The One Thing Diane Abbot Hasn’t Been Suspended For Is Anti-Semitism

Why did the Community Security Trust, which claims it is ‘working towards the elimination of racism and anti-Semitism’ invite Suella Braverman to its 2023 Annual Dinner?

Cruella and the Refugee ‘Invasion’

There is no doubt that Diane Abbot’s letter to the Observer could have been better worded. Pigmentation or colour isn’t the cause of racism though in Britain, because of our colonial heritage, being Black and being victims of racism are synonymous. By racism I mean institutionalised and state racism not prejudice. But nothing in her letter was in any way racist or anti-Semitic.

It is those who are calling for Diane’s expulsion, such as the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Chronicle who are the most virulent racists. They give unqualified support to the world’s only apartheid state, Israel.

It was only last week that the Jewish Chronicle Leader stated that ‘There is no ‘context’ to the murder of the Dees’ referring to the killing of three British settlers in the West Bank. They alleged that the settlers were killed because they were Jewish rather than because they were settlers.

The context they denied was the murder of 95 Palestinians, including 17 children, by Israel in the first quarter of this year. To say nothing of the reign of terror by settlers against Palestinians which culminated in a pogrom at Huwara and a call to ‘wipe out’ the town by Israeli Finance and Settlement Minister Bezalel Smotrich. This is because to the Jewish Chronicle and the CAA Palestinian Lives Don’t Matter.

Even the Times of Israel carried the headline ‘Settler extremists are sowing terror, Huwara riot was a ‘pogrom,’ top general says’.

Diane Abbot was wrong to say that Gypsy Roma or Travellers don’t experience state racism. They clearly do and the current Public Order Act, which gives Police further powers to harass Gypsy Roma is proof of that. It is also clear that in the past the Irish have been victims of British state racism, as have Jews in the more distant past.

Starmer and CST gaolbird Gerald Ronson

However there is nothing anti-Semitic about saying that today Jews are a privileged section of White British society and that they are not victims of racism, as opposed to prejudice. The real reason for Diane Abbot’s suspension lies in the determination of Starmer to remove the last vestiges of the Labour Left in Parliament whilst emphasising his support for the ‘anti-Semitism’ weapon which the British state wields against supporters of the Palestinians.

British Movement activists 

If Starmer were genuinely concerned about racism then Neil Coyle, a right-wing Labour MP who was suspended from Parliament for 5 days for abusing a British Chinese journalist, Henry Dyer and also abusing a parliamentary assistant to another MP, would not have had the whip restored. Nor would Trevor Philips, the racist broadcaster who believes Muslims are a nation within a nation, been reinstated to the Labour Party. Diane Abbot on the other hand has been the subject of more racist abuse than any other MP.

The organisation which is responsible for combating ‘Anti-Semitism’ is the Community Security Trust, which is  a project of Israel’s Mossad (MI6 ).

Cruella's Concern About 'Antisemitism' Stands in Contrast to Her Racist Attacks on Refugees and Indifference To the Windrush Scandal

Asa Winstanley of Electronic Intifada revealed the CST had denounced Jewish critics of Israel in secret reports to the government in 2011.’ Winstanley described how ‘evidence suggested that the CST works behind the scenes with an assertively pro-Israel agenda not stated in its charitable remit.’ The article also raised ‘serious questions over the CST’s links to the government of Israel and, allegedly, to its intelligence services.’ When asked to comment on these allegations the CST preferred to remain silent.

Gerald Ronson (left), Chair of the CST, was gaoled for one year for fraud in the Guinness trial - second left is Mark Gardner, the CST's CEO

In particular, in a report sent to the Home Office, the CST denounced several “anti-Zionist British Jewish individuals and groups” as “extreme groups,” claiming they were “unrepresentative of the vast majority of British Jews.”

The report was primarily an attempt to help the government deport Palestinian political activist Raed Salah expressed concern that certain Jews had “voiced support for Salah,” recommending that the “extent of their credibility to speak on these issues should be considered.”

