The Community Security Trust’s Statistics on Antisemitic Incidents are Fake, False and Fraudulent

Reply to a Labour Zionist on the Pensive Quill

I was alerted to criticism on the Pensive Quill by Barry Gilheany, a member of the Jewish Labour Movement. Out of curiosity more than anything else, I discovered that the site was a Republican blog run by Anthony McIntyre, a former member of the Provisional IRA. It has on its masthead Dolours Price, one half of the  Price sisters who were gaoled for bombing the Old Bailey in 1973 and Brendan Hughes who initiated the hunger strikes in the 1980’s. Both had an involvement in The Blanket, a republican journal. 

Sir Ronald Storrs

I found it strange and still do that a Zionist should write for a Republican blog since Zionism and Unionism are siamese twins. Ronald Storrs, the first Military Governor of Jerusalem, wrote in his autobiography, Orientations, that the Zionist settlement in Palestine was ‘a little loyal Ulster in a sea of hostile pan-Arabism.’ The insertion of the Jewish settler colonial project into the Arab heartland was designed to ghfurther imperialist designs just as the creation of a Protestant Supremacist state in Ireland had done.

The Unionist parties, whose litmus test is support for a Protestant supremacist state in the north of Ireland, have always supported Zionism.
When the Zionists held a demonstration against ‘anti-Semitism’ in March 2018, DUP MP Ian Paisley jnr. and his fellow MPs joined the demonstration.  Paisley's father was a notorious supporter of Israel.

Conversely the Republicans have always been supporters of the Palestinians.  When I visited the nationalist ghettos in Belfast and Derry during The Troubles in the 1970’s and 1980’s they were festooned with murals supporting the Palestinians.  When, as part of a Brighton Labour Party delegation to Ireland we visited Andy Tyrie, the Commander of the Ulster Defence Association and John MacMichael (who was later assassinated) they told us of how they identified with the Israelis and saw the PLO as the equivalent of the ‘terrorists’ in the IRA whom they were fighting.

Gilheany based his article on anti-Semitism on the fake and fraudulent statistics of the Zionist Community Security Trust’s January-June 2019 Anti-Semitic Incidents Report. It is clear that this Report has been carefully scripted in order to provide a weapon to the Labour Party Witchhunt. It states:

There were 102 antisemitic incidents reported by CST that targeted Jewish organisations and events, rising by 59 per cent from the 64 such incidents reported between January and June 2018. This increase can largely be accounted for in the online response to Jewish leadership organisations issuing statements on social media regarding antisemitism in the Labour Party. Many of these antisemitic reactions were in the wider context of ‘smear’ accusations, spoke of conspiracy and attempted to delegitimise clear evidence of antisemitism; while others specifically targeted the social media accounts of Jewish organisations to respond to statements about antisemitism in the UK by holding these British Jewish organisations responsible for the actions of the Israeli government

The CST's founder and Chair Gerald Ronson,  who was gaoled for a year during the Guiness fraud trial - with friend

This is tendentious. Who were these ‘Jewish’ organisations?  The Board of Deputies presumably. What was the ‘clear evidence of anti-Semitism’ that was being delegitimized?  Criticism of Israel? Attacks by the Board on Chris Williamson?  We are not told but what we do know is that from their previous record the CST is closely linked to the Israeli state. The CST Report states that

In 100 cases - 11 per cent of all antisemitic incidents recorded by CST from January to June 2019 – the offender or offenders, and the abuse they expressed, were related to the Labour Party or the incidents occurred in the context of arguments about alleged Labour Party antisemitism.

This is guilt by association. The antisemitic incidents 'were related to the Labour Party.' In what way?  How? Were the persons concerned Labour Party members? Leaving aside just what constituted an antisemitic incideint . Without further details we have no way of knowing what it was that was being said, what the relationship (if any) was to the Labour Party and whether, like all Zionist organisations, CST is deliberately obfuscating and confusing the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

Reply to Barry Gilheany of the Jewish Labour Movement

Anthony McIntyre, now a journalist runs the Pensive Quill blog

The fact that the ‘increase’ in incidents of ‘anti-Semitism’ are wholly related to social media and the Internet suggests that this Report has one purpose and one purpose only.  To add oil to the fire of false accusations of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism used to be about discrimination, physical assaults, verbal abuse.  Now it appears to be a hostile tweet.

