‘Express(ing) an opinion or belief in support of (a) proscribed
organisation that will encourage support of it (and that) on 7th October 2023 expressed
an opinion or be1ief that was supportive of a proscribed organisation, namely
Hamas, and the support is not, or is not restricted to, to the provision of
money or other property.
This charge is a lie. The Crown Prosecution Service had to obtain the
consent of the Attorney General to prosecute, but that wasn't
difficult.
Attorney General, Richard Hermer, although critical of Israel’s
Occupation of the West Bank and its contempt for international law, is a
liberal Zionist.
In a statement to the Jewish
Chronicle he explained that:
As it happens, I am from a
“Blue-Box” Jewish family, a former Jewish youth movement chanich/madrich (a
movement that my kids are now actively involved in), a graduate of the Machon,
a former active member of UJS, a former volunteer for Searchlight magazine and
a current member of Alyth Gardens shul. I actively support a range of
Jewish and Israeli organisations.
I have dear family members
currently serving in the IDF. I also happen to believe... that the
continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank is unlawful, deeply damaging to
the interests of Israel and wholly contrary to the values of tikkun olam that I
grew up with and continue to guide me.
Hermer’s opposition to the occupation of the West Bank does not derive
from the damage to the Palestinians (who he doesn’t mention) but the interest
of Israel.
Hermer was also a sabbatical officer for the Israeli
Embassy funded, ardently pro-Zionist Union
of Jewish Students.
The Solicitor General, Sarah Sackman is also the Deputy Attorney General. She is no liberal Zionist. She was the Vice-Chair of Labour Friends of
Genocide aka the Jewish Labour Movement, which has mobilised
support for continued arms sales to Israel. The JLM was behind the false anti-Semitism
smear campaign which helped destroy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party.
My lawyers have, quite ludicrously, not been allowed to give me copies of
the material in which I am alleged to have offered support to Hamas, even though I wrote it.
Sarah Sackman as part of the JLM Zoom Meeting with Kid Starver
Activist Sarah Wilkinson was reportedly asked to reveal the location of her contacts in Gaza when she was arrested by UK police earlier this week.
Wilkinson was taken from her home after a morning raid by Counter Terrorism Police on 29 August. According to her son, Jack: “They… pic.twitter.com/oSXvp54F5Y
It is clear to anyone who isn’t blind that the charges against Sarah
Wilkinson, Richard Medhurst, Natalie Strecker, the Filton 18 and myself
have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with attacking Palestine
solidarity activists.
The One Paper You Wouldn't Expect to Turn It Into a Free Speech Issue is the Conservative Jersey Evening Post
If the Police seriously believed that we were engaged in the commission
of acts of terrorism they would charged us with commissioning acts of
terrorism. They haven’t.The charges
against us are about expressing opinions or beliefs that they don’t like.
Alistair Campbell
&Rory Stewart Interview the Head of
the Proscribed Organisation HTS, Ahmed al-Sharaa
However there are some supporters of proscribed organisations who aren’t
prosecuted. Step forward Alistair Campbell, who wrote the ‘dodgy dossier’
which was a crucial document in fixing the evidence for going to war in Iraq in
2003 and ex-Tory MP Rory Stewart who interviewed the Al Quaeda/ISIS President
of Syria, Mohammed al-Jolani, as part of the Establishment’s quest to rehabilitate
someone who is presiding over the slaughter of Druze, Alawites & Christians.
For the first and last time I agree with the former Jewish Chronicle Editor,
Jake Wallis Simons when he says‘Shame on Rory Stewart and Alistair Cambell’.
Kingston Crown Court
Whenever the word ‘terrorism’ is
mentioned the Judiciary go weak at the knees. I wanted the trial to be held in Brighton
or Lewes Crown Court which are near where I live, since I have a responsibility
under a Court of Protection Order for an autistic son. However because this is
a ‘terrorism’ trial there are only 3 courts in the South-East that can hear it –
the Old Bailey, Woolwich and Kingston Crown Court.
‘Terrorism’ legislation is being used, not to combat genuine terrorism but
as a blunt weapon to silence supporters of the Palestinians and opponents of
genocide. It is an abuse of the law which our judges are happy to endorse.
As John
Dugard, a Professor of International law and an ad-hoc judge of the
International Court of Justice observed,
‘‘The label of
‘terrorist’ is ‘a bid to discredit and silence opponents”.
In the 1980s
Thatcher and Reagan called the ANC a
terrorist organisation and Nelson Mandela remained on the United States
terrorist watch list until 2008.
Gaza is a post-apocalyptic killing
zone: UNRWA chief - Philippe Lazzarini
The
accusation of ‘terrorism’ is being used to close down free speech on Palestine
and Hamas is the pretext. Previously it was the PLO which was demonised. If proscription
had been in operation 50 or 60 years ago then support for any national
liberation or anti-colonial movement, from the Vietcong to the ANC, would have
been a criminal offence.
What has been
done, with the willing complicity and support of Starmer, Hermer and Lammy is
to criminalise political opposition to the British government’s support of genocide.
Hamas is not
a terrorist but a resistance group. It hasn’t blindly killed thousands of babies
and children and then tried to turn October 7 into a second holocaust by
engaging in the propogation of atrocity propaganda
such as the story of 40 Beheaded Babies.
You might
expect the ‘free press’ to take up this abuse of the anti-terrorist laws but
instead they are its main cheerleaders. As George Orwell remarked in an essay The Freedom of the Press
‘The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it
is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain
important topics.’
Except today the British press is dishonest on virtually
every topic that impinges on the interests of their billionaire owners.Included in that dishonesty is the broadcast
media – not merely GB News and LBC but the BBC and Sky News.
In the United States we are seeing the destruction of even
the most basic forms of democratic rights as Donald Trump sets loose the
Marines and National Guard at those protesting at the activities of the ICE
immigration squads.
