25 June 2019

Socialism in the United States – Is it making a Come Back?

Focus on Milwaukee and Chicago – Can the United States put the Cold War and McCarthyism behind it?



Bernie Sander’s challenge for the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2016 was unique for a number of reasons, not least for the fact that he was the first mainstream Presidential contender to openly call himself a socialist. The fact that he nearly won the contest was remarkable, especially given that ‘Crooked’ Hilary and her friends openly cheated.


Whereas Europe has had a tradition of strong socialist and communist parties in the United States such parties have always been confronted with a virulent anti-communism. Attacks against labour unions and the right to organise have been particularly vicious in the USA.
Sacco and Vanzetti
Frank Little of the Industrial Workers of the World was lynched in August 1917 by six thugs who pulled him out of his bed and Joe Hill was judicially murdered in Utah in 1915. Twelve years later two Italian born anarchists, Sacco and Vanzetti, were again judicially murdered on trumped up charges in Massachussetts.
Nonetheless the United States has had a rich socialist history of class struggle such as in the car factories of Detroit in the 1930’s. In 1912 when Eugene Debbs stood for President he got nearly a million votes and 6% of the vote.  In 1920 he stood again and got nearly a million votes but just 3.4%.
The first Red Scare was in the first World War when Debb’s Socialist Party opposed the draft. A speech in Canton Ohio on June 16 1918 at the end of the war when Debs declared that:
“The working class have never yet had a voice in declaring war. If war is right, let it be declared by the people – you, who have your lives to lose.”
led to a prosecution under the Sedition Act and Debs being sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, of which he served 32 months before being pardoned.
Debs campaigning for President in 1912
In the post-war period McCarthyism and anti-Communist hysteria led to a witch-hunt of supporters of all progressive and radical politics.  This was depicted by Arthur Miller in The Crucible, which was ostensibly about the Salem Witchhunt. People like Pete Seeger and Charlie Chaplin were victims of the determination of the American Right to root out anyone who was seen as an opponent of US imperialism and its war machine.
It was only with the movement against the Vietnam War that radical and socialist organisations began to resurface and grow. Nonetheless the American political environment is very different from that in Britain or Europe.  There is no equivalent to a mass social democratic or Labour Party.  Instead there are two capitalist parties – Republican and Democrat.
The Democrats were originally the party of Dixieland, the KKK and White Supremacy. In the 1950’s and 1960’s it became the party of civil rights and an end to segregation and the Big Society.  This caused a rupture in its southern base with the Democratic Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, running an independent campaign for US President in 1968 having coined the slogan 5 years earlier ‘segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever’. Wallace won 5 states in the Deep South.
Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes
In the Congressional elections last year, Bernie Sanders, the Independent Senator for Vermont was joined in Congress by two members of the Democratic Socialists of America Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and the Palestinian-American Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. It has to be said that the DSA are a social democratic not a Marxist party. Class struggle is not to the fore in their politics.
Nonetheless this has provoked a backlash. In his State of the Union address, Donald Trump railed against the advance of socialism. when he warned that
“Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. ... Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country”
Not only Congressional Republicans but Nancy Pelosi joined in the applause!
An article in The Hill by Paris Dennard, a CNN political commentator and former Bush official explained:
‘The Democratic Party continues to go further to the extreme left. Their latest clarion call is the idea of "Democratic Socialism." Socialism by any other name is still socialism, and trying to infiltrate it into our modern political process and system of government is dangerous. 
There is no doubt that this new rise of socialism found in the base of the Democratic Party is a flawed economic ideology that must be challenged by all Americans who support free enterprise....
This is, of course, what the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign and the launch of Chuka Ummuna’s now failed TIG was all about.  Making the Labour Party into a safe party of capitalism.
Below are two interesting articles on socialism in Milwaukee and the Democratic stronghold of Chicago, home to the infamous Mayor Daley.
Tony Greenstein
For much of the 20th century, Milwaukee was run by socialists—and Time magazine called it “one of the best-run cities in the U.S.”
April 6, 2019 John Nichols The Nation
Dan Hoan, Milwaukee’s mayor from 1916 to 1940. (Milwaukee Public Library / Historic Portrait Collection), (Milwaukee Public Library / Historic Portrait Collection)