What would be interesting is if the CST or better still some independent organisation was to monitor and evaluate the degree of racism in the Jewish community against Muslims in particular.  My suspicion is that it would far outweigh any anti-Semitism, fake or actual, that is alleged in non-Jewish people.  However such a poll would not be politically convenient so it is doubtful anyone will be sponsoring it!
The Pensive Quill carried my rejoinder to Gilheany two days ago.

Tony Greenstein

My Response to Barry Gilheany of the JLM

Barry Gilheany in his article Labour Anti-Semitism & The IHRA Definition Of Antisemitism - Prevention Of Hate Crime Versus Freedom Of Speech reminds me of a fox entering a chicken coop to preach the virtues of vegetarianism. I would as soon take lessons on anti-racism from the British National Party as the Jewish Labour Movement.

I was brought up in a religious Zionist home with a father as a Rabbi. Despite this, by the age of 16, I realised that Marxism, which believes in the unity of the working class and universal principles of solidarity, was incompatible with Zionism which sees the unity of Jews as its guiding principle. To Zionism there is only one question: ‘is it good for the Jews’.

The Jewish Labour Movement is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation whose Settlement Division has as its purpose the financing of settlements in the Occupied West Bank of Palestine. See ‘World Zionist Organization Settlement Division Finances Illegal West Bank Outposts’ There is nothing socialist about the JLM. It is akin to the now forgotten Liverpool Protestant Party.

The development of Unionism and Zionism followed very similar lines.  In 1921 Ireland was partitioned. In 1920 the Mandate of Palestine effectively began. The Colonial Secretary presiding over the birth of both Unionism and Zionism was Winston Churchill.

Zionism was the bastard cousin of Irish Unionism. As Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Military Governor of Jerusalem explained in his autobiography Orientations, ‘A Jewish State will be for England a little, loyal Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism’.  

But I forget. Gilheaney’s concern is not Israel or Zionism but anti-Semitism. The fact that he is a member of an overtly pro-Zionist organisation, the Jewish Labour Movement, is merely coincidental. He tells us that ‘the Jewish charity, the Community Security Trust’  has reported an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the first 6 months of the year from 810 to 892, nearly all of which is due to Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour Party.  Corbyn, ‘if not anti-Semitic himself, (he) has enabled anti-Semitism to grow on his watch just as Donald Trump has enabled and assisted in the growth of racism and race prejudice since becoming President of the USA.’ Apparently there is a veritable pogrom going on in Britain today, all of which is Corbyn’s fault.

It is difficult to know whether or not to laugh or cry at this nonsense. The reality is that there is probably less anti-Semitism today in Britain than there has ever been. The figures of the CST have little or no basis in fact. They are literally plucked out of thin air. You have more chance of accuracy if you spin the wheel in a game of roulette than relying on the CST.

In its Anti-Semitic Incidents Report for January-June 2019 the CST informed us that the 892 anti-Semitic incidents recorded were the highest ever for any six months period. It explained that this ‘can partly be attributed to increasing reports of online expressions of antisemitism.’ An online expression of anti-Semitism, such as a Tweet or Facebook post has now become an anti-Semitic incident. If only the victims of the Kishinev and Odessa pogroms in Russia had been so lucky. As far as I know no one has ever died  from a tweet!

One person can cause a Twitter storm. There is no possible way in which the level of racism in society can be measured by engaging in a social media lucky dip. Its completely impressionistic. Racism is about power, the power to discriminate, to oppress not a Tweet.

CST are being wholly disingenuous spinning their statistics in order to reach the desired conclusions. They explain that of the 892 incidents of anti-Semitism, no less than 323 of them consisted of online anti-Semitism, a full 36%. In 2018, for the same period, there were 221  such incidents, i.e. 27%. If you strip out on line anti-Semitism altogether then there has been a decrease in anti-Semitism over the past year from 589 to 569.

