EXCLUSIVE: We name the lecturer responsible for the allegations that led to the suspension of Shahd Abusalama

TOTAL Victory for Shahd - Now let’s Scrap the IHRA Whose Only Purpose is to Chill Free Speech on Palestine

Register for the meeting here

https://tinyurl.com/9v9cv5uh

UPDATE: I want to make it clear that although the allegations against Shahd are claimed by the University to have been made externally to the University, there is no doubt that they originate from inside the university and Lesley Klaff in particular.

On Friday the Socialist Labour Network will be holding a zoom meeting in the wake of Shahd Abusalama’s suspension and reinstatement at Sheffield Hallam University. Speakers will include Shahd herself, Professor David Miller who was recently dismissed from Bristol University and Shahd’s supervisor, Peter Jones.

Sheffield Hallam's racist lecturer Lesley Klaff claims that the Tantura massacre when hundreds of men, women and children were killed in cold blood, never happened - a new Israeli film Tantura demonstrates that this is a lie with interviews with the veterans of the Alexandri Brigade who perpetrated the massacre. Klaff is no different to those who deny the Holocaust

After an outpouring of rage against the suspension of Palestinian academic Shahd on 20^th January, the University was forced to backtrack and reinstate her just one week later on an improved contract.

This is a victory, not just for Shahd but for all those who believe in freedom of speech on Palestine and academic freedom. It is a victory for those who have been targeted by false and malicious accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ for criticising Israeli Apartheid.

Shahd was subjected to a racist campaign by the so-called Campaign Against Antisemitism which specialises in targeting anti-Zionists

It is especially a victory for Palestinians in a week when a report from Amnesty International proved conclusively that Israel is an apartheid state. Accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are the only defence that Israel’s supporters have today.

Shahd’s reinstatement demonstrates that the way to defeat the Zionists is to stand up to them and not appease them. Of course the Zionists are not happy. The Jewish Chronicle, a libel sheet which has lost a record number of libel claims, was its normal vituperative self. Its headline was ‘Student who praised terrorists as ‘heroes’ gets academic role at Sheffield Hallam University’.

Racist Lesley Klaff - responsible for the persecution of Shahd Abusalama

After the dismissal of Professor David Miller at Bristol University, the Zionists began to believe that they could, with the co-operation of tame and compliant university administrations, target any other academic who raised their head above the parapet. There have been a number of other incidents at universities such as Warwick, Leeds and Glasgow. The Jewish Chronicle crowed that ‘Miller’s sacking should be the beginning, not the end’.

Klaff's UK Lawyers for Israel feel an affinity with those who seek to demolish Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish settlers

The IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism has been used to target and harass pro-Palestinian lecturers. And yet its  defenders, such as Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust pour scorn on the idea that the IHRA has a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech on Palestine.

Far-right Sheffield Hallam lecturer Lesley Klaff

At Sheffield Hallam University the local University College Union branch, gave Shahd unequivocal backing. At a local UCU meeting last week 97% of those in attendance voted to support Shahd. Just 1 lecturer supported the suspension of Shahd, ‘human rights’ lecturer Lesley Klaff. On Klaff’s page on the university’s website she describes herself as ‘a member of UK Lawyers for Israel, an NGO which provides pro bono legal assistance to victims of antisemitism.’

In fact Lawyers for Israel is a far-right organisation dedicated to supporting the apartheid state and Jewish settlers who have spent over half a century stealing Palestinian land and terrorising the population. In December 2019 it held a public meeting with Naomi Linder Kahn, of the Israeli NGO Regavim.

Even the Zionist Labour Movement, which spearheaded the Campaign Against Corbyn has drawn the line at Regavim - not so Lesley Klaff

Regavim is a racist far-Right Israeli organisation which uses Israeli law, over which Palestinians have no say, to speed up the evictions of Palestinians and the demolition of their homes. It believes that far from Israel being in occupation of the West Bank it is the other way around. It describes Palestinians as ‘squatters’ who are occupying ‘Jewish land’.

Opposition to Zionism, and before the Holocaust 90% of Jews were anti-Zionist, is now 'antisemitic' according to Lesley Klaff

Regavim was founded in 2006 by Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right settler member of the Knesset who describes himself as a ‘proud homophobe’. In 2006 he organised the ‘Beast Parade’ in Jerusalem comparing gays to beasts (though he did say that unlike gays, the animals that took part were innocent). More recently he has said that Jerusalem’s  Gay Pride demonstration triggered the COVID pandemic in Israel!