“If I owned all the real estate in the world, I wouldn’t feel so powerful as I do on the streets of this socialist city,” declared former New York City councilman Baruch Vladeck when he arrived in Milwaukee in 1932 for the Socialist Party’s national convention in that city.
Norman Thomas, the famed civil-rights and economic-justice campaigner who became the party’s presidential nominee that year, celebrated the fact that he was chosen for that honor in a city governed by Socialists. The success of Milwaukee under then-Mayor Dan Hoan, Thomas said, was proof that the party’s social-democratic “dreams will someday come true.”
“Someday” was dramatically delayed by the results of the 1932 elections. The Socialist ticket did well, securing almost 900,000 votes nationwide and registering its highest percentage of the total vote in Wisconsin. The winner of that year’s race, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, took notice: He met with Thomas after the election and borrowed liberally from proposals that had long been championed by the Socialists—for a Social Security system, unemployment compensation, strengthened labor unions, and public-works programs. Roosevelt’s New Deal took the wind out of the Socialist Party’s sails in the national arena, but the party remained a force in Milwaukee for decades to come.
Now that Milwaukee has been selected as the host city for another national convention—that of the Democrats in 2020—Republicans have suddenly discovered its history. “No city in America has stronger ties to socialism than Milwaukee,” griped Wisconsin Republican Party director Mark Jefferson. “And with the rise of Bernie Sanders and the embrace of socialism by its newest leaders, the American left has come full circle. It’s only fitting the Democrats would come to Milwaukee.” Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson said the Milwaukee convention would provide a “firsthand look” at “the risk of Democrat socialistic tendencies.”
Apart from the fact that Wisconsin’s top Republicans don’t seem to like the state—or its history—very much, the GOP response is comic. Many Wisconsinites know that their state has a long, rich socialist tradition, and that Milwaukee’s association with it is one of the coolest things about the city. It even earned a mention in the movie Wayne’s World, when rocker Alice Cooper explains, “I think one of the most interesting aspects of Milwaukee is the fact that it’s the only major American city to have ever elected three Socialist mayors.”
The Democratic Party is not a socialist party, but the delegates to its 2020 convention might nominate a democratic socialist, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, for president. And when they convene in Wisconsin’s largest city next summer, they shouldn’t hesitate to take the Republicans up on their call to highlight lessons from Milwaukee’s Socialist past. Doing so will strengthen the hand of the party’s eventual nominee, whether it’s Sanders or another of the contenders, all of whom will surely be labeled “socialist” by Donald Trump and his troll army.
Instead of fearing mention of the S-word, Democrats can and should approach it as smart Republicans have the L-word—“libertarian.” Republicans frequently borrow from the libertarian lexicon and toolbox, and acknowledge as much, without abandoning their essential partisanship. Democrats ought to be similarly limber. It’s great that the party now has a strong democratic-socialist wing, which includes Sanders and members of Congress like New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib. But Democrats who do not identify as socialists can still follow the lead of FDR and the late senator Edward Kennedy, who worked closely with and celebrated the ideas and ideals of democratic socialist Michael Harrington, author of The Other America, a groundbreaking study on poverty. Another 2020 Democratic presidential contender—Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana—gets it right when he says that the old Republican strategy of attaching a “socialist” label to every progressive idea is just that: old. “Today, I think a word like that is the beginning of a debate, not the end of the debate,” explains the most millennial of the Democrats’ presidential prospects.
Buttigieg says that the S-word has “lost its ability to be used as a kill switch on debate,” arguing: “If someone my age or younger is weighing a policy idea, and somebody comes along and says, ‘You can’t do that—it’s socialist,’ I think our answer is going to be, ‘OK, is it a good idea or is it not?’”
Polling tells us that young voters are more comfortable with socialism than capitalism. Older voters may still be susceptible to Republican appeals rooted in Cold War hysteria, but the challenges posed by the existential crisis of climate change and the radical transformation of our economy in an age of AI-driven automation are going to make everyone far more open to radical responses. And many of the best of these—especially those that call for expanding the social-welfare state—will draw from historic and contemporary socialist thinking.
Democrats can get ahead of the curve and disarm Trump and the trolls by embracing the opportunity that Milwaukee offers to talk about socialism as it has existed and succeeded in the United States. For American socialists in the 20th century, Milwaukee was a political mecca, a city that tested and confirmed the validity of their ideas. Vladeck, then the manager of The Jewish Daily Forward (these days known simply as The Forward), called it an example of “the America of tomorrow.”
Socialists were proud to point to Milwaukee, which had a Socialist mayor for most of the period from 1910 to 1960, as a model of sound and equitable governance. And they were not alone: During Hoan’s 24-year tenure, Time magazine reported, “Milwaukee became one of the best-run cities in the U.S.”
Hoan also took on the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, at a time when politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties were compromising with the violent racists as they extended their reach from the South to northern cities. “The Ku Klux Klan will find Milwaukee a hotter place to exist in than Hades itself,” the mayor declared in 1921.
Hoan’s integrity, along with his managerial skills, would eventually earn him recognition as one of the 10 finest municipal leaders in American history. In The American Mayor, his groundbreaking 1999 assessment of municipal governance in cities across the country, Melvin Holli wrote: 
“Although this self-identified socialist had difficulty pushing progressive legislation through a nonpartisan city council, he experimented with the municipal marketing of food, backed city-built housing, and was a fervent but unsuccessful champion of municipal ownership of the street railways and the electric utility. His pragmatic ‘gas and water socialism’ met with more success in improving public health and in providing public markets, city harbor improvements, and purging graft from Milwaukee politics.” 