It may not be as bad here but when you have a dozen police
knocking at your door at 7 a.m. in the morning over a tweet which I posted a
month before, you realise that the police state is not far away. When the
police officer in my case, Chris Beckford, was asked to explain why he needed
to keep possession of my digital devices, he stated when there was copious
amounts of evidence in the public domain already:
However,thatevidenceonlyshowswhatMrGreenstein presentspublically.Itisimportanttotheinvestigation that we fully understand Mr
Greenstein’s mind set and ideology. This not only comes from public sources, ie
his blog and socialmedia,butfromhisinternetsearchhistoryandcommunicationwithothers.How,andindeedif,hetalksaboutHamas with others away from the public
domain provides highly relevant insight into MrGreenstein.
This is the language of the thought police who want to get into your
mind. PC Beckford was not an ogre, quite the contrary. A quite affable guy but
his mentality was that of Orwell’s 1984. The desire to get inside your mind is
the stuff of which nightmares are made.
What is the prosecution based on?Two things. Firstly a tweet on 15
November 2023 and secondly my blog of
October 7 Full Support for the Gaza Ghetto Uprising.
In my blog I say virtually nothing about Hamas but I make
it clear that I support the Uprising and that is the real reason for my
prosecution. Support for the oppressed and colonial peoples is now a crime.
We cannot expect the British press to support free speech
because it is in bed with the political class.
The reporting of my
case in the Brighton Argus ‘Brighton man charged
with terror offences over Hamas comments’ was par for the course in a paper
which, under its present Editor Aaron Hendy, has gone from bad to oblivion.
Contrast the even more abysmal Jo Wadsworth, Editor of Brighton & Hove News whose innovative
headline was ‘Tony
Greenstein charged with terror offences’.
Wadsworth, who is to journalism what Harold Shipman was
to care for the elderly. She once threatened to report me to the Police after I
accused her of wallowing in the blood of Palestinian children. These people can
get very precious.
BREAKING: Palestine Action are on a roof above Elbit's Israeli drone maker in Shenstone, Staffordshire.
From here, actionists are able to dismantle the factory and halt the production of weaponry. pic.twitter.com/CiivraNDTi
The Police in this country have prioritised the defence of
War Criminal Arms Factories like Elbit even whilst ‘ordinary’ crime like rape
and burglary has soared. Rape has effectively been decriminalised as
conviction rates have fallen to 1%.
There are a number of reasons for this. It isn’t just the
attitudes of the Police but also the fact that the Police prefer to spend their time harassing Palestine
protests and activists to doing the boring work of tracking down rapists and violent
criminals. Its so much more enjoyable persecuting political opponents than
doing the hard work tackling rape.
Many police officers don’t even accept that there is such a
crime as rape. The murderer of Sarah Everard, Wayne Couzens was known by the nickname
of ‘the rapist’.Apparently this was
considered to be quite a joke.
Please come and support me on June 19th because
it’s not me who is on trial but the right to freedom of speech and the right to
support the Palestinians. See also
The Jewish Chronicle Has a New Editor, Daniel Schwammenthal, and it Seems
They’ve Realised That a Propaganda Rag Cannot Be a Newspaper
Edward Isaacs was Chair of Bristol’s
Jewish (in fact Israel) Society when the campaign began in earnest against a
sociology professor, David Miller. McCarthyism came easily to this spoilt rich
Zionist brat.
Solomon got into a debate with me
which he badly lost, resulting in him deleting his comments.Isaacs merely threatened to sue me with
Daddy’s money if I called him a liar again. So that’s what I did.I called him a liar but no libel writ arrived
so I guess it is an established fact now that Edward Isaacs, Chair of UJS from 2023-4 is a liar.
Naturally I put up a blog which
remained up until yesterday. Now there is simply a page that says that the blog does not
exist though it still appears on a Google search.
This is what Google objected to - the truth
Fortunately, some years ago, I
decided that the risks of Google taking down a blog that has existed for some
16+ years were too great and I therefore invested in a website and a domain
which is based in the United States. All my posts on Blogspot have been copied
onto it including all legacy posts, just in case.
This is all that remains of my deleted blog!! Except on my shadow blog
Although it costs me an arm and a
leg, hence my occasional appeals to readers, it is worth it not to let the
Zionists destroy what is also a history of the Palestine solidarity movement in
this country. You can however access it here.
This is Blogspot's Explanation for Deleting a 31/2 year old post
Twice in the last year Google has
taken down posts. This never used to happen and so I am thinking of leaving
blogspot altogether and simply posting to my own site.
I therefore invite people to go to
the post Edward Isaacs is a Liar on my site to see what has been
irking Isaac’s for the past 3+ years. He was clearly hoping to join LAW in
order tospy on people there but I
always check people who apply to join in case they are Zionists.
Isn’t it strange how these young
amoral Zionists, who are so ready to call people ‘anti-Semites’ become so
touchy when they are accused of not telling the truth?
Is the Jewish Chronicle Changing Under Its New Editor Daniel
Schwammenthal?
It was
inevitable after the public relations fiasco in which the Jewish Chronicle was found to have been printing as ‘Exclusives’
lying disinformation from Netanyahu’s office via a pimp who called himself a journalist,
I refer toElon Perry, that its
obnoxious, racist Editor Jake Wallis Simons had to go. Although he took nearly
6 months to get the message.
Perry had
claimed to have taken part in the Entebbe raid a mere 48 years ago, as well as
having been a professor at Tel Aviv University for 15 years. Clearly he was a
Walter Mitty character but then that fitted in well at the JC. The JC was was happy
to have him write complete fabrications because printing lies is what it
specialised in.
The fable
that did him was about how Hamas leader, Yayha Sinwar was trying to escape to
Iran with the hostages and that was why Israel needed to stay in the
Philadelphia corridor in order to prevent such occurrences. There was no truth
in this story and as we know, Sinwar died a martyr’s death throwing, with his
last gasp of breath, a stick at the drone which located him. ‘Sinwar’s stick’
has since become famous as a symbol of Palestinian bravery and resistance.
