royall’s report is guided by an anti-Semitic Declaration, then it is clearly not worth the paper it is written on.

Royall accepts that there is no ‘institutional anti-Semitism’ within OULC, but she also makes it clear that she is disappointed by her own finding! 

Jewish Labour Movement

Royall makes a series of recommendations, the most controversial of which is the proposal that 

‘Training should be organised by Labour Students together with the Jewish Labour Movement for officers of all Labour Clubs in dealing with antisemitism.’

The Jewish Labour Movement is an openly Zionist organisation.  According to Wikipedia ‘It views Zionism as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people’.  Zionism is the movement which established the State of Israel.  A state which calls itself a Jewish state which was founded on the expulsion of ¾ million Palestinians and which refuses a right of return to those refugees at the very same time as it encourages Jews who have no connection to Israel to ‘return’ to what it terms their ancient homeland.  Apart from the conflation of Jews and Zionism which Royall otherwise purports to deplore, the very idea that Jews belong, not in the countries where they were born but in Palestine, is itself a racist and anti-Semitic idea.  Despite this, Royall considers that the JLM is a fit body to conduct anti-racist training.  It is like asking the Yorkshire Ripper to take over the management of a woman’s refuge project.

Royall, like Chakrabarti, describes how the Jewish Labour Movement is the successor to Poalei Zion, which affiliated to the Labour Party in 1920.  She seems to think that this is a matter of pride rather than shame.  Poalei Zion in 1920 was a tiny organisation with little implantation in the Jewish working-class in Britain.  Jewish trade unionists, tended, almost without exception, to be hostile to Zionism which posited the struggle for socialism in Palestine rather than where they lived.  Socialist Zionism was thus an eternal contradiction.  The affiliation of Poalei Zion was a measure of the pro-imperialist politics of the Labour Party.  It was because the Labour Party under the Fabians and the Webbs, Sydney Webb later became the Colonial Secretary Lord Passfield, believed in the idea of Empire as a form of trusteeship for the uncivilised natives, that they took so warmly to Poalei Zion with its rhetoric of developing the land for the backward Arabs.

Allegations of anti-Semitism

Intriguingly Royall also mentions one serious false allegation of anti-Semitism that was reported to the Police.  Asa Winstanley suggests that this refers to false allegations against Rachel Bradshaw of Stirling University However Royall gives no further details.

Anti-Semitism

Royall makes a dogs dinner of the question, ‘what is anti-Semitism’.  Zionists of course have difficulty with this because their overriding need is to try and persuade people that opposition to a state, the State of Israel, is anti-Semitic.  The problem with this is that Israel, like any other state, is not a human being.  It is difficult to be racist towards a state.  Anti-Semitism is therefore redefined as hostility to the Jewish state.  According to this not very convincing narrative people oppose Israel not for what it does, the mass murders, the entrenched discrimination, the Occupation, torture and imprisonment of children etc. but because the state is Jewish!

This is the ‘new anti-Semitism’.  What it does is enable all those political forces which have historically been most antagonistic to Jews as Jews to pretend that they too are opposed to anti-Semitism.  It reaches its ludicrous apogee in groups like the BNP or English Defence League which combine traditional anti-Semitism with avid support for Israel and Zionism.

Thus Royall cites the Zionist Community Security Trust’s definition of anti-Semitism as being ‘hostility, phobia or bias against Judaism or individual Jews as a group.’  This is a nonsensical definition.  Hostility to Judaism, a religion, might indeed be a cover for hostility to Jews in much the same way  as opposition to Israel might be a disguise for anti-Semitism.  However it is not very usual and why define individual Jews as a group? 

Defining anti-Semitism isn’t rocket science.  It is hatred or hostility, discrimination or violence towards Jews as Jews.  The more sophisticated anti-Semites hold to a conspiracy theory in which Jews are the ones who control and manipulate world events and countries.  Therefore a belief in a world Jewish conspiracy is normally seen as anti-Semitic.