Emil Seidel and Frank Zeidler, the mayors who served before and after Hoan, were Socialists as well. And Milwaukee voters elected dozens of Socialists to the city council, county board, school board, state legislature, and Congress. Milwaukee’s Socialists were so fiscally and socially responsible that historians to this day hail them as exemplars of a uniquely American form of democratic socialism. Zeidler once explained to me, 
“Socialism as we attempted to practice it here believes that people working together for the common good can produce a greater benefit both for society and for the individual than can a society in which everyone is shrewdly seeking their own self-interest.” 
That worked well for Milwaukee in the 20th century—so much so that “socialism” ceased to be a scare word for the city’s residents. What frightens Republicans today is that “socialism” is ceasing to be a scare word in our contemporary national discourse.
John Nichols is The Nation’s national-affairs correspondent. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.

Tuesday night’s elections saw the largest socialist electoral victory in modern American history
April 3, 2019 Micah Uetricht


The United States is experiencing a socialist surge right now. That surge came to Chicago last night, where democratic socialists won big in the second, final round of municipal elections.
Three Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members won their city council races in runoff elections on Tuesday: Byron Sigcho-Lopez in the 25th ward, Jeanette Taylor in the 20th and Andre Vasquez in the 40th. The fourth candidate, Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, is locked in a race in the 33rd ward that is too close to call and will await the counting of mail-in ballots, but was up by 64 votes once all precincts’ votes were counted.
They will join two other socialists who handily won the first round of elections outright in February: Carlos Rosa, an incumbent in the 35th ward, and Daniel La Spata, who defeated an incumbent in the first ward.
Add them up and you’ve got at least five, maybe six democratic socialists who will be on the 50-member Chicago city council. Few major American cities have seen even a single socialist councilor in generations; the third-largest city in the US could soon have half a dozen. It’s the largest socialist electoral victory in modern American history.
The socialists won by strong, straightforward campaigning on working-class issues. Rosa, for example, made his race a referendum on affordable housing in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, painting big real estate developers as the enemy and demanding rent control in the city.
Taylor, a longtime neighborhood and education activist on the city’s South Side, demanded the forthcoming Barack Obama presidential library in her ward include a community benefits agreement to fight displacement of working-class residents. In 2015, she participated in a 34-day hunger strike to demand the reopening of Walter H Dyett high school; her website homepage reads: “Send a Dyett hunger strike to city hall.”
And Rodriguez campaigned on a history of activism for affordable housing and immigrant rights in a gentrifying, working-class immigrant neighborhood and against privatization of public services and expansion of police power in the city.
In other words, these democratic socialists ran as unabashed fighters against corporate greed and austerity and for the city’s working class.
Political observers and organizers should take these victories as a lesson: voters found that strong leftwing message appealing – and weren’t scared off by candidates who proudly called themselves “socialists”.
Socialism is spreading throughout the US, as seen in the popularity of the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the huge bump in DSA membership, increasing more than seven times over to 60,000 in the past three years. But what sets Chicago apart from many other cities in America – and played a crucial role in last night’s socialist victories – is that the left wing of the city’s labor movement hasn’t been afraid to partner with democratic socialist candidates.
Since its 2012 strike, the Chicago Teachers Union has served as the anchor of the city’s labor left. The CTU, along with community groups and other progressive unions such as SEIU Healthcare Illinois and Indiana, formed a political organization called United Working Families (UWF) in 2015. Many union leaders, in Chicago and elsewhere, are skittish about backing openly socialist candidates.
UWF appears to be, endorsing most of the DSA’s city council candidates (and in many cases expended significant resources on them). Another progressive electoral group, Reclaim Chicago, was the principal backer of two of the victorious DSA members, Vasquez and La Spata.
That coalition of left unions and community groups will be crucial in the years to come. Last night also saw the election of the Chicago’s first black woman mayor, as well as its first lesbian mayor, Lori Lightfoot, a former prosecutor and corporate lawyer.
Lightfoot claimed to be a progressive, but her record has been scrutinized by criminal justice activists and the CTU (which backed Lightfoot’s opponent, Cook county board president Toni Preckwinkle); she drew a large donation from a murky “dark money” group that uses vague pro-austerity rhetoric as well as support from Emanuel’s personal lawyer. The city’s labor movement and left will probably find themselves joining together to fight Lightfoot in office.
Chicago’s socialist victories last night weren’t a fluke. Throughout the country, people are tired of low wages, soaring housing costs, privatization of public goods, budget cuts and corporate giveaways of public money. They have tried austerity and found it miserable.
If Chicago’s elections are any indication, maybe they’re ready to try socialism.
  • Micah Uetricht is the managing editor of Jacobin magazine. He is the author of Strike for America: Chicago Teachers Against Austerity (Verso, 2014) and a member of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America