David Hearst of the Guardian wrote about how

just 17 minutes after receiving a report on the activist, prepared by Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust… Faye Johnson, private secretary to the home secretary, emailed about a parliamentary event Salah was due to attend.

"Is there anything that we can do to prevent him from attending (eg could we exclude him on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour?)"

Whine's report said Salah's record of provocative statements carried a risk that his presence in the UK could have "a radicalising impact" on his audiences.

Raed Salah - Palestinian Israeli activist attacked and imprisoned by Israel on false charges of racism - it is only Israeli Arabs who are ever charged with racism

UK Border Agency officials were dubious about the CST’s evidence and they were proved right. Andy Smith of the Special Cases Directorate said the action would not only prolong Salah's stay in the UK but raise his profile. In the end the warning of Smith and others proved correct and Saleh ended up receiving compensation for false imprisonment  and overturning his deportation order. The CST ‘evidence’ consisted of doctored quotes and fabrications.

The crux of the false evidence that the CST supplied against Salah was that he wrote an anti-Semitic poem containing the line: “You Jews are criminal bombers of mosques”. As Asa Winstanley wrote

This “poem” was fabricated in the context of a long-standing Israeli campaign of attacks, detentions and disinformation against Salah. This particular forgery looks to have been originally carried out by an editorial writer at the Jerusalem Post. But this highly problematic, hostile 2009 article was cited by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) as the primary factual basis for both the exclusion and deportation orders. 

Unsurprisingly Saleh won his appeal. The real question is why an organisation whose remit is opposing anti-Semitism in Britain should feel the need to echo Israel’s racist attacks on a Palestinian Israeli citizen. The reason is the close links between the CST and Mossad, which has trained the Community Security Trust’s staff and volunteers.

In its attacks on Raed Salah, who should the CST quote in paragraph 28-30 of its submission to the First Tier Immigration Tribunal?  A racist Israeli professor who makes the British National Party seem mild by comparison.

‘When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems. That is a general rule, so if it applies everywhere it applies in Australia." and ‘Australia should cap Muslim immigration or risk being swamped by Indonesians.’

‘Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of Western countries, taking advantage of their hospitality and tolerance.’ ‘"French people say they are strangers in their own country. This is a point of no return.’

The First Tier Tribunal criticised the CST for having

'failed to distinguish between anti-Semitism and criticism of the actions of the Israeli State and therefore gives an unbalanced perspective… '

The CST declares that its mission is to

Promote good relations between British Jews and the rest of British society by working towards the elimination of racism, and antisemitism in particular.

However its decision to invite Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who takes pride in her racist vitriol against migrants and refugees, describing them as an ‘invasion’, as the guest speaker at its 2023 Annual Dinner, gives the lie to its claim to have anything to do with opposing racism. When it talks of 'antisemitism' what it really means is opposition to Zionism and Apartheid.

The CST claims that it is a continuation of the Jewish 43 and 62 Groups which physically confronted and fought a resurgent neo-Nazi and fascist movement after the war and in the 1960s. However the evidence suggests otherwise.

Paul Besser, who regularly demonstrates with former Zionist Federation Vice-Chair Jonathan Hoffman

The CST has never physically opposed fascist or neo-Nazi groups in Britain. In June 2010 it stood by whilst a Zionist demonstration outside the Israeli Embassy was joined by members of the English Defence League. It has never raised any objection to the participation in Zionist demonstrations of Zionist activists  like Jonathan Hoffman, who have worked openly with members of fascist/neo-Nazi groups like Paul Besser of Britain First.