Regavim is the organisation that UKLFI and Lesley Klaff, who like Keir Starmer is a ‘human rights lawyer’ was happy to invite to speak to them.

Amongst Smotrich’s contributions to co-existence in Israel/Palestine he advocated the separation of Arab and Jewish women giving birth in hospitals tweeting that

"It's only natural my wife would not want to lie next to someone who just gave birth to a baby that might murder her baby in another 20 years,"

The Zionist Jewish Chronicle doesn't take kindly to Shahd's reinstatement

Regavim also supports the openly fascist Lehava organisation in Israel which openly supports and organises physical attacks on Palestinians who have friendships with Jewish Israelis. Its leader Benzi Gopstein has called for the burning down of churches and mosques. Its campaign against miscegenation (sexual relations between Jews and Arabs) is reminiscent of the Nuremberg Laws which outlawed sexual relations between Jews and ‘Aryans’.

Rubbing shoulders with Lesley Klaff at UKLFI is none other than Daniel Berke, who is an advisor and solicitor for none other than that apostle for racial harmony, Tommy Robinson as well as Jonathan Hoffman, the linkman between far-Right Zionists and fascist groups like the EDL and Britain First,. No doubt Klaff’s work is cut out explaining the significance of human rights to these people!

Sharon Klaff - with Paul Besser of Britain First and Jonathan Hoffman

Another member of UKLFI is Robert Festenheim, a far-right Zionist who is another ‘advisor’ to Tommy Robinson.

Lesley Klaff has no problem working with Regavim, which was founded by an extreme racist and homophobe

Lesley Klaff is believed to be the sister-in-law of Sharon Klaff another far-right Zionist and an open supporter of both Pegida UK and Tommy Robinson. The Klaffs originate from South Africa where the political climate under Apartheid was more hospitable. Even there though they stood out as political oddities. “We dressed in black and khaki and the other Jewish youth movements called us Nazi Jews” boasted Annette Rosenberg, a contemporary of Klaff.

In the first world war Klaffs’ Grandfather was interned by the South African Government on suspicion of being a pro-German agent and a grave threat to national security.

Klaff’s father was the escort for Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism and Herut, which Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt described in a letter to the New York Times of 4^th December 1948 as

‘a political party closely akin in its organisation,  methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties’

Beitar the Revisionist Zionist Group Modelled on the Hitler Youth

Its a scandal that openly racist organisations should have been able to secure the suspension of a vulnerable Palestinian lecturer from Gaza by making baseless and false accusations of anti-Semitism.

The decision of Sheffield Hallam to suspend Shahd on the basis of accusations from racists external to the university is like suspending a Black or Muslim lecturer because a member of the BNP or National Front gas taken exception to them. If Sheffield Hallam is serious about its commitment to anti-racism then it needs to do two things:

i.                    Suspend Lesley Klaff until an inquiry unearths the full facts behind the malicious allegations made against Shahd. Although the university is claiming that the allegations against Shahd were made externally (which in itself raises questions) there is no doubt that their origin was internal to the university itself.

ii.                  To immediately suspend the use of the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism pending  vote by all academic staff. As Geoffrey Robertson QC, Britain’s leading human rights barrister said, it is ‘not fit for  purpose.’

Most universities in Britain have only adopted the IHRA because they were threatened with a cut in their funding by Gavin Williamson, the former Education Secretary. Apparently the government was worried about anti-Semitism on campus.

It should be obvious, even to the most stupid university administrator, that a government whose Border and Nationalities Bill is making the lifestyle of Travellers and  Gypsies a criminal offence, which is threatening millions of Black and Muslim Britons with a potential loss of citizenship and which is seeking to push refugees in the Channel back away from the coast, to say nothing of the Windrush Scandal is not interested in opposing racism. 

The Tories concern over ‘anti-Semitism’ has nothing to do with the safety of British Jews. Their sole concern is their strategic and military relationship with the State of Israel. And if vulnerable Palestinians like Shahd pay the price for exercising their right to freedom speech then that is a price that is deemed worth paying.

Tony Greenstein

Labour MEPs Join With UKIP, the Front National and assorted Racists and Fascists in opposition to ‘Anti-Semitism’

Open Letter to New Labour's Anneliese Dodds MEP Does Europe's Far-Right really opposes racism?