24 June 2019

Rachel Cooke: Never Underestimate the Stupidity of a Guardian Journalist – Jewish Chronicle Letter of the Week


Open Letter to a Racist - Jon Lansman – Bahrain Picket – Tommy Robinson Video

 

Sometimes you wonder if there is a Stupidity Test that Guardian journalists have to pass before they are admitted into Kath Viner’s paradise. I mention this because in her interview with Ken Livingstone in last week’s Observer, Rachel Cooke asked ‘if some Labour activists don’t wilfully and perniciously conflate Judaism and Zionism’.  
The Guardian's Hapless Rachel Cooke
It’s the kind of remark that makes you want to tear your hair out. Where has this fool been? There has been a 3 year campaign by supporters of Israel to conflate anti-Zionism, the Israeli state and anti-Semitism. The summer of 2018 was taken up with the effort by Zionists and their media claque to impose the bogus IHRA misdefinition on the Labour Party, a ‘definition’ which conflates criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, such that 7 of its 11 examples relate to Israel not Jews. Don't words have any meaning for these people?
In an article Labour's new guidelines show it is institutionally antisemitic the Jewish Chronicle’s tabloid editor Stephen Pollard, Dirty Desmond’s old mate, complained that Labour had refused to adopt the IHRA in toto.
 ‘instead of adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies, Labour has excised the parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic.’
Leave aside that all the best anti-Semites, from Christian Zionist Steve Bannon to Viktor Orban admire Israel because Zionist ethno-nationalism is precisely what they would like to emulate, it is should be obvious that the strategy of Israel’s supporters is to perpetuate the lie that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism. This is the accepted media narrative. 

Journalist fools like Rachel Cooke seem oblivious to the increasingly overt racism in Israel - what was submerged before is now coming into the open
What is it about this that idiots like Rachel Cooke do not understand?   Rachel Cooke is however only one example of the degeneration of the Guardian/Observer (there was a time when the two papers were separate).
I sent a letter to The Observer, but unsurprisingly it was not printed, as is the case with nearly all anti-Zionist correspondence these days. I copy it below.  Please distribute because this is an example of how the Letters page of the Guardian, the last area which was free of Jonathan Freedland’s baleful influence has now fallen victim to Zionism’s gatekeepers.
Sunday, 23 June 2019
Letters Editor
The Observer
Kings Place,
90 York Way
London N1 9GU 

In an otherwise interesting interview with Ken Livingstone, Rachel Cooke asks ‘if some Labour activists don’t wilfully and perniciously conflate Judaism and Zionism.’

Ms Cooke’s question is indicative of the confusion caused by the false anti-Semitism campaign by Zionists and supporters of Israel. It is truly Orwellian.

It is not Labour activists who conflate Judaism and Zionism but the Zionist movement and its supporters.  Where has Ms Cooke been these past 3 years?

There was a concerted campaign by the Zionist lobby to get the Labour Party to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance misdefinition of anti-Semitism, which equated criticism of the State of Israel with ‘anti-Semitism’.