The CST records 85 assaults in the first six months of 2019 compared to 62 the previous year, an increase of 37%. The strange thing is that not one of these assaults were classified as ‘extreme’ i.e. causing injury or a threat to someone’s life. Yet when it comes to similar statistics for racial attacks, the number of serious incidents of violence compared to less serious or trivial assaults is about one-third.  Even more strange the number of assaults compared to racial incidents generally is also of the order of one-third, so if the 892 anti-Semitic incidents were genuine then one would expect something like 300 not 85 assaults.

Why is it that the CST’s statistics are out of kilter with all other measures of racial incidents?  Is it because they are being driven by a hidden political agenda or special interests or indeed that the CST is more assiduous in collecting statistics?  We don’t know because the CST, although in receipt of large amounts of public money is completely unaccountable.  There is no way of knowing whether what they call ‘anti-Semitism’ is driven by a Zionist/pro-Israel agenda. 

It would for example be interesting to know how many of these 85 assaults were recorded as crimes or subject to any form of prosecution? The answer is we don’t know, nor do we know what the criteria is for ‘abusive incidents’ and how they are distinguished from normal political argument. The CST is not a politically neutral organisation. It is openly Zionist. It sees as part of its remit collecting information on Jewish anti-Zionists and keeping anti-Zionists out of Zionist meetings. It compiles files on Jewish anti-Zionists (I obtained a massive file when I made a Subject Access Request a few years ago).

The CST finds it difficult to make a distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It says that they do not ‘not consider criticism of Israel or Zionism inherently antisemitic’ which is a strange way to put it. In other words anti-Zionism is usually anti-Semitic! Whatever else you could accuse the CST of it’s not political neutrality.

The CST admits that ‘There were 203 allusions to Israel, the Middle East or Zionism, used in antisemitic incidents recorded by CST, of which 18 directly compared or equated Israel with the Nazis.’ Equating Israel or Zionism to the Nazis isn’t anti-Semitic. Israelis do it all the time, See Calling Your Political Rival a Nazi Is a Time-hallowed Tradition in Israel

The truth is that a decrease in anti-Semitism wouldn’t serve CST’s purposes. CST is not merely a Zionist organisation, it is effectively a para-state body. It has close links to both the British and Israeli states. The Home Office gave it £13.4 million in 2018. See para. s.6.2 of its own annual report ‘Working with the Government, Civil Servants and the Police’.

The Community Security Trust's Carol Laser with friends

When the CST’s Security Director Carol Laser retired ‘Scotland Yard presented her with a commendation usually reserved for officers shot in the line of duty.’ As Ms Laser admitted ‘"Nothing comes higher than the protection around the Israelis.’

Raed Saleh - who the CST tried to fit up - alongside rabbis from Neturei Karta

However when Raed Saleh, the leader of the Islamic Movement in Northern Israel came to visit Britain in 2011 he was greeted by an exclusion order and an attempt by Theresa May to deport him. The ‘evidence’ against him was provided by the CST. This evidence included a poem of his which had been doctored to include words relating to Jews. Channel 4 reported

‘The government’s main source of information was from the Jewish run Community Security Trust (CST). The CST has denied that it in any way misled the government. The group has also expressed disappointment that the exclusion order has been overturned.’

It is trite to say that Zionists use ‘anti-Semitism’ as a propaganda weapon against their opponents. This is why, according to Tony Lerman, the founder of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, Mossad (MI6), with which the CST has close links, took over the monitoring and collation of anti-Semitism statistics.

Lerman was later forced to resign from his post because of his views. He documented what happened in Antisemitism Redefined [‘On Anti-Semitism’ Haymarket Books, 2017]

I had close personal experience of the role the Mossad played in establishing Israeli hegemony over the monitoring and combating of antisemitism. While I was director of the Institute of Jewish Affairs (IJA) and its successor, the 'Institute for Jewish Policy Research OPR) in the 1990s, I founded and was principal editor of the annual Antisemitism World Report... The London Mossad representative dealing with antisemitism made it clear to me that they were very unhappy about our independent operation and then tried to pressure us into either ceasing publication or merging our report with one that the then new Project for the Study of Antisemitism at Tel Aviv University, headed by Professor Dina Porat and part-financed by the Mossad, was beginning to produce.