In Israel - relationships between Arabs and Jews are condemned by all Zionist parties

 It's not a good idea to underestimate the stupidity of Labour MEPs and what passes for social democracy these days.  However the decision to support the bogus International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism alongside nearly all of Europe's far-Right parties, marks a new low, even for people like Dodds.

Last Wednesday a motion on Combating Anti-Semitism was tabled at the European Parliament.  Naturally all good men and true are against anti-Semitism and indeed all forms of racism.  That was why Hungary's Jobbik and Greece's neo-Nazi Golden Dawn parties opposed the resolution.

UKIP - like most racists and anti-Semites they support Zionism

However part of this motion, Clause C2, called on Member States and EU Institutions and Agencies to adopt and apply the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

Readers of this blog will know that the IHRA is a bogus definition of anti-Semitism whose only purpose is to conflate and confuse anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, [see Bogus Definition of Anti-Semitism Suffers Its First Defeat at the University Colleges Union Conference].

I therefore wrote to the only Labour MEP in the South East, Anneliese Dodds, to ask her not to vote alongside an assortment of reactionaries and racists to ‘oppose’ the Zionist definition of anti-Semitism.

Very kindly, Ms Dodds replied almost immediately.  She didn’t agree with me but, I thought, at least she took the time and trouble to respond.  Imagine my surprise when a friend up north received an identical response from Labour’s North East EU office!  Leaving aside coincidence, it would seem that Ms Dodds in incapable of explaining, in her own words, how she voted last Wednesday. 

Of course I expect no better from a brain dead New Labour MEP however that didn’t deter me from responding to ‘her’ letter.

Empty headed - Anneliese Dodds - New Labour MEP for South-East

Letter to Anneliese Dodds, Labour MEP for the South-East

Dear Anneliese

When I received your email last Sunday, explaining why you were going to vote to support the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, I was of course disappointed that you didn’t engage with my arguments. However I accepted that there will always be times when socialists, if that is not too strong a word for you, disagree.

You will therefore imagine my surprise when a friend received an identical letter, from Jude and Paul at the North East Labour Office. I realise that brilliant (& stupid) minds work alike, but this was, as I am sure you will agree, a coincidence too far.  It would seem that you are either incapable of or unwilling to defend your decision to vote against deleting Clause C2 of the motion, which included the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.  I would be interested to know whether it is normal practice for you to rely on a letter written by others when you correspond with your electorate and whether you inform correspondents that the letter is not in fact your own?

The Islamaphobic Danish People's supported the IHRA

You will I am sure understand why I am copying this letter to other people as it demonstrates your lack of integrity and dishonesty in passing a standard letter as your own.  You will I am sure understand why I will pass up your offer to subscribe to your newsletter since it is probably written by someone else anyway.

You state that the EU Parliament resolution on Fighting Antisemitism calls for a working definition of antisemitism.  Why is this a problem? Anti-Semitism is quite a simple concept.  Most people have no problem understanding what anti-Semitism is.  Anti-semitism is hostility or hatred directed against Jews as Jews.  

Dr Brian Klug of Oxford University, an academic expert on anti-Semitism drew up an equally simple definition of anti-Semitism.  In his lecture ‘What Do We Mean When We Say ‘Antisemitsm’? Echoes of shattering glass’ given at the Conference “Antisemitism in Europe Today: the Phenomena, the Conflicts” held on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, at the Jewish Museum, Berlin in 2014, Klug came up with a 20 word definition of anti-Semitism: Anti-Semitism is:

‘a form of hostility towards Jews as Jews, in which Jews are perceived as something other than what they are  

This is 20 words in total. You say the development of the IHRA definition is a ‘tool to help practitioners and law enforcement officers to identify antisemitic incidents.’   I fail to understand how a ‘definition’ of some 420 words can be of greater use than a simple 20 word definition in helping law enforcement. What are they supposed to do before arresting someone? Write a thesis?

There is one and only one reason why the IHRA is 420 words long and that is because its main purpose is to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is no coincidence that the IHRA definition contains 11 ‘examples’ of anti-Semitism of which 7 are directly concerned with criticism of Israel and/or Zionism.