No less than the Chief Rabbi stated in an interview with the Telegraph (3 May 2016) that ‘One can no more separate it [Zionism]from Judaism than separate the City of London from Great Britain.’

This conflation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is the basis of the false equation between Judaism and Zionism.

I just hope that in future the Observer’s interviewers are better briefed.

Yours faithfully,

Tony Greenstein 

The Jewish Chronicle’s Letter of the Week from Maurice Herson

Perhaps the Jewish Chronicle’s tabloid editor, Stephen Pollard, has been laid low with a bug.  This week there was the first decent letter for some time in the JC from a Maurice Herson from Oxford who spoke of the ‘JC's relentless hate campaign against Jeremy Corbyn.’
 I can’t imagine where he got that one!  Certainly not from Jon Lansman!
Lansman at the Palestine session of the Arise conference yesterday - looking bored and full of contempt for those there

Open Letter to Momentum’s Racist Leader
Lansman was spotted at the Palestine session at Arise yesterday – looking bored
I blogged a few days ago about the treacherous role that Jon Lansman has played inside the Labour Party in giving aid and comfort to the false allegations of anti-Semitism against supporters of Palestine. 
His latest attack, on Jewish Voice for Labour, which is reported in this week’s Jewish Chronicle boils down to the assertion that ‘that neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said to be part of the Jewish community."
You probably didn't hear of the letter from 34 Haredi Rabbis defending Corbyn last year - that's because the mainstream media didn't cover it
Leaving aside the fact that there is no single Jewish community - the Board of Deputies represents a minority of British Jews – neither the Ultra Orthodox nor secular Jews come under their wing – the question is so what?
Lansman in the pink shirt
The organised, synagogue going, mainly Zionist Jewish community is a thoroughly reactionary one that has voted Tory for 50+ years. In so far as they support the State of Israel that is or should be a matter of shame.
This is an Israel which only last week saw dozens of residents in Afula, including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, demonstrating against the sale of a house to an Arab. This is the state which has supplied weaponry to virtually every racist and genocidal regime in the world, from South Africa to Burma to Guatemala.
It is not for nothing that Israel’s best friends include leaders such as Brazil’s Bolsonaro, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Philippines Duterte – fascist and anti-Semites all.
What the JLM call their 'sister party' the Israeli Labour Party supports Netanyahu's attempt to deport Israel's 40,000 Black African refugees
Lansman played a particularly iniquitous role in the witchhunting of Jackie Walker, deposing her, with the support of the Alliance for Workers Liberty, as Vice-Chair of Momentum. Lansman has helped the Jewish Labour Movement witch-hunt of anti-Zionists and supporters of the Palestinians despite them passing a motion of no confidence in Corbyn at their last conference.  
Signs in Nazi Germany saying 'Jews not wanted' have a familiar ring in Afula
It is difficult to know how anyone who calls themselves a socialist today can find anything progressive in the State of Israel. There was a time when I was growing up when people hadn’t heard of the Naqba.  We believed that the Arabs really had left voluntarily in order that the Arab armies could enter Israel. We believed that Kibbutzim were islands of socialism in the Middle East where equality ruled, not realising that they employed cheap Arab and Misrahi/Oriental Jewish labour and were racially exclusive Jewish only institutions.
It was only later that we learnt that the best friend of Israel was Apartheid South Africa whom it transferred nuclear technology to and invested heavily in.  That this was the position not just of the Israeli Labour Party but of Mapam, to its left, too.
During the 1980’s we learnt that even as Argentina was murdering Jews because they were Jews as part of its wider massacre of leftists Israel was Argentina’s main arms supplier.  Even worse it became clear that the refuge against anti-Semitism that Israel proudly claims to be didn’t apply to leftist Argentina Jews who were the ‘wrong sort of Jews.’
We also learnt that from El Salvador to Guatemala Israel was involved in training the death squads and active in training those in Guatemala who perpetrated the genocide of the Mayan Indians.  Just as Israel today is the arms supplier of last resort to the Burmese regime in its genocide of the Rohinga people.
This is to completely omit Israel’s repression of the Palestinians and its permanent military occupation of Palestinian land and its creation of an ethno-nationalist Jewish state which is the envy of every fascist and neo-Nazi from Steve Bannon to Viktor Orban and Tommy Robinson.  Indeed the neo-Nazi founder of the alt-Right, Richard Spencer, describes himself as a White Zionist.
The only justification that Lansman has for his demonization of Jewish anti-Zionists and JVL in particular is that the majority of the Jewish community in this country supports Israel.
If this were true that most Jews in this country supported what Israel is doing and understands what a Jewish State really means then this would be a matter of shame. It would mean that Jews in this country were now on the side of the racists and imperialists.  To some extent this is obviously true.  Most Jews vote Tory and have voted Tory for over half a century.
However there are a considerable number of Jews who reject Zionism and what Israel does.  According to the most recent and authoritative survey in 2015 The Attitudes of British Jews Towards Israel the number of Jews who identify as Zionists today is 59%, a drop of 13% in 5 years.
The fact is that Lansman identifies with the reactionary majority of British Jews because they are Jews. Such a position is clearly a racist. If the left in the Labour Party has any self-respect then Lansman will be removed from his position in Momentum.  Those who give him legitimacy are giving legitimacy to the movement to overthrow Corbyn.
Anyone one who has doubts about the sincerity of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign should ask themselves one question – if the campaign was genuine and anti-Semitism was a real problem in the Labour Party why would all the Tory press, from the Sun to the Telegraph, support it?  Why should newspapers who have employed Katie Hopkins and who now back Boris Johnson, be so concerned with anti-Semitism?
Open Letter to Lansman
Dear Mr Lansman,
I read with interest your attack on Jewish Voice for Labour in the Jewish Chronicle. Let me the first to congratulate you on your choice of target as well as your exquisite sense of timing. 
After all it makes sense for Momentum's fuhrer (or is it caudillo?) to attack a pro-Corbyn Jewish group in the Labour Party. Just as it makes sense for you to give your support to the Jewish Labour Movement which recently passed, almost unanimously, a vote of no confidence in Corbyn.
All of this as part of the 'fight against anti-Semitism' as defined by the IHRA definition of antisemitism which says that all except the most anodyne criticism of Israel is antisemitic.
If you read my blog below you will see how the residents of Afula in Israel define Zionism and a Jewish state, by demonstrating against the sale of a house to an Arab.  Some people might compare this to what happened in Germany in 1938 but we both know that such a comparison is antisemitic.
Of course the majority Jewish community in this country supports a Jewish state and therefore they support this and all the other more covert measures of segregation in Israel and it is with those that you identify.
Some people would call this racism but racists call it 'Jewish identity'.  It's all part of what is now called Generation Identity. 
Your attack on Jews who oppose Zionism and the Israeli state is akin to the attacks that used to be made on Whites who opposed Apartheid in South Africa. Presumably if you had been in South Africa you would accused them of not being part of the majority White community?
Not only are you unaccountable to anyone, having launched a coup 3 years ago to destroy democracy in Momentum but it is clear you have no shame either.
Regards
Tony Greenstein
Previous picket of Bahraini picket calling for the freeing of a gaoled academic