Arrest of Morris Beckman of 43 Group

The CST is a Zionist group which works with the Police whereas the 43 and 62 groups were regularly attacked by the police. In his pamphlet on the 62 Group Steve Silver described how

It was not the two organised attempts by the police to break the spirit of the 62 Group in 1963 and again in 1969 that caused the Group’s decline. In 1963 the police used brutal violence and fit-ups; in 1969 it was a directive issued by a Deputy Commissioner to all Borough Commanders instructing them to arrest on sight a list of around 15 people. (The Fighting Sixties, p.15)

The CST doesn’t simply work hand in glove with the Board of Deputies, it came out of them and other Jewish Establishment groups. Dave Rich, the CST’s Head of Policy explained that

The Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, JACOB and others all did their bit until the disparate strands of Jewish communal defence eventually evolved into today’s CST.

Two nazi teenagers salute National Socialist Movement leaders, Colin Jordan and John Tyndall, in Trafalgar Square July 1962.

In the 1930s the Board refused to even publicly oppose fascism, stating that ‘We cannot declare ourselves against Fascism, per se’. Daniel Sonabend described in his book We Fight Fascists [pp. 7-8] how ‘there was deep resentment among the East End Jewish community towards the Board’ because of its inaction when it came to fighting the fascists.

Contrast this with its eagerness to defend the Israeli state. The height of its hypocrisy was when the BOD organised its first demonstration against ‘anti-Semitism’ in March 2018, against Jeremy Corbyn. When it came to overtly fascist and anti-Semitic groups the Board has always preferred to do nothing.

Morris Beckman, the founder of the 43 Group, described how ‘Outraged (Jewish) ex-servicemen engaged in furious dialogue’ with the BOD’s Jewish Defence Committee about the renewed activity of Sir Oswald Moseley’s fascists after the war only to be told that ‘it was no time to make waves’. [The 43 Group, pp.15-16, 1993, Centerprise Publications].

Silver described how

The activities of the 62 Group resurrected the old defence debate about the best way to fight antisemitism, with the Board of Deputies’ Jewish Defence Committee publicly frowning on the gung-ho activities of the Jewish anti-fascists. (p.12)

Braverman Explaining That Past Massacres of Refugees in Rwanda Won’t Deter Her From Sending More to the Country

Far from being an anti-racist body the CST is funded by a Tory government whose racist vitriol against refugees as a means of dividing its opponents is second to none. Braverman took the opportunity of the CST’s annual dinner to announce a ‘task force to tackle antisemitism’.

Home Office funding for the CST will also rise by £1m to £15m to provide guards for Jewish synagogues and schools. Given the lack of any threat to either, compared to the situation in the 1950s and 60s, one can only conclude that this money is intended to create fear of a threat that isn’t actually there.

Contrast this with the non-stop attacks on mosques and other Islamic groups in Britain. According to Al Jazeera,

About 42 percent of surveyed mosques or Islamic bodies in the UK have come under attack in the last three years, a new report says.’  So why you might ask is there such concern over a non-existent threat to synagogues compared to the very real threat to mosques which don’t receive government funding for  the purposes of security.

Braverman told the CST’s Annual Dinner that

“Antisemitism is one of the great evils in the world. It is vital that all people, but especially political leaders, challenge antisemitism whenever and wherever they encounter it.’

Why should a Home Secretary who described the migration of refugees across the Channel as an ‘invasion’ and who boasts that her ‘dream’ is to deport refugees to Rwanda, be so concerned about anti-Semitism? The answer is that she’s not concerned about genuine anti-Semitism but is about opposition to Zionism and the Israeli state which is characterised as anti-Semitism.

Hence why Braverman pledged to

“reaffirm the government’s support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and encourage its further adoption.

 Since the IHRA is used solely to target support for the Palestinians and opposition to Israeli Apartheid, whilst being useless in the fight against neo-Nazism, we can see how and why Braverman are so keen to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

For Cruella and the CST Fighting 'Antisemitism' and Supporting Racism Against Asylum Seekers Go Hand in Hand

This scaremongering about anti-Semitism and creating an atmosphere of fear amongst British Jews is merely another demonstration of the cynical hypocrisy of the present government.  Not forgetting of course that Starmer was also a guest at the CST dinner. In total the CST has received £122 million from the Home Office since 2015. 