What possible reason could there be for Mossad to take over responsibility for the monitoring of anti-Semitism in Jewish communities abroad?  Can you imagine MI6 getting involved in the race relations business in Britain?  There is only one explanation and it is that ‘anti-Semitism’ is a vital part of the political defence of Israel.

The statistics of anti-Semitism compiled by the CST are not worth the paper they are written on. They are part of Israel’s propaganda war against its adversaries. To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are lies, damn lies and CST statistics.

Gilheany says that ‘one of the kernels of the Labour anti-Semitism dispute relates to Israel and Zionism’ and that the document at the heart of it is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ‘definition’ of anti-Semitism.

Which is like saying that opposition to the British presence in Ireland makes you an anti-British racist or that support for a United Ireland means you are anti-Protestant.  Zionism like Unionism is a political not a racial project and opposition to them is political not racial.

The IHRA ‘definition’ of anti-Semitism is a racists' charter. Why does one even need a definition unless there is a hidden agenda? When my dad joined 100,000 Jews and non-Jews at the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 to stop Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists marching through the Jewish East End of London he didn’t need a definition of anti-Semitism to know what anti-Semitism is! It’s a complete nonsense.

The IHRA isn’t even a definition. It’s 500+ words long. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of anti-Semitism, ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ is just 6 words. The IHRA is so long because that’s how much it takes to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

The IHRA definition has been around, in one guise or another, since 2005. The definition has been criticised by academic researchers such as Brian Klug, David Feldman, and Antony Lerman; jurists including Hugh Tomlinson QC, Stephen Sedley, Geoffrey Bindman QC, and Geoffrey Robertson QC who described it as ‘not fit for purpose.. Even the original drafter of the IHRA, Kenneth S. Stern stated that:

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

The IHRA has 11 examples of ‘anti-Semitism’, seven of which refer to Israel.  For example ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’ In Nazi Germany mobs chanted Death to the Jews.  In Israel mobs chant Death to the Arabs.  Why is this anti-Semitic?  Is Ze’ev Sternhell, a childhood survivor of a Polish Ghetto an anti-Semite for writing about Israel’s ‘Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism’

Another example of ‘anti-Semitism’ is ‘Applying double standards by requiring of it[Israel] a behaviour not demanded or expected of any other democratic nation.’ Which begs the question, is Israel a democratic state? Israel is an ethnocracy not a democracy. Its Jewish majority was created out of the forced expulsion of the native Palestinians.  If you don’t accept that Israel is democratic then you declared ‘anti-Semitic’. There was a time when anti-Semitism was about hating Jews, not criticising Israel or Zionism.

According to the IHRA ‘Denial of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination’ is anti-Semitic. Gilheany argues that if you oppose the right of every other national minority, from the Kurds to the Catalans, to an independent state then you ‘would not be seen as a priori anti-Semitic’.  This is not true but is in any case irrelevant.

It used to be the case that those who argued that Jews constituted a separate nation  were condemned as anti-Semites. Jews argued that they were British and Jewish by religion. The Zionist belief that Jews are strangers whose ‘real home’ is in Israel was seen as a form of Jewish anti-Semitism.  Indeed this is the real purpose of this false and confected ‘anti-Semitism’. To persuade Jews that they should ‘return’ to Israel.

Lucien Wolfe, who was Secretary of the Conjoint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies wrote, during the negotiations around the Balfour Declaration in 1917 that:

I have spent most of my life in combating these very doctrines, when presented to me in the form of anti-Semitism, and I can only regard them as the more dangerous when they come to me in the guise of Zionism. They constitute a capitulation to our enemies, which has absolutely no justification in history, ethnology or the facts of everyday life, and if they were admitted by the Jewish people as a whole, the result would only be that the terrible situation of our coreligionists in Russia and Romania would become the common lot of Jewry throughout the world.’