One such example is ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’  Hannah Arendt in her book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’ drew attention to the fact that Jews and non-Jews cannot marry in Israel.  In Israel, relationships between Jews and Arabs are actively discouraged because in a society based on Jewish racial supremacy, intermarriage threatens the established social and racial order.  Hence was why the Education Ministry banned from the high school syllabus Dorit Rabinyan's book Borderlife, which portrayed a relationship between Arab and Jewish teenagers.  Israel Bans Novel on Arab-Jewish Romance From Schools for 'Threatening Jewish Identity'

Arendt compared this situation to the Nazis' Nuremburg laws.  But according to this idiotic definition of anti-Semitism, the greatest Jewish political philosopher of the 20^th century, herself a refugee from Nazi Germany, is anti-Semitic.  There are plenty of other comparisons between Israel and the Nazis prior to 1941, e.g. segregation of education, housing, social amenities etc.

Another, equally fatuous example of ‘anti-Semitism’ is ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’  I agree this is terrible but Zionist organisations continually say that Israel is the embodiment of modern Jewish identity.  If that is the case then clearly Jews are responsible for Israel's actions.

In an article for the Telegraph the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis held that ‘One can no more separate it [Zionism] from Judaism than separate the City of London from Great Britain.’  He is wrong, there is a very clear distinction between the two but is it really the case that the Chief Rabbi of British Jewry is an anti-Semite?  Surely that is a bit strong?

You, or rather your ghost writer also state that the IHRA definition is not legally binding.  Perhaps this is true at the moment, but its adoption by the European Parliament makes it one step nearer to it becoming legally binding.  There is already a clear attempt, along the lines of what has already happened in France, to make Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel illegal.  

If Israel's supporters have their way then the tactics used successfully against Apartheid South Africa will be rendered illegal if used against Apartheid Israel.  What you are doing is supporting a form of McCarthyism in which legitimate free speech and solidarity action is outlawed.

However I forgot the clinching argument in your email. Apparently ‘the definition specifically states that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’  One of the problems of having others do your writing and thinking is that you end up putting your trust in spin doctors and other varieties of the common fool. 

If you had bothered to actually read the IHRA definition you would know that it doesn’t say that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.  If that were the case then why does the IHRA give examples of where criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic?  

What the IHRA does say is that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’  In other words you can’t criticise Israel unless you criticise other countries in the same way. 

Or as the Parliamentary Select Committee Report on Anti-Semitism stated: 

‘Israel is an ally of the UK Government and is generally regarded as a liberal democracy,... It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies.' [Paras. 23 and 24]

In other words, if you criticise the world's only Apartheid state, a state which defines itself as a Jewish state, a state not of its own citizens but Jews worldwide, then that is according to the IHRA anti-Semitic.  Anyone with an ounce of grey matter will immediately recognise that the IHRA definition has nothing to do with the popular perception of anti-Semitism, i.e. hatred, violence or discrimination against Jews.  Its purpose is to protect Israel, the West’s main ally in the Middle East.

How can criticism of Israel be similar to that against other countries when Israel is unlike any other country?  Perhaps you can name any other country which deliberately sought to engineer the ethnic composition of its population by expelling 80% of the people living there, in this case the Palestinians?  Or a country which has ruled over 3 million residents for 50 years without giving them any civil or political rights and which characterises all opposition as ‘terrorism’?  A state which has two separate legal systems operating in the West Bank – one for non-Jewish Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers.  This is the quintessential definition of Apartheid as even John Kerry all but admitted last year.

The third paragraph of ‘your’ letter is tautological and engages in a circular argument.  You say that ‘The IHRA definition does not ... limit freedom of expression. This is because the definition is not legally binding and because it specifically states that criticism of Israel as such cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’  I have already dispensed with the latter point.  The fact that the definition is not, at the moment, legally binding, does not prevent it from being part of a well funded and well organised attempt to inhibit freedom of speech. 

The rest of your letter is an example of verbal incontinence.  I would suggest that if you are seriously interested in combating anti-Semitism as opposed to acting on behalf of the Israeli Embassy, then you read the article in May’s London Review of Books by Sir Stephen Sedley entitled ‘Defining Anti-Semitism’.  You might then understand exactly what it is you have voted for and why crying wolf over anti-Semitism, is the best way of giving succour and support to genuine anti-Semites.  The article begins:

Shorn of philosophical and political refinements, anti-Semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews. Where it manifests itself in discriminatory acts or inflammatory speech it is generally illegal, lying beyond the bounds of freedom of speech and of action. By contrast, criticism (and equally defence) of Israel or of Zionism is not only generally lawful: it is affirmatively protected by law. Endeavours to conflate the two by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new. What is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour Party) of a definition of anti-Semitism which endorses the conflation.