Reading through this section what I find most startling is how superficial is Royall’s grasp of what racism or oppression is, still less where it comes from.  Royall makes the trite observation that ‘oppression of any sort… (is) the strong oppressing the weak,  the rich oppressing the poor.’  She doesn’t ascribe agency to anyone or anything.  Royall doesn’t see oppression or racism in any context.  It just happens, it exists, it has no social origin or political context. 

Royall also makes the equally trite comment that to some people Jews cannot be the victims or discriminated against, without ever saying who these people are.  Having given us this profound insight she then jumps to observing that there is a ‘view that criticism of the government of Israel is not anti-Semitic (it is not)’ and therefore ‘being anti-Zionist cannot be anti-Semitic.  Yes it can.’  Apart from anything else this is as good an example of a non-sequitur as one is likely to find.  The premise, Royall’s observations on racism and anti-Semitism do not lead to the concluson she draws.  It is an example of the shoddy methodology of her Report.

Clearly there are some people who are anti-Semitic who disguise or hide this as anti-Zionism.  I have some experience of such people for example Gilad Atzmon, the anti-Semitic jazzman.  However they are enormously aided by the false accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ that are made by Zionists.  As I wrote in The Seamy Side of Solidarity ‘Guardian 19.2.07. ‘Like the boy who cried wolf, the charge of "anti-semitism" has been made so often against critics of Zionism and the Israeli state that people now have difficulty recognising the genuine article.’

The irony is that it is Royall herself who is providing the alibi and rationale for the making of false accusations of anti-Semitism.  What Royall is doing is giving cover to those who are anti-Semitic. If someone is an anti-Semite then they aren’t an anti-Zionist.  The two are mutually exclusive.  If anti-Zionism is a disguise then clearly it cannot be the same as the thing it is disguising.  Otherwise it isn’t a disguise!  It’s a matter of logic but one which seems to entirely escape the good Baroness.

When Royall say that ‘not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites and anti-Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitic’ what she is really saying is that normally anti-Zionists are anti-Semites and that normally anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.  The  proof for this assertion is a lengthy quotation from John Mann MP’s All Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism which manages to find that Zionism was is ‘a movement of national liberation.’  It is a strange national liberation movement which formed an alliance in 1917 with British imperialism in the form of the Balfour Declaration!  A movement that was sponsored by the British occupying power in Palestine.  The Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal observed of John Mann that

when it came to anti-Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he [John Mann MP] 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.[1]

MacPherson

Like many people, Royall fails to understand the MacPherson principle (which Chakrabarti to her credit did get right).  A racial incident is not, contrary to Royall’s assertion, ‘an incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.’  MacPherson said that for the purpose of an investigation by the Police, in the specific circumstances of the institutional racism of the Metropolitan Police in the Stephen Lawrence affair, where someone claims to be the victim of a racial incident the Police must record it as such and treat it as such.  That doesn’t mean that it is a racial incident.  Only the courts can make that decision.  The extension of the MacPherson principle to ‘any other person’ demonstrates just how much Royall is at sea.

Oxford University Labour Club

When it comes to OULC and anti-Semitism Royall has virtually nothing to say.  It is no wonder that the NEC didn’t publish her Report.  She found that ‘some Jewish members do not feel comfortable attending meetings.’  Perhaps that is because they are also Zionists who don’t like having to defend Israel.  What has that got to do with anti-Semitism?  Royall accepts that when it comes to a debate on Israel and Palestine ‘the debate is politically chared and robust.’  She alleges, again without any examples, that ‘at least on one occasion the boundaries of acceptability were breached.’  And that is it, no evidence or examples are given. 

Royall says that she regrets that ‘incidences of anti-Semitism’ (Royall doesn’t insert the word ‘alleged’) ‘were not reported to any authority’ and concludes that ‘this makes it very difficult to verify’.  In which case how does she know there were such incidences?  It is such leaps of logic which render this Report so enticing, if only as an example of how not to argue a case.