As Isaac Deutscher wrote in ‘The Non-Jewish Jew and Other Essays’:

‘the great majority of East European Jews were, up to the outbreak of the second World War_} opposed to Zionism... the most fanatical enemies of Zionism were precisely the workers, those who spoke Yiddish... they were the most determined opponents of the idea of an emigration from East Europe to Palestine... in the idea of an evacuation, of an exodus from the countries in which they, had their homes and in which their ancestors had lived for centuries_, the anti-Zionists saw an abdication of their rights, a surrender to anti-Semitism. To them anti-Semitism seemed to triumph in Zionism, which recognised the legitimacy and the validity of the old cry ‘Jews get out!' The Zionists were agreeing to get out’

As anti-Semitism increased in Poland so did support for Zionism wane.  In the last local elections in 1938, out of the 20 Jewish Council seats in Warsaw 17 were won by the anti-Zionist Bund and just one by the Zionists.  Everywhere in Poland it was the same story.  Zionism was seen as a capitulation to anti-Semitism.

Gilheany’s conspiracy theories about Stalinism and the Soviet Union lying behind the revelations of Nazi-Zionist collaboration are absurd. It wasn’t Stalin who was responsible for the fall of the second Sharrett government in Israel in 1955 but the verdict in the Kasztner libel trial, brought as a result of the accusations of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust against the leader of Hungarian Zionism that his collaboration had led to the deportation of thousands of Hungarian Jews.  It is a fact, amply documented by Zionist historians such as Francis Nicosia and Lucy Dawidowicz, that the Zionists were the favoured Jews of the Nazis, the ones who traded with them not campaigned against them.

It's one of these strange coincidences but antisemites and racists, the world over, like Hitler admirer and Philipenes ruler Duterte, love Israel and even pay homage to the dead of the Holocaust

Zionism is and always has been a reactionary movement and ideology.  Today that should be clear to all when the best friends of Israel are anti-Semitic leaders like Trump, Orban and Duterte. When even the neo-Nazi founder of the alt-Right in the United States, Richard Spencer openly boasts that he is a White Zionist and Netanyahu’s own son pens an anti-Semitic cartoon of George Soros that is immediately republished by David Duke of the KKK then it should be clear why Gilheany’s attempts to portray the Left as anti-Semitic are, to quote Neil Young, pissing in the wind.. Socialist Zionism was always an oxymoron, today it is simply a bad joke.

Tony Greenstein

An Open Letter to John McDonnell – You Need Weep No More Over ‘Anti-Semitism’

The Chutzpah of Adam Langleben & the Jewish Labour Movement

Dear John,

 According to an old Yiddish joke an example of chutzpah is when a man who, having killed his father and mother, asks the court for mercy because he is now an orphan. This perfectly describes the behaviour of former Labour Zionist Councillor Adam Langleben.

It is a chutzpah because no one did more to instil in peoples’ minds the idea that the Labour Party is riddled with antisemitism than Langleben and the Jewish Labour Movement. Langleben’s electors believed him and therefore refused to vote for him. Some would call that poetic justice.

Not only did the Israeli Labour Party leader Herzog welcome Trump's election victory but they have even adopted the same language

In the wake of his defeat Langleben did a tour of TV and radio studios seeking to blame his defeat on everyone bar himself. I am however surprised that when Langleben first started whinging about ‘alt-Left’ conspiracy sites, i.e. Canary and Skwawkbox, that you rushed to appease him.  Not once have you met with Jewish members of the Labour Party who are socialists and don’t make false allegations of anti-Semitism.

In his conspiratorial rant of a video, besides getting all his facts wrong, Langleben called for the shutting down of what he termed the ‘Alt-left’ media sites.  Perhaps he thought he was in Israel where censorship is alive and kicking.  Langleben is not the first person to use the term ‘Alt-left’. This was how Donald Trump described the anti-fascist opponents of his neo-Nazi friends at Charlottesville.