ALERT 25 JUNE 2019 - PROTEST BAHRAIN 'DEAL OF THE CENTURY' CONFERENCE - PALESTINE IS NOT FOR SALE!
The first phase of the plan, hatched by Israel and Trump, to end any future Palestinian freedom will be tabled this week in Bahrain, hosted by the Khalifa dictatorship and supported by fellow servile Arab dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
Inminds chair Abbas Ali said 
"The plan is to, on the one hand, try to squeeze the Palestinian people into submission, with the ongoing slow genocide in Gaza and enforced hardships in the West Bank; with the cutting of all funding to UNRWA; denying the Palestinians the right to their capital Al Quds; legitimizing the theft of the Syrian Golan Heights and giving the green light to similarly annexing the West Bank to Israel with the threat of ethnically cleaning its Palestinian population first.  And then on the other hand, to offer bribes, paid for by MBS and MBZ, to the corrupt PA leadership to accept the deal, selling Jerusalem to the Zionists, and denying the Palestinian people their homeland. The deal stinks so bad that even the normally purchasable PA has rejected it. So without even a token Palestinian presence, the conference aims to determine the future of Palestine. Please join us to condemn this farce, and those participating, and hosting it. Our message is simple - Palestine is not for sale!"

When:
3pm Tuesday 25th June 2019
Where:
Bahrain Embassy in London
30 Belgrave Square
London SW1X 8QB.
Nearest Tube: Hyde Park Corner, Victoria