You might also want to read the Opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC re the IHRA where he states:

21.      In my view any public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to decisions concerning the prohibition or sanctioning of activity which was critical of the State or Government of Israel would be acting unlawfully if it did not require such activity also to manifest or incite hatred or intolerance towards Jews.  If an authority applied the IHRA Definition without such a requirement it would be in  breach of  Article 10 of the Convention and would,  therefore,  be acting unlawfully under domestic law in the United Kingdom.

Voting Alongside an Assortment of Racists and Fascists

The breakdown of the vote last Wednesday in support of Clause C2 of the anti-Semitism resolution is very interesting.  

All the members of that well known anti-racist party UKIP voted to support the IHRA.  

The far-Right European and Conservative Reform Group voted by 57-4 to support the IHRA.  This included the racist and anti-Semitic Polish Law and Justice Party.  Perhaps you don’t remember when David Miliband, as Foreign Secretary in 2009 , ‘tore into the Waffen-SS sympathisers in the Latvian party Cameron had also embraced.’ Is Michal Kaminski fit to lead the Tories in Europe?

Robert Ziles of the Latvian LNNK - loves Israel and loves anti-Semitism

Miliband was referring to Robert Ziles, of the Latvian LNNK, who last Wednesday voted like you to support the IHRA.  Ziles likes to spend a weekend in March paying tribute to Latvian members of the Waffen SS and marching with them.  Ziles too apparently condemns 'anti-Semitism'.

Amongst other supporters of the IHRA were Le Pen’s Europe of Freedom & Direct Democracy Group, which voted by 25-5 to support the IHRA.  All members of the Front National and Herr Strache’s Austrian Freedom Party (formed as a neo-Nazi party) voted to support the IHRA.

Victor Orban's Fidesz hates refugees, loves Hungary's war time Nazi collaborators but supports the IHRA

We should not, of course, forget that other well-known anti-racist party, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz, which apart from its enlightened policies when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers smiles benignly on the growing rehabilitation of Admiral Horthy, the ruler of Hungary under the Nazis from March 19^th until July 7^th when some 437,000 Jews were deported to Auschwitz.  Fidesz has openly tolerated and played along with anti-Semitism in Hungary yet 10 of its MEPs had no hesitation in voting in favour of the IHRA.

Perhaps I could refer you to an article by Randolf Braham, the historian of the Hungarian Holocaust, The Reinterment and Political Rehabilitation of Miklós Horthy

As Donald Trump has demonstrated, White Supremacists like Donald Trump's Strategic Advisor, Steve Bannon and Breitbart News demonstrates, support for Zionism and Israel goes hand in hand with anti-Semitism.  After all if you don't want Jews in your own country why not support their removal to the 'Jewish' state of Israel.  

I guess congratulations are in order for having voted alongside almost all the racists and anti-Semites in the European Parliament in support of a Zionist definition of anti-Semitism. 

Given all these allies that you have made in the fight against ‘anti-Semitism’ have you ever considered forming another parliamentary group, ‘Anti-Semites against ‘anti-Semitism’?  

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein

 Letter from Ms Dodds and others in Defence of Their Vote to Support the IHRA

Sunday 28 May 2017

Dear Tony,

Thank you for your email concerning the European Parliament's Resolution on Fighting Antisemitism. This Resolution is intended to contribute to countering the rise in antisemitic attacks in the EU. It calls for a working definition of antisemitism, promotes the security of Jewish communities, and calls for the appointment of special envoys and all-parliamentary groups on fighting antisemitism.

The Resolution calls for the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This definition is not legally binding and serves as a tool to help practitioners and law enforcement officers to identify antisemitic incidents. The definition specifically states that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

We acknowledge concerns regarding freedom of speech and would not accept any attempt to equate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. The IHRA definition does not do this, nor does it limit freedom of expression. This is because the definition is not legally binding and because it specifically states that criticism of Israel as such cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The definition was adopted by the UK Government with the support of the Labour party in December 2016.