However
this time it was the Israeli end which did for editor Jake Wallis-Simons, whose
other speciality was as a soft-porn novelist. Netanyahu’s disinformationhad been part of a war against the army top
brass and his political enemies. Hence why they were quick to rubbish the
story.As the Guardian commented
Despite being provided with a series of questions,
Wallis Simons and the JC have so far declined to describe how Perry – an
individual with no discernible journalistic track record, let alone as an
investigative reporter – came to be writing for the paper or what due diligence
had been exercised over an increasingly fantastic series of claims.
I mention
all of this because Agnes Kory, a child survivor of the Nazi holocaust, sent me
a copy of a letter she had sent to the Jewish Chronicle supporting the picket
of Tzipi Hotoveli, the Israeli Ambassador, in Swiss Cottage where she lives.
I wished
her good luck but I doubted very much that they would print it. Imagine my
surprise when the Jewish Chronicle did just
that! Under Pollard or Simons the chances are that Agnes’s letter
would have ended up in the electronic equivalent of the waste paper basket.
At the same
time I was contacted by a JC reporter,
Jane Prinsley about a story they were doing about the demonstrations at Swiss
Cottage. You may not think this is unusual but for the JC it is an innovation. Jane actually contacted me before writing
the story!
It is of
course good journalistic practice to contact people you intend to write about
but it is not something that the JC have
done since Pollard became Editor in 2008.
Imagine my
surprise when I read Prinsley’s article. Even
though it didn’t include all my points, it did accurately quote from the 3 out
of 6 that they did use. I can’t imagine that Marcus Dysch or ‘Liar’ Lee even considering
contacting their victims.
As I said
in a letter to the JC (which I don’t
expect to be published!) when ‘Liar’ Lee Harpin used to write articles
involving me it was a pleasant past-time to see how many mistakes I could
identify in each article. This is perhaps why the paper experienced
so many adverse judgements of IPSOS, the so-called independent body that
investigates complaints against newspapers and why it suffered so many
libel defeats too.
As Jonathan Cook wrote ‘the
Jewish Chronicle’s libel payouts were a small price to pay for smearing
Corbyn and the left.’
The JC literally did not care if its
stories were true or not.The main
objective was to damage Corbyn and the Left, which is why an unknown consortium
was prepared to finance the paper despite knowing that it could only make
losses as readers abandoned it. The BBC’s Director Robbie Gibb
man fronted the take-over of the JC
by anonymous billionaires.
My satirical letter to the Jewish Chronicle
The scandal involving Perry resulted in the JC's four principal columnists, headed
by Jonathan Freedland and David Aaronovitch, resigning. The rats were
abandoning ship.
Despite his attempts to cling on, Jake Wallis
Simon’s days were numbered.Whether this
results in any substantive change in the JC
is to be doubted. To date the JC has
operated on the basis that 99.99% of British Jews are fully fledged Zionists. Jewish
anti-Zionism has disappeared from its pages. The reality of what is happening
to the Palestinians never even makes it into their pages thus reinforcing the
belief that Palestinians (‘Arabs’) don’t like Israel because they are born anti-Semitic
rather than that they might object to living in an apartheid state that steals
their land.
2. They are over-represented
in Europe, North America and Latin America in positions of cultural, economic
and political power.
3. They are therefore, in a position to discriminate
against actually marginalised groups.”
The
statement went on to say that:
Many were distressed by some
of Miller’s statements in the past which seemed to exaggerate Israeli power but
we believed they fell within the terrain of academic freedom. This recent
tweet, focusing on Jews, is of a different order and has crossed a line.
Miller was accused of ‘ignoring any
historical, international or social context’ but if anyone was guilty of
this it was JVL itself.
Miller is one of a number of academics who have been targeted by
Zionist organisations and supporters of the Apartheid State and been accused of
anti-Semitism. Other academics include Rebecca Gould, also of Bristol
University, Goldie Osurie of Warwick University and
Shahd Abusalama of Sheffield Hallam
University.
There were a number of problems with the JVL statement, not least its
timing, coming as it did on the eve of Miller’s Employment Tribunal against
Bristol University.
The
problems in the statement are exemplified by the claim that
Many were distressed by some of Miller’s statements in
the past which seemed to exaggerate Israeli power’.
Why should anyone be ‘distressed’ by
such a claim?
Would JVL have extended its comfort blanket to Whites in South Africa who
were distressed by accusations that exaggerated the power of the Apartheid government
in Pretoria? Would JVL have suggested that this was an example of Black anti-White
racism?
Not only is a claim of ‘distress’or ‘offence’ so subjective as to be impossible
to prove but it indicates that JVL implicitly accepts that there is something
Jewish about the ‘Jewish state.’ The idea that Israel is the ‘Jew among the
nations’ forms the core of ‘new anti-Semitism’. Whereas ‘old’ anti-Semitism
targeted Jews as individuals, the ‘new anti-Semitism’ targets Israel because it
is a Jewish state.
As
Jacob Ecclestone in his comments on the article noted:
The
problem is not exaggerating Israeli power but getting people to understand just
how pervasive and controlling it is.
I submitted
a comment which was published below the article:
I agree that
discussing Jews as a whole can be problematic if you are intending to draw the
conclusion that Jews act in a co-ordinated manner to exclude and oppress others
but by themselves there is little I find problematic in David’s statements,
bearing in mind they are tweets which clearly can’t give the background.
1. It is
perfectly fair and accurate to say that Jews in Western Europe and the USA are
not discriminated against. Discrimination being state inspired discrimination.
I would be interested to know how Jews are discriminated against if that is
what the JVL statement is arguing.
2. Are Jews over
represented in cultural, economic and political positions? Well if you take
Jews as a percentage of the population and then measure this as against the
number of Jews in e.g. parliament then clearly they are overrepresented. That
does NOT mean that they act as one but given that most Jews describe themselves
as Zionists then it is unsurprising that politically Jews are going to form a
major part of any Zionist lobby.
… Jews in the UK
are overwhelmingly on the right. Under Ed Miliband just 22% of Jews voted for
the Labour Party as opposed to 60%+ for the Tories.