Adam Langleben's rant on the 'Alt-left' media

Langleben is a member of the JLM, which describes the Israeli Labour Party as it ‘sister’ party. The ILP is not only historically a party of ethnic cleansing but to this day it is racist to the core. If the Labour Party bore any resemblance to the racism of the ILP then there would be just cause for complaint.  As one of its leaders, David HaCohen explained:

‘‘I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my Trade Union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they should not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there... to pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash Arab eggs they had bought... to buy dozens of dunums from an Arab is permitted but to sell God forbid one Jewish dunum to an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild the incarnation of capitalism as a socialist and to name him the ‘benefactor’ – to do all that was not easy.’ (Ha’aretz, 15.11.69.)

The ILP’s last leader Isaac Herzog declared that his nightmare was waking up to find that Israel had an Arab Prime Minister and 61 Arab Members of Israel’s Knesset. Herzog also declared that he wanted to dispel the impression that the ILP were ‘Arab Lovers.’  Imagine that someone had denied that Labour was a ‘Jew lovers party.’

Herzog’s successor Avi Gabbay is even worse.  He declared that he would not join a coalition with members of the Joint List, parties representing the Arab citizens of Israel. He raised no objections however to a coalition with the nakedly anti-Arab far-right parties Yisrael Beteinu and Habayit Hayehudi.

Gabbay followed up declaring that “the Arabs have to be afraid of us” and that Israel need never evacuate any of its settlements built on occupied Palestinian land.  According to Gabbay ‘Settlements represent the ‘beautiful face of Zionism’.

In May 2012, Herzog wrote challenging arguments by human rights groups that Eritreans in Israel deserved protection as refugees. Today the ILP under Gabbay supports Netanyahu’s attempt to deport 40,000 Black African refugees.  Yet despite this Gabbay recently wrote to Jeremy Corbyn cutting his links with him on the spurious grounds of ‘anti-Semitism’.

The more McDonnell buys into the narrative of Labour 'antisemitism' the more he undermines Corbyn's leadership

As someone with a background of support for the Irish Republican movement you cannot be unaware of the fact that Protestant Supremacists in Northern Ireland identify with Zionism just as Republicans support the Palestinian struggle.  The recent ‘anti-racist’ Zionist demonstration outside Parliament included members of the DUP (& Norman Tebbit)!

In the words of Sir Ronald Storres, the British Military Governor of Jerusalem (1920-25) the Zionist project would be ‘one that blessed him that gave as well as him that took by forming for England “a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of hostile Arabism.’ [Orientations, Nicholson & Watson, London 1943, p.345] 

Report by Daily Mail journalist Dan Hodges to divert attention from an award winning documentary

You declared last year that you could ‘weep' over Labour anti-Semitism row.  I can only suggest that you save your tears John.  If ‘anti-Semitism’ were really a problem in the Labour Party do you really think that Marc Wadsworth and myself would have been expelled?  That Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone would be facing expulsion? Why do you think Black and Jewish anti-racists are the ones being disciplined?

The JLM protest of course that the ‘anti-Semitism’ smears have nothing to do with Israel but if that is so why do they push the 450 word IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism when anti-Semitism can be summed up in a few words i.e. ‘hatred of Jews as Jews’?  If Labour was indeed consumed with anti-Semitism do you really think that the Sun, Mail and Express press would be so concerned?

Rushing to appease Labour's Zionists is like digging your own grave

As long as you and Jeremy try to appease those who accuse the Labour Party of anti-Semitism, the more you will endanger your own position.  This fake campaign has but one target.  It is not to rid Labour of ‘anti-Semitism’ but to remove you and Jeremy from the leadership.  Marc, Jackie, Ken and myself are the collateral damage.

Adam Langleben’s JLM voted by 92% to 4% to support Owen Smith in the leadership election.  They are on Labour’s far-Right.  What you and Jeremy should be asking is why do we allow to operate, inside the Labour Party, the Labour Friends of Israeli Apartheid?