When was the last time you heard Braverman talking about Islamaphobia? She and her ilk in the Conservative Party deny that such a thing even exists yet she had no compunction in criticising the Police for treating anti-Semitism as ‘racism lite’. Apparently

Abusive behaviour towards Jews tended to be “accepted” and “normalised”, she said. By contrast, such bullying would have “triggered a very firm response from law enforcement” if it was directed at other minorities.

Police must understand that Jews do count, says Braverman

Cruella finds the idea of sending refugees to a country whose regime tortures and murders refugees hilarious

On 8 December 2021 the Islamic Human Rights Commission wrote a letter to the Charity Commission calling for an investigation into the Community Security Trust because

it is clear that the CST’s raison d’etre is actually to protect the state of Israel from criticism and censure.

This is evidenced from the fact that the organisation frequently attacks and challenges those who organise or take part in campaigning for the rights of the Palestinians, invariably using the tactics of character assassination, false accusations, Islamophobia and racism.

Gerald Ronson, Chair of the CST addresses the dinner guests - in May 1990 he was gaoled for a year for theft, conspiracy and false accounting

Tony Lerman, the founder of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, who was witchhunted out of the job of Director, documented in his article Antisemitism Redefined [Haymarket Book, Jewish Voice for Peace, 2017], how in the 1990’s the Israeli state moved to take over the monitoring of statistics on anti-Semitism:

I had close personal experience of the role the Mossad played in establishing Israeli hegemony over the monitoring and combating of antisemitism. While I was director of the Institute of Jewish Affairs (IJA) and its successor, the 'Institute for Jewish Policy Research’ I founded and was principal editor of the annual Antisemitism World Report, the first objective, independent , country-by-country survey of anti semitism worldwide. The London Mossad representative dealing with antisemitism made it clear to me that they were very unhappy about our independent operation and then tried to pressure us into either ceasing publication or merging our report with one that the then new Project for the Study of Antisemitism at Tel Aviv University, headed by Professor Dina Porat and part-financed by the Mossad, was beginning to produce. [On Anti-Semitism, p.12].

What you might ask is Mossad, Israel’s equivalent of MI6 or the CIA, doing being in charge of monitoring statistics about anti-Semitism? What relationship does an intelligence service have to questions of racism unless it is engaged in Black Ops?

Colin Jordan at the BNP rally in May 1960 in Trafalgar Square

The only logical explanation for why Mossad, wanted to take over something that clearly has nothing to do with them is because the inexorable ‘rise of anti-Semitism’ has become a Zionist theme whose counterpart is that only the ‘Jewish State’ is safe for Jews. 

‘Anti-Semitism’ has become the Zionists’ principal weapon in the fight against anti-Zionism, BDS and support for the Palestinians. Indeed the logic of the current ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign is that Jews should do what the anti-Semites want – which is to leave the countries they live in.

It is this that explains the appearance from nowhere of groups like the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. The CAA arose in the middle of Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s genocidal attack on the Gaza Strip.

The CST has been given the responsibility of compiling statistics of anti-Semitism in Britain. They have been careful not to overplay their hand. That is why they reject many complaints of anti-Semitism. This has ironically meant rejecting in practice the IHRA definition because this would make it too obvious that they are engaging in statistical fraud. This is despite their support for the IHRA politically.

They have done this because they know that once their statistics match the IHRA definition, i.e. that any manifestation of anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism, their statistics would lose all credibility.

Nonetheless the CST has massaged the figures, highlighting social media anti-Semitism (which could be infinite since a single individual can post thousands of ‘anti-Semitic incidents) as well as providing an elastic and fuzzy definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism.

The CST’s figures show an inexorable statistical increase, year on year, in anti-Semitic incidents, thus feeding into the myth of increasing anti-Semitism. They depend on self-reporting and thus the perception of the ‘victim’. There is no way of judging whether the reports are true or false since the vast majority never result in prosecution or conviction. There has also been a continual and marked divergence between their statistics and those of the Police.