As for being in a
position to discriminate against (marginalized groups) Let us not forget that a
fascist party called Jewish Power is the 3rd largest block in the Knesset.
It was Geoffrey
Alderman who wrote that ‘London Jewry is
‘arguably more bourgeois now than at any time since the mid-nineteenth
century.’ And in the book The Right,
Left and the Jews William Rubinstein [which I wrongly attributed to Alderman] wrote
that:
‘The rise of
Western Jewry to unparalleled affluence and high status has led to the
near-disappearance of a Jewish proletariat of any size; indeed, the Jews may
become the first ethnic group in history without a working class of any size.’
Rubinstein
stated that ‘British Jewry had migrated
into the upper middle class.’
I don’t believe
David is saying anything different. Clearly it is true that many Jews are in a
position to discriminate against actually marginalised groups.
That is what
happened with Ruth Smeeth and Marc Wadsworth. That is what the Board of
Deputies was doing throughout the Corbyn era.
It
is also the case as I have argued that the level of Islamaphobia and Anti-Arab
racism among British Jews is very high. I would argue that Jews are the most
racist section of the White community.
We
have to be open and honest about these things. Zionism has pulled Jews to the
right politically and in its wake racism has reared its ugly head
Miller has argued very cogently that Jews are not the
victims of discrimination. I have not seen any rebuttal of this. The lack of
discrimination against Jews should be a cause for celebration, not accusations
of anti-Semitism. It is as if some people want Jews to be victims!
Nonetheless
there are also questions to ask of Miller such as what is the relevance of his
3 ‘facts’, in particular his third. Surely if the first fact is true, that Jews
are not discriminated against, then fact 2, that they are ‘overrepresented’
flows from it?
The
second fact is sociologically and statistically true. Jews are over represented
amongst billionaires, businessmen and BBC Chairmen come to that! The question
is so what? What is their political relevance? Is it suggested that the
pro-Israel bias of the BBC is because of the number of Jews or even Jewish
Zionists amongst them?
The
third fact, being in a position to discriminate against actually marginalised
groups, raises all sorts of problems. Are Jews behaving in a co-ordinated way as Jews? Where is the evidence? If Jews
are behaving this way is it because they are part of power structures in which
they are over-represented? In which case the responsibility for the
discrimination rests with the particular group or groups they are part of.
In
so far as Jews are in a position to discriminate against marginalised groups
then surely the question is whether, but for the Jewish presence, there would
be such discrimination.
JVL’s
Statement Has Led to False Accusations of Anti-Semitism Against David Miller such
as in the Comments Beneath the Article
It
is difficult to discern the motives of those who drew up this abysmal
statement. The suspicion must be that some on JVL’s Executive were never happy
about supporting Miller in the first place because of his trenchant opposition
to Zionism, his focus on Zionist power networks and its role in fostering
anti-Muslim racism.
The
statement gave the opportunity for those who are in the JVL orbit to make
explicit what was implicit. Below the statement are 45 comments, the majority
of them hostile to Miller.
The Statement Cannot
Help But Mean that Miller Has Crossed the Line into Anti-Semitism
Jezz Myers was puzzled as to ‘precisely which line it has crossed’? Iqbal
Ram expressed the hope that JVL will not label DM as anti semitic. Julia Bard, who is
prominent in the Jewish Socialists Group had no doubts.
‘What line has he crossed?
Between what and what? I really don’t think JVL should be so shy about naming
antisemitism.’
Dennis O'Malley concluded: ‘So maybe Bristol University were right to sack him, after all?’Sheldon Ranz
also had no doubts. ‘Thank you. Miller
crossed the line into anti-Semitism.’ Tom Delargy was
horrified
by what David Miller said. His statement constitutes anti Jewish racism… His
attitude towards this ethnic group is as racist as is Hitler’s… To say that
Jews arent discriminated against is opening the door to anti-semitism.’
Delargy needs to take a course in logic. How is saying that Jews are not
discriminated against anti-Semitic? It might be wrong and it might be right but
anti-Semitic? I get the feeling that some people have lost the ability to comprehend
or view the world other than through the prism of Jews and anti-Semitism.
As Orwell noted, it as if their
vocabulary is so limited that they are indifferent as to whether their words
actually mean anything. It is a mixture of vagueness and incompetence in which the
metaphysical replaces the material.
Arthur Kaletzky
too was of the opinion that ‘The line
crossed was targeting Jews, an ethnicity, instead of Zionists or Israelis.’
Chris Kaba - shot dead by Police
Margaret West
was clear that Jews are suffering from discrimination. Why? Because Jews have ‘been expelled in disproportionate numbers’
from the Labour Party.’ Well Margaret, if this is the limit of
discrimination against Jews they’re not doing badly! I just hope Chris
Kaba, Joy
Gardener and Roger Sylvester are listening,
to name but 3.
Ray Packham
had to remind people that Miller was dismissed, not for anti-Semitism but bringing
the University into disrepute.
The
fact that a majority of those commenting believed that the line that JVL’s
statement was referring to was anti-Semitism was something that must have been obvious
to JVL Executive before making the statement.
Some,
such as Ieuan Einion, criticised Miller’s use of ‘sloppy language’ and use of language
that is ‘open to misinterpretations’ which
was fair enough. A few such as Alan
Stanton and David Hawkins asked whether Miller had been contacted before the
statement was issued and asked to clarify his comments. In a similar vein Graeme
Atkinson & Andrew Hornungasked ‘what was the context of Miller’s
tweets?’.
Adam Waterhouse
wished that JVL
had shown some
discretion and sense of proportion, and made the effort to reach out to him
personally and engage him in dialogue, rather than publishing an article that
impugns his reputation and supports the cause of those who would defame all
advocates of Palestinian rights as antisemites.
I
suspect that JVL did not want to
engage in dialogue with Miller because they don’t share the same political
priorities. David Hawkins reminded JVL that ‘Professor
Miller was hounded out of Bristol University by a very real Israel lobby.’