Labour MEPs support the European Parliament's resolution as it is an important measure to counter the rise in antisemitic attacks in the EU. Language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews is antisemitism, and is as repugnant and unacceptable as any other form of racism. This Resolution condemns this and calls on EU Member States to take further action to actively protect Jewish communities.

Labour MEPs will continue to raise these concerns and monitor the definition in practice.

Thanks again for getting in touch; If you are interested in keeping updated on my work, both here in the South East and in the European Parliament, you can sign-up for my report back e-newsletter here http://www.AnnelieseDoddsMEP.uk/e_newsletter

Yours sincerely

Anneliese Dodds MEP

BBC Bias at its Best - the Sunday Politics Show

Andrew Neil lobs a few softball questions at John Mann MP on ‘anti-Semitism’

Some of you may have watched the Sunday Politics show on BBC1 today.  It lived up to the BBC’s honorable tradition of bias when it comes to anything to do with Zionism and Israel.  The title of the particular section, whether or not Jeremy Corbyn has an anti-Semitism problem in the Labour Party, was a giveaway in itself. 

John Mann - a right-wing Zionist MP who uses 'anti-Semitism' to defend Israeli apartheid

It was hosted by Andrew Neil, a right-wing Tory who was a former editor of Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times.  After a very short interview with a Corbyn spokesman, who denied that Corbyn was anti-Semitic (a frequent Zionist allegation) and a repeat of a clip of an interview by Neil with the political lunatic Gerry Downing of the Socialist Fight organisation, we then were subjected to a long diatribe, which was passed of as an interview, with John Mann MP.  Mann is the Chair of the so-called Parliamentary Committee on anti-Semitism Committee.  He is also a noted opponent of Corbyn and on the right of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

The programme is on the BBC’s Iplayer and can be accessed here.  

John Mann paints himself as the hero of an anti-Jewish campaign - problem is Mann is not even Jewish!

Mann was allowed to state, without interruption, that unnamed Jewish students were fearful of ‘anti-Semitism’ on campus.  Reference was made to Labour Clubs at the LSE and Oxford University without any detail of what the supposed anti-Semitism was.  Given the artificial furore which has been stirred up around Oxford University Labour Club whereby support for Israel Apartheid Week is somehow conflated with anti-Semitism, it is quite easy to understand that once again we are dealing with spurious allegations of anti-Semitism against anti-Zionists and supporters of the Palestinians.

Phil Woolas - a racist former MP removed by an electoral court for lying and dishonesty was a good friend of John Mann

Woolas's racist leaflet

It is the same old trick, to allege that opponents of Zionist racism are somehow motivated by anti-Jewish racism because the Israeli state defines itself as a Jewish ethnic state.

I have complained to the BBC, though without any illusions that an organisation that protected Jimmy Saville for 20+ years has a credible complaints system.

John Mann has form when it comes to false allegations of anti-Semitism.  He used to allege that the University College Union was anti-Semitic because it launched the academic boycott of Israel.  When he gave evidence to an Employment Tribunal, the Judgment of the Tribunal savaged this superficial and trite ego. (see below)

It would be useful if people were to watch the programme and then make their own complaint.  

Tony Greenstein

Right-wing Tory and BBC Presenter

BBC Complaint

Andrew Neil’s Sunday Politics Programme asked whether Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party has a problem with anti-Semitism.  It then proceeded to assume that the question it was asking was indeed true. 

References were made to Oxford University and LSE Labour Clubs.  Apart from a very short interview with one Corbyn supporter and an interview with Gerry Downing, a person who represents nobody but himself, there was no alternative viewpoint to the long interview with John Mann. 

At no point did Neil challenge what Mann said, he merely asked him to clarify and expand on his points, viz. that there was a problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.  John Mann is not a neutral party.  He defines anti-Semitism as opposition to Zionism and support for the Palestinians.  He has  a long record for deliberately confusing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. 

Mann was discredited as a witness at the Fraser v University College Union employment tribunal in 2012 [Case No:  2203290/2011].  The Tribunal  found [para 84] that ‘Mr Mann made no bones about his view that the union was operating in an anti-Semitic way …. He did not explain what the anti-Semitic behaviour was supposed to have consisted of besides referring to the boycott debate and characterising any boycott of Israel or Israeli institutions as itself anti-Semitic…’ [para 148] ‘when it came to anti-Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.’

Andrew Neil failed to ask any questions not to Mann’s liking or indeed any probing questions at all.  Another example of BBC bias.’