Langleben secretly videod Jackie Walker at a JLM 'training event' - she was suspended shortly after

The JLM does not represent all or even most Jews in the Labour Party.  Jews opposed to Zionism and the Israeli state are no different from Whites in South Africa who opposed Apartheid.  Would Labour then have identified with the Nationalists?

When Jonathan Arkush of the Board of Deputies attacked Jewdas, the Jewish group that Jeremy spent seder night with, he accused them of being ‘a source of virulent anti-Semitism.’  When Zionists talk of ‘anti-Semitism’ what they normally mean is anti-Zionism.  If you really want to be the first left-wing Chancellor of the Exchequer since Sir Stafford Cripps, you have to stand up to these racists not sing from the same song sheet.

In solidarity,

Tony Greenstein

Adam Langleben - Say Sorry

Langleben thinks that everyone but him is responsible for him losing his seat - when he was the author of his own misfortune

Some serving councillors lost their seats in last Thursday’s local elections. Many of those losing were from UKIP, and some were Tories. But although Labour gained ground, some of their councillors were among those losing. One of those was Adam Langleben, who had served on the council in the London Borough of Barnet.

The problem for Langleben is that he has been unable to accept defeat without blaming others, to the extent of making allegations which he will have significant trouble standing up. These have been made in a video he has posted. Here are some of the claims.

After saying “we just lost Barnet”, when Labour didn’t hold the council in the first place, he continues “we have conspiratorial anti-Semitism”, and then asserts “Right now, as I’m filming this, an alternative left-wing news website called Skwawkbox is going through all of the Tweets attacking me, as a Jewish Labour Party member … that accuses me of being a Mossad agent, that accuses me of trying to undermine the leadership”.

There was more. A lot more. “Accuses me of all sorts of things, and it is … propagating Labour anti-Semitism. Now, the Labour leadership can do something very simple and easy. It should say that these alternative fake news websites do not speak for them. Skwawkbox, The Canary … they are propagating conspiracy theory in the Labour Party. They allow it to fester. They spread the message”. And he wasn’t done yet.

 “Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, both have close links to these groups, to people who run these websites. They should say loudly and clearly that any conspiracy theory that these websites spread are false. They should be shut down. They do not have the support of the Labour leadership. And it’s a very very simple thing to do. John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn, come and speak out about these fake news websites”.

While it is entirely understandable that Langleben is unhappy about losing his seat, he has a problem here: much of what he claims is not merely untrue, but actionably so.

Consider the two New Left Media outlets he has accused.

The Canary has never mentioned Adam Langleben.

Skwawkbox has never mentioned Adam Langleben.

Neither Skwawkbox, nor The Canary, has linked Langleben to the Mossad, or of undermining the Labour leadership (as they haven’t mentioned him at all).

The only Twitter interaction between Skwawkbox and Adam Langleben is one reply from the former to the latter, inviting him to DM them.

There is no evidence whatever to support the claim that Skwawkbox is “going through all of the Tweets attacking me”. Indeed, that is itself a conspiracy theory.

As to the “close links” that Jezza and McDonnell are alleged to have to those sites, let me restate what Zelo Street had to say to the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog when they tried to make that accusation last year.

 “Skwawkbox has NEVER had any contact with Jeremy Corbyn’s office. There is NO contact between Evolve Politics and Corbyn’s office … The Canary has NO contact with Corbyn’s office.” Got that? No contact. At all.

And as to the idea that sites which displease Adam Langleben, or indeed anyone else, “should be shut down”, the sinister overtones are simply breathtaking. That’s the kind of behaviour that gives totalitarian dictatorships a bad name.

Not surprisingly, Skwawkbox has already registered its displeasure at Langleben’s totally untrue claims. The Canary may be following along shortly. There has been talk of legal action, and understandably so. But there is a straightforward solution here.

And that is for Adam Langleben to stop, think, realise he is wrong, and say sorry. Skwawkbox did not lose him his council seat. Nor did The Canary. Nor did any other New Left Media site. The only person who lost that seat is Adam Langleben. That is all.