This
for me is the only issue. How does attacking Miller and bolstering the false
accusations of anti-Semitism against him help Black people & Muslims in
this country or the Palestinians? The only people it helps are Israel’s
Judeo-Nazis and their apologists in the JLM and CAA.
Unsurprisingly
it was 3 Black commenters who introduced the necessary corrective to JVL
Executive’s obsession with anti-Semitism.
Gavin
Lewis, who criticised Miller’s ‘crude
generalisations’, warned about the danger of ’reinforcing the tactics and smears of ruthless political opponents.’
Lewis pointed to Jewish dominance in the music media scene and how this had
resulted in Black artists
being
economically ripped-off and having their work culturally appropriated… in which
Jewish capitalist entrepreneurs were prominent.
Gavin
was alluding to situations such as in the USA where Jewish teachers and slum
landlords came into conflict with working class Blacks over housing and education.
Conflicts in which Black people without any power were accused of
‘anti-Semitism’ by Jews with power.
Marc,
I assume Marc Wadsworth, accused JVL’s Executive of stripping Miller’s tweet of
context, meaning and intent. For Marc, what Miller wrote was ‘entirely fact based and would be
uncontroversial in other hands – you are playing the man not the ball.’
Miller
was responding to ‘Zionists who
exaggerate antisemitism to further their agenda of oppression.’ Jews living
in western nations ‘do not suffer
significant discrimination’. Quoting Keith Kahn-Harris, Marc explained why:
“…one of the
most striking aspects of the monitoring of antisemitism in the UK, US and many
other countries is how far certain issues that appear frequently in the
monitoring of other racisms are largely absent. Discrimination in the job
market, access to housing and social services, differential outcomes in the
education system, confrontations with immigration authorities — these are not,
in the main, the principle manifestations of antisemitism in Western countries
today.”
JVL’s
emphasis on anti-Semitism was an example of the hierarchy of racism. In
response to Naomi Marc asserted that
the
wider context is the past 8-10 years of endless disinformation about
antisemitism’ and the antidote to anti-Semitism ‘is socialism not
exceptionalism.'
Marc
pointed out that hate crime against Jews is not discrimination. He argued for a
Marxist and class based analysis, pointedly asking ‘is Graham Bash still with you?’ Jill Azzouzi was also
quite clear.
‘There is no
jewish Windrush. No jewish refugees demonised and put on prison ships. Sure
antisemitism exists. It always will. But muslims are now the target. Jews have
put themselves in positions to write laws, against anyone attacking zionist
murders. I think you are grossly wrong on this. It happened to him. As a muslim
its happened to me too. Well done Miller.
Only jenny mahimbo
raised Miller’s more problematic views such as opposing women protesting
against the morality police in Iran. It is Miller’s blanket support for the Iranian
regime and his support for Political Islam and fundamentalists who wanted to
ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses
which might have been more fruitful topics for discussion. Instead JVL chose ‘anti-Semitism’.
On
Saturday I sent a further statement to members of JVL Executive in which I put
the controversy in its true perspective. Miller
‘was
the victim of a monstrous injustice. The allegations of anti-Semitism against
him were entirely devoid of substance and the allegations that
he had harassed Jewish students were totally untrue. Criticising the Union of
Jewish Students, which repeatedly accused me of anti-Semitism when trying to
ban me from speaking on campus, is perfectly legitimate.
I
also added that Miller played a magnificent role in
the overturning of the attempt to deport Raed
Saleh, a Palestinian cleric who the Zionists have repeatedly demonised. In
2014 Saleh was detained after being invited to speak in this country. The CST
provided forged evidence to the Home Office with the intention of having him
deported. I wrote that
All
the evidence suggests that Miller was targeted at Bristol
precisely for his role in helping overturn Saleh's deportation and for this
alone he should be given solidarity not accused of anti-Semitism.
I
also wrote that
Having said
all that I also advised Miller that the 3rd point in his tweet about the role
of Jews in oppressing others in the West needs to be contextualised,
notgeneralised and is certainly not something that should be part of a Twitter war. 256
characters don't lend themselves to reasoned or substantive argument.
David
Miller has to think more carefully about his scattergun approach. The first
thing he could do is to get off Twitter.
I had made it
clear to David and Chris Williamson thatI
consider the Iranian and Syrian regimes deeply reactionary and I
completely support the struggle of women against the clericalist regime in
Iran. I don't consider either regime anti-imperialist but
recognise that both are subject to attack by imperialism
despite the desire of both to accommodate to imperialism…. It is unfortunate thatall too many people adopt a
simplistic enemy of my enemy is my friend and forsake a class analysis of such
regimes.
Whilst
making it clear that I saw‘both David and
Chris as comrades in the fight against Zionism.’
Norman Finkelstein on David Irving, holocaust denial, Christ killers and a response from Tony Greenstein
David Rosenberg
David
Rosenberg of the Jewish Socialists Group adds to the poisonous brew
David
Rosenberg of the JSG, joined in implying Miller was anti-Semitic on the basis
of misremembering what happened at a meeting
3 years ago at which Miller spoke, alongside Norman Finkelstein, Jackie Walker,
Chris Williamson, Marc Wadsworth, Tariq Ali and myself.
Finkelstein,
who is a contrarian, praised holocaust denier David Irving as “a very good historian” who has “produced works that are substantive” and
“knew a thing or two – or three.” Given
he had previously criticised Irving I had no doubt that NF was doing this to be
provocative.
According
to Rosenberg not one panelist raised an objection to what Finkelstein said.
Rosenberg had clearly forgotten his own article Who is David Irving? and the comments underneath, alleging that
after
Finkelstein spoke not one of the other panelists… used any of their concluding
remarks to challenge Finkelstein’s praise for Irving. Disgraceful. I hope they
will do so now
Rosenberg was commenting
on a meeting he had not watched. In my closing comments (1.35.35) I did indeed
challenge NF’s remarks, not only on David Irving but also his flippant remarks
about Jews being accused of being ‘Christ killers.’
no panelists know
in advance what the others will say, or what subjects they are speaking about.