When it comes to the meat of the Report, specific allegations of anti-Semitism against individual members of OULC there is an even thinner gruel.  She concludes that ‘it is clear to me from the weight of witnessed allegations received  that there have been some incidents of anti-Semitic behaviour and that it is appropriate for the disciplinary procedures of our Party to be invoked.’  At no stage are we given any examples of these allegations still less any detail.  However Royall then goes on to say that ‘it is not clear to me to what extent this behaviour constituted intentional or deliberate acts of anti-Semitism.  This is particularly true of historical hearsay evidence  .’  Which at the very least casts doubt as to whether what is alleged is anti-Semitism at all.  In any event she provides no examples of what she means before concluding that she sees no value in pursuing the very disciplinary cases that she said it would be appropriate to pursue!  Really you couldn’t make it up.

And that is the sum total of the allegations of anti-Semitism in Oxford University Labour Club.  The  clear and obvious conclusion is that the affair was contrived by a manipulator who was co-Chair of OULC, Alex Chalmers, who made allegations of anti-Semitism in the context of support for the Palestinians.  For him ‘Jews’ means supporters of Israel.  It is not surprising that he has refused to answer Asa Winstanley’s questions and has gone to some considerable lengths to cover his tracks, for example deleting his profile on Linked In.  Of Royall’s report it is fair to say that the least said the soonest mended!

---

[1]           http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/eemployment-trib-fraser-v-uni-college-union-judgment.

Israeli Soldiers Torture and Abuse Palestinian Children

Israel’s Occupation Forces Have Learnt Well from the Nazis

Fighting 'terrorism'

I have to confess that, immune as I am to stories of the violence and brutality of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, I found the programme below, made by Australian TV, shocking.  I’ve been on the streets of Derry and Belfast when British soldiers attacked demonstrators but compared to the film below, the Occupation of the North of Ireland was a genteel affair.

Israeli’s have learnt well from the holocaust.  Most Israelis turn their heads away or bury them in the sand, as not knowing is a comfort. But when Israelis put in a uniform, with a few exceptions, they behave like the savages of the SS.  If it were not for the genocide, they would be peas in a pod, and to some in Israel the Nazis are a model of how to conduct an Occupation [see Israeli Judge Ben-Itto 'We must learn from the Nazis']

Perhaps the most shocking revelations concerned the use of electric shock torture on children and a child who had food placed on their head and genitals with an Alsatian dog ordered to eat it.    There was a time in Israel when, because of their use in the concentration camps, that Israeli police were not allowed to use such methods.

Founder of the 'left' Zionist Mapam and Ahdut Ha'avodah, Yitzhak Tabenkin

Daniella Weiss, a settler leader, summed up the settlers claims that the West Bank is their land.  ‘This is Jewish land.  God gave it to the Jewish people’.  The military are there to enforce the settlers' claims.  Weiss may have been working in cahoots with the master butcher himself, Ariel Sharon, but it was the Israeli Labour Party (Mapai) which first established settlements in the West Bank.

As Israel Galili, of the militarist ‘left’ Ahdut Ha'avodah told Haaretz on April 18, 1972:

“Our right in Gaza is exactly like our right in Tel Aviv. We are colonizing Gaza exactly in the same manner in which we colonized Yafa. Those who doubt our right in Gaza should doubt our right in Tel Aviv as well.”  

 Together with Yigal Allon, Rabin and the rest of the war criminals who ran Mapai, they began the occupation regime.  It was one of the founding fathers of ‘left’ Zionism, a co-founder of Mapam and Ahdut Ha'avodah, the party of Poalei Zion, who became the most ardent of the settlers’ supporters.  I refer to Yitzhak Tabenkin, who founded Kibbutz Meuhad.

It is no accident that some of the most important founding fathers of Labour Zionism – Allon, Galilee and Tabenkin – were the ones who determined from the outset that the West Bank would never be given back.  From there it was a simple path to the abuse and torture of children, a practice that should bury for all of time Israel’s claim to be the ‘only democracy’ in the Middle East.
Tony Greenstein

Aussie TV dares to show the real occupation

Jonathan Cook,  11 February 2014

Palestinian  child held in choke hold whilst 'trophy' photo is taken

I never thought I would see it. A mainstream TV programme, this one made by Australian channel ABC, that shows the occupation in all its inhuman horror. The 45-minute investigative film concerns the Israeli army’s mistreatment of Palestinian children. Along the way, it provides absolutely devastating evidence that the children’s abuse is not some unfortunate by-product of the occupation but the cornerstone of Israel’s system of control and its related need to destroy the fabric of Palestinian society.