They are given no advance warning. …in
the absence of forewarning I think it extremely harsh to judge the panelists in
such a term as “disgraceful”. …
That
David Rosenberg expects panel members to be responsible for the utterances of
others – a strategy of attack which has been so effectively and most often
unjustly used against the left in the current witch hunt, including of course
against Corbyn, is surprising.
JSG
and Rosenberg have always been half-hearted in their opposition to the ‘anti-Semitism’
witchhunt. But on the basis, not of anything Miller had said but
his failure to comment on NF’s remarks, Rosenberg attacked him for
anti-Semitism, though unlike Julia Bard, not explicitly:
a couple of
years ago [in fact it was July 28 2020-TG] I was in the audience of a webinar
about the witch hunt in Labour. It included DM among the panellists. I was
already very wary of statements he had made before then. One of the other
panellists (Finkelstein) extraordinarily included a defence of Holocaust
Revisionist/denier David Irving in his comments. None of the panel saw fit to
comment on this in their concluding remarks. It was a
measure of my earlier strong concerns about him that it was no surprise to me
that DM didn’t comment on it.
Rosenberg’s
attack on Miller were based on amnesia. As Deborah Maccoby pointed
out in the comments 3 year ago:
‘But
in fact Tony Greenstein did take up Finkelstein’s comments on
Irving. This is what Tony said: “ I agree
[David Irving] is a historian – one can’t take it away
from him. The problem is that his politics has got in the way of his history
and his research – and he clearly did tamper with his sources, if my reading of
the libel trial is correct”.
This
is not so much a challenge as an expansion, qualification
and clarification – but in fact all Finkelstein said was that, in his view,
Irving is a real, substantial historian – a judgment with which Tony agreed.
This doesn’t mean that Finkelstein does not agree in his
turn with Tony that Irving has tampered with sources and that his politics have
got in the way of his history and research.’
Faced
with this clear evidence that he was wrong, Rosenberg asked JVL to delete his
comments above. In a ‘note for
clarification/information’ he
wrote that he nowregretted his remarks which
‘was a
scattergun condemnation of Miller’s action by omission rather than commission’
andthat his ‘anger about that
should have stayed principally on Finkelstein’.
But Rosenberg still asserted that no one had criticised NF’s comments
‘we need an anti-Zionist
politics, here, and beyond Britain’s borders, that focuses relentlessly on
justice for Palestinians but also fully acknowledges all racism… and
understands ordinary Jewish people’s genuine fears about it…’
In response I wrote that
David's
limitation on the boundaries of anti-Zionism also
contradicts his commitment to opposing anti-Semitism…. Zionism undermines any
possibility of such a fight
I
gave as an example Chapter 18 of my book on the neo-Nazi Argentinian Junta that
ruled between 1976 and 1983 and which murdered up to 3,000 leftist Jews. Israel
and the Zionist movement not only refused to condemn the Argentinian regime but
they actively defended it. Today the ADL in the US whitewashes
neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Zionism has never had a problem with genuine
anti-Semitism.
David doesn't
understand that Zionism represents an abandonment of the
fight against anti-Semitism and again if he turns to my book he will see that the Zionist fighters in Warsaw, Bedzin and other ghettos
did so against the explicit instructions of their movements in Palestine which
did their very best to remove them from the fight against the Nazis, as even
Dina Porat admits.
Rosenberg
spoke about ‘ordinary Jewish people’s
genuine fearsabout anti-Semitism’.
I asked, ‘What is the 'anti-Semitism' that British Jews are fearing?’ A CAA/You
Gov survey in 2015 found that
a majority of Jews believed that antisemitism in Britain
echoed that of the 1930s.
I
responded by quoting the comments of Anshel Pfeffer, columnist for Ha'aretz, who
wrotethatif
British Jews believed that anti-Semitism today is similar to that in the
1930s ‘then it’s hard to take anything they say about contemporary
anti-Semitism... seriously.’adding that if Jews:
‘think
that the situation in Britain today echoes the 1930s when
Jews were still banned from a wide variety of clubs and associations, when a
popular fascist party, supported by members of the nobility and popular
newspapers, were marching in support of Hitler, when large parts of the British
establishment were appeasing Nazi Germany and the government was resolutely
opposed to allowing Jewish refugees of Nazism in to Britain..., then not only
are they woefully ignorant of recent Jewish history but have little concept of
what real anti-Semitism is...’
Pfeffer
described those holding this belief as showing a ‘a
disconnect from reality which borders on hysteria.’ British Jews’
perception of anti-Semitism today is subjective with their belief that
Corbyn was anti-Semitic. I pointed out that a
considerable
section of British Jews support the far right, just as is the case with French
Jewry. You can't fight antisemitism if you don't know what it is and all too many British Jews don't know what it is or think it's
to do with opposition to Israel and Zionism.
I
concluded my response to JVL by noting that Miller had approached the question
of British and Western Jews
completely
cack handedly, over generalised and failed to differentiate and analyse its
different components. I too have raised the question of racism
within British Jewry and this should not be ignored or glossed over. Although
there is no statistical evidence there is certainly empirical evidence for the
belief that Islamaphobia and anti-Arab racism are rife in
the Jewish community as is anti-Black racism.
The
real question is not anti-Semitism, which is at a historic low, but the
widespread racism among British Jews which is ignored. Unfortunately Rosenberg is
not a Marxist and therefore does not have a materialist analysis of anti-Semitism
today.
JVL’s
attack on Miller can only be of help to the Zionists. David Rosenberg is not an
anti-Zionist but JVL claims to have adopted a more radical position. However
what it has consistently failed to do is to acknowledge that in Britain and
Western Europe anti-Semitism is a prejudice NOT a form of state racism. It has
also failed to acknowledge that Jews today are part of the oppressors not the oppressed.
It
is unfortunate that David Miller instead of instigating a debate on these
matters confused them.
Tony
Greenstein
Postcript
David
Rosenberg of the Jewish Socialist Group Reluctantly Withdraws His Allegations –
At Least About Me!
David Rosenberg repeated his allegations of 3 years ago writing ‘none
of his [Miller] fellow speakers criticised
Norman Finkelstein's 'defence' of Irving.’ This despite my previous comments and those of Deborah
Maccoby. I wrote to him.
Being
charitable I can only assume that you had forgotten the comments of Deborah and
myself three years ago … Yesterday… you doubled down on what you had said,
stating that ‘While I do still feel
strongly about what was not said by panellists, including Miller, after
Finkelstein’s remarks in that particular meeting in 2020…’
I told him that ‘I
genuinely find your behaviour puzzling’ since he was
‘persisting in
repeating what is clearly untrue. Perhaps you have difficulty psychologically
in accepting that because of our political differences over Zionism that I am
as opposed to anti-Semitism as you are. ‘
Nonetheless I wanted to give David the
opportunity to set the record straight and I asked him to:
i.withdraw his
allegation that none of the panellists commented on Finkelstein’s remarks
ii.that he acknowledge
that I did criticise Finkelstein at the time and
iii.that he you
also apologise for not acknowledging this at the time and repeating this
falsehood.
On Wednesday David replied expressing astonishment at Finkelstein’s
comments about Irving after which, somewhat grudgingly, he withdrew his
allegations but without offering an apology:
I
am happy to acknowledge thatI was
mistaken to say that “nobody” on the panel addressed his
remarks, as you clearly did, though
I do feelthatyour challenge to them was understated. compared with the
way thatyou have taken a stand
against, for example, Gilad Atzmon’s Holocaust revisionism.
Ifeelthatyourcommentthatyoudidmake about Irving that “his politics got in the way of his research” was weak,
though I also acknowledge thatyou were maybe as surprised as I was that Finkelstein had made these comments at all, and you were on the spot as the first panellist to respond
afterwards. Youdid reference his
"Christ killers” comments, which i could have
mentioned to in my initial response. You explained that Nancy Astor used it in a clearly antisemitic way, though you added "we all have our own opinions… that
is an esoteric debate I don’t want to get into…” which Ifeel took the edge off the criticism a
bit.
None
of the other panellists, nor the chair, challenged Finkelstein's remarks or
indicated if they agreed with your comments re
Finkelstein...
I
am happy to amend what I claimed, to say:
“With
one exception (Tony), nobody on the panel, took issue with Finkelstein's favourable
comments re David irving, or indeed Finkelstein's comment
‘I don’t know what a Holocaust Denier is’. Tony did say of Irving that'his politics got in the way of his
research’, which I do acknowledge now, but continue
to regard as an understatement.” it was my mistake in not noting Tony’s
response in my initial remarks, which I regret, but would like to assure you
was not intentional.
The SWP, Despite
Marching With Zionists for the Past 6 Years, Assumes the Mantle of Anti-Zionism
in Order to Attack David Miller
It
is no surprise that the latest
issue of Socialist Worker, has attacked David Miller as anti-Semitic. The
SWP has always taken the line of least resistance. Opportunism and social chauvinism
are the SWP’s distinguishing feature.
In
the 1950s its forerunner, Socialist
Review, came up with the slogan ‘Neither
Washington nor Moscow’ as a means of avoiding having to challenge
McCarthyism. It took a neutral stance on the Korean War even though the United
States was in Korea in order to roll back the Chinese revolution which had
shocked US imperialism. Being neutral was easier than supporting the enemy.
During
The Troubles in Ireland the SWP consistently failed to give any support to the
Republican Movement, for fear of being accused of supporting the IRA. The SWP
engaged in virtually no solidarity work with the nationalist community in the
North of Ireland.
The
article’s subheadline states ‘Anti-Zionism
is not antisemitism. Saying Jews are ‘over represented’ in positions of power
is.’ Yet the facts suggests otherwise. There are 66
ethnic minority MPs in Parliament, around 10%. Yet if the 13% of ethnic
minorities were represented in proportion to their population size there would
be 85 such MPs. In contrast there are 22 Jewish MPs, some 3.4% of the House of
Commons yet the number of Jews in the population is 271,000 (0.5%)/
In
other words there are 7 times more Jewish MPs in parliament than their number
in the population would warrant. Over-representation? Well it’s certainly not
under-representation!
In
2016/17 Jewish people (60%) were more
likely to be employed in high pay
occupations than those of any other religion. Since 2010/11 the proportion of
Jews in high pay occupations had increased from 51%.
Jews
are not victims of police violence in Britain or the US. No one has even
suggested it, yet Black people are seven
times more likely to die at the hands of the British police than White
people.
There are no Jewish
Windrush scandals, nor are there Jewish deaths in custody. There is no evidence
that Jews are singled out by the Police for discriminatory treatment compared
to Black and Muslim people.
the issue of child poverty in the British
Jewish community hasn’t been investigated in any depth in recent decades.
One of the reasons
given for this is ‘that the scale of the
problem is so small that it does not merit costly research by the community.”
In short British Jews enjoy an above average standard of living, lower child
poverty and do not face discrimination economically or politically.
According
to the Sunday Times rich list for 2014, Jews made up around 20 per cent of
the 104-strong rich-list — with a combined fortune of more than £67bn out of
the total £301bn. Between one-fifth
and one-third of billionaires in the world are Jewish.
The
first two of David Miller’s statements are factually correct. That raises the
thorny question, is or can anti-Semitism be true? The real question is what one
does with such statistics. If Miller was suggesting numerus clausus to limit the number of Jews in a profession or
university then that would undoubtedly be anti-Semitic.
Miller
is doing no such thing.What he is doing is showing the false basis of the anti-Semitism
scarecrow that posits British Jews as oppressed. Further that because most Jews
are pro-Israel, and the British Jewish community especially, this finds an
outlet in pro-Israel bias in the media.