Omar Barghouti has spoken of Israelis’ view of Palestinians as only “relatively human”. Here that profound racism is on full show. There are, of course, concessions to “balance” – in the hope of minimising the backlash from Israel – but they do nothing to dilute the power of the message. This is brave film-making of the highest order. It is an indication of quite how exceptional this film is that it has cornered Australia’s foreign minister, Julie Bishop, into expressing her “deep concern“. That’s the same Bishop who last month doubted that the settlements in the West Bank were illegal. - See more at:

Israeli soldiers pose for photos while abusing Palestinian child

 Ali Abunimah 02/09/2014

Israeli forces in the eastern occupied Jerusalem village of al-Eizariya were caught on video on Friday posing for trophy photos as they held a wounded, handcuffed Palestinian child in a stranglehold.
The disturbing video, shot by Rami Alarya was published by the Independent Media Center (IMC), however that publication’s website, which regularly documents Israeli abuses in the village, appeared to be down.

The images in this post are screenshots from Alarya’s video.
جنود اسرائيليين يطلقون النار على طفل و يعتقلونه في العيزرية 7-2-2014

a trophy photo

The International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) which translated IMC’s report provided this description and analysis:

The soldiers assaulted the child during clashes that took place in the [al-Eizariya] town, east of occupied East Jerusalem.

another trophy photo - German soldiers did the same when invading the Soviet Union

One of the soldiers tried to push the cameraman, Alarya, and his colleague, Amin Alawya, away from the scene, and was yelling at them, “Enough, enough…. go away… what do you want…”
Medical sources said the soldiers shot the child, Yassin al-Karaki, 13 years of age, with a rubber-coated metal bullet which hit the 13-year old in the leg. After he fell, the soldiers began assaulting and abusing him.

The attack took place after soldiers, who hid in a building near the Annexation Wall in the Qabsa area, ambushed a group of children, and one of the soldiers opened fire on the children.
Several soldiers then attacked and assaulted the wounded child before kidnapping him.
The soldiers took pictures of themselves with the wounded child, and one soldier picked up a Molotov cocktail from the ground, while the child shouted in Hebrew, “it’s not mine, it’s not mine”, and a soldier responded, “it’s yours, it’s Ok … it’s yours”.

One of the soldiers was holding him in a chokehold, and was mocking the child by imitating wrestling moves while other soldiers took pictures, although the child was barely able to breathe.
The soldiers then placed the child in their jeep, while one of them was still filming the incident.
Trophies

In his book Goliath, The Electronic Intifada contributor Max Blumenthal writes that such so-called “trophy” photos have a long tradition in many military forces, including Israel’s.

Blumenthal recalls a series of such photographs released several years ago by Breaking the Silence, an Israeli group which documents testimonies of Israeli soldiers while protecting their identities:
Among the disturbing shots culled from Facebook pages belonging to young Israelis was a photo of four smiling troops towering over a blindfolded preadolescent Palestinian girl kneeling at the point of their machine guns; a pretty female soldier smiling winsomely beside a blindfolded Palestinian man cuffed to a plastic chair; two soldiers posing triumphantly above a dishevelled corpse lying in the street like a piece of discarded trash; a soldier pumping his rifle in the air directly behind an older Palestinian woman tending to pots on her kitchen stove; a soldier defacing the walls of a home in Gaza by spray-painting a star of David and the phrase, “Be Right Back”; troops in the Gaza Strip playing with and posing beside corpses stripped half nude in acts of post-mortem humiliation; a young soldier mockingly applying makeup from a Palestinian woman’s dresser. The Facebook pages were so replete with documents of humiliation, domination, and violence it seemed that army basic training had been led by Marquis de Sade.

Blumenthal sees these images as documents of a “colonial culture in which Jewish Israeli youth became conditioned to act as sadistic overlords toward their Palestinian neighbors, and of a perpetual conquest that demanded indoctrination” beginning “at an early age” and continuing “perpetually throughout their lives.”

The latest shocking images from occupied Jerusalem are proof that this ugly tradition persists.