SW
introduces its article with the statement that ‘Socialist Worker stands unequivocally for Palestinian freedom’, a
particularly anaemic statement. I expect most Zionists would agree to such a
statement! One way the SWP demonstrates this support is by allowing
far-right Zionists to march annually on the annual Scottish Stand Up To
Racism marches.
The SWP statement says that ‘the
tweets which the academic David Miller posted on 7 August are examples of
antisemitism.’ Why? Because ‘Such
allegations lump together all Jews without any recognition of class or other
differences.’ This is absurd. To say that Jews are not discriminated
against no more lumps all Jews together than to say Black people are
discriminated against lumps all Black people together. It simply means that on
average Jews do not face discrimination.
This is the SWP’s nefarious logic according to which virtually any article
about Jews could be said to ‘target’ Jews. The IJPR
produces numerous reports and articles about Jews. Are they anti-Semitic? These
are the crude politics of the SWP that passes for Marxism.
The SWP complains ‘Miller targets
Jews, not the actual ruling class, and plays on the idea of Jews as ultra-rich
and manipulative.’ All that is missing is the word ‘trope’. All Miller has
done is to point to the fact that Jews do not suffer discrimination and I would
add that on average British Jews are privileged economically.
The SWP accused Miller of refusing to see ‘the very real existence of antisemitism which, along with Islamophobia,
has become a standard feature of far right propaganda.; Yet this is nonsense. Islamaphobia
is the established policy of both major political parties. Anti-Semitism isn’t.
It is an example of SWP flattening – equating Black people who do suffer
systemic racism with Jews who are White in Britain.
The SWP's anti-racism analysis has always been crude. They fail to understand the difference in forms of racism between, as Sivanandan explained, the racism that kills and the racism that discriminates or offends.
I am regularly sent mailings by the fascist/neo-Nazi Patriotic
Alternative. Their theme is that White Lives Matter. I have not yet seen a
‘Non-Jewish Lives Matter’ banner. The overwhelming majority of fascist
propaganda is directed at Black and Muslim people not Jewish people.
That isn’t to say that their leaderships aren’t anti-Semitic and hold to
Jewish Conspiracy Theories including the White Replacement Theory [WRT] with its
adjunct that Jews are the ones organising the replacement. But here’s the rub. Many
prominent Jews are also Islamaphobes. Former Chief Rabbi Jonathan
Sackssingled
out Douglas Murray’s The Strange
Death of Europe, which supported the WRT, as his favourite book. The senior-Vice President of the
Board of Deputies Gary Mond was a virulent
Islamaphobe.
The
SW article argues that
One example is the repeated
antisemitic speeches from Hungarian prime minister—and Tory favourite—Viktor Orban.
Well firstly Hungary isn't Britain, at least last time I looked! Secondly Orban
is also a Zionist favourite. Orban and
Netanyahu have an illiberal
bromance. Hungary is Israel’s strongest supporter in Europe, along with
Poland’s anti-Semitic Law & Justice government under Mateusz
Morawiecki. The Zionist movement and Israel are in the same bed as Orban. That's why the Board of Deputies will criticise Corbyn as 'anti-Semitic' but not Orban.
Tommy
Robinson has built his career and wealth on virulent agitation against Muslims.
Yet he was welcomed
onto the last pro-Israel demonstration in May 2021 by Jewish and Zionist demonstrators.
There are many British Jews who have no problem holding hands with Robinson.
Katie Hopkins, the virulently racist former columnist for the Daily Mail and Sun
was a guest
at the Zionist Federation’s Gala Dinner.
Most
British Jews are White and conservative. At the last election 93% of British
Jews refused
to vote Labour. Only the SWP, refuses to face the fact that Jews are not victims
of state sponsored discrimination and repression like Muslims or Afro-Caribbeans.
The SWP’s crude economistic politics cannot see that there is a difference
between prejudice against a section of the White population and state racism against
the most oppressed and exploited groups in Britain.
Socialist
Worker complains that Miller’s analysis is devoid of ‘any recognition of class or other differences’ but that is the
problem with the SWP. They equate prejudice with state sponsored racism. Living in a political time capsule the SWP have failed to see that since 1945 Jews have been migrating from the East End of London to Hendon, Edgware, Redbridge etc. A move not only geographically outwards but socio-economically upwards.
The
SWP fails to mention why the Home Office gives the CST £15 million a year to
protect Jewish schools and synagogues. This year it gave them an extra £1m under Suella Braverman, whilst spending £1 m in total on mosques and Muslim schools. The Government press release for which read: Home Secretary ramps up security measures to protect Jewish communities
I don't recall a similar press release on government measures to protect Black or Muslim communities or indeed refugees and asylum seekers.
Even
if the SWP doesn’t understand the difference between anti-Semitism and racism todaythe Zionists do. The main Zionist group
charged with protecting British Jews, the CST, invited as guest of honour to
their annual dinner one Suella Braverman. That’s right. Cruella herself. The
very embodiment of state racism with her Rwanda Scheme and Barges.
The
SWP, JSG and JVL don’t seem to understand that racism changes its
colour and contours. The anti-Semitism of my father’s generation, when the
Police tried to force a fascist march through the East End of London 87 years ago, when
the British state was anti-Semitic and Jews were the victims of Police and
fascist violence, is not the anti-Semitism of today.
The
CST, which ludicrously tries to pretend it is the successor to the 43 Group,
works hand in glove with the most racist section of the British state, the Home
Office. The 43 Group was subject to severe police repression. But the SWP sees
none of this. It is trapped in the slogans of the past. For them a new Jewish holocaust
is around the corner.
The
SWP has now done what it usually does. It finds an excuse for retreat and
betrayal. It doesn't even know how to spell 'solidarity'. It has said that the Zionists at Bristol University were right. David
Miller was anti-Semitic.
The
irony is that a decade ago the SWP was holding hands
with a died-in-the-wool anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon. They put on his shows,
issued joint statements, organised joint meetings and denied that someone
who questioned the holocaust was anti-Semitic!See for example Time to say
goodbye. Times change but the SWP remains the same old opportunists.