For further reading see

Attempts by Mossad front groups to have police target Jewish and other activists

Labour hands more power to Israel’s lobby

EI exclusive: UK charity with Mossad links secretly denounced anti-Zionist Jews to government

Manipulating Antisemitism Statistics - the CST and CAA

The Community Security Trust - Policeman of the Jewish Community

Proof that the Community Security Trust's statistics of 'anti-Semitism' are subject to Political Manipulation

CST Gets Too Big for its Boots as Jewish Critics Multiply

Zionist Community Security Trust in Dilemma over Islamaphobic Conference

The Community Security Trust cites the racist Hebrew University Professor Raphael Israeli to denounce the ‘anti-Semitism’ of Sheikh Raed Salah.

Community Security Trust Supplies False Information to Deport Sheikh Raed Salah

Israeli Professor Moshe Machover is the target of a Renewed Attempt at Expulsion by the Zionist Community Security Trust

CST Thugs Violently Eject 2 Jewish People from Zionist ‘Environmental‘Meeting

How the Zionist Community Security Trust and Theresa May Colluded at the Behest of Racists to Deport Raed Salah & Prevent Free Speech

The Community Security Trust - Policeman of the Jewish Community

above Mark Gardener with the Mail's racist columnist, Richard Littlejohn.

The CST's Well Paid Gravy Train

We have written before about the Communist Security Thugs (Trust). This is a trust whose annual income last year £6.6m and the year before was £5.7m. After doing a bit of research, we have identified 78 Jewish charities which made donations to the CST in the year 2006. 14 of them didn't specify in their accounts how much they contributed but of the 64 who do, a grand total of £529,800, i.e. less than 10% of overall income. Assuming that the other 14 charities contributed another £100,000 there is no indication in the accounts as to who their most substantive donors are. We should therefore assume that much of this money is either corporate funding and/or donations from Zionist groups directly.

The association of Gerald Ronson of Heron Group, the richest private limited company in Britain, might offer one clue and likewise the association of Stanley Kalms of Dixons/Curry's is another.

The Jewish Chronicle has previously highlighted how the CST is one of the most opaque of Jewish charities, revealing as little as possible. It has only one listed trustee, a corporate company and quite uniquely is given a dispensation by the Charity Commission from having to reveal its funding sources.

Fundraising costs at the CST rose from £561,302 to £785,636, a rise of 40% and over 10% of income. A considerable amount for any charity.

What is of more concern is the number of well paid employees. In particular the accounts reveal that 3 were paid between £60,000 and £70,000, 1 between £70,000 and £80,000, 1 between £80,000 and £90,000 and one between £120,000 and £130,000. One can assume that their main, indeed only spokesperson, Mark Gardener, is the person paid £120,000+. Never has fighting racism and anti-Semitism been so profitable!! Unfortunately most of us who spent our lives fighting fascism have not been similarly rewarded. But then CST isn’t in the business of fighting fascism or racism, its main concern is fighting anti-Zionism and labelling it anti-Semitism.

Total salaries ['governance] for 2007 were £2,063,000.

Profits in last 5 years were £1.4m, £1.1m, £1.1m, £1.4m, £1.2m.

Net Assets were nearly £9m

There is little doubt that CST’s main role, apart from fighting anti-Zionism is to act as a gravy train for Gardener and his friends. And a very lucrative gravy train it is too.

It is clear that CST have made special appeals to all Jewish charities, no doubt laying emphasis on the ‘rise’ in anti-Semitic incidents and how CST are the dyke holding back the tide of anti-Semitism. With this selling point they have been bleeding Jewish charities dry. At the same time as guilt tripping Jewish charities to give them money, the most basic social welfare facilities of the Jewish community are being left to wither on the vine as the community declines in numbers and grows older as Jewish charities face a serious lack of funds, as anyone who has had a relative stay e.g. in a Jewish old people’s home will testify. Whilst the old and poor in the Jewish community go without, the CST is living it up with millions held on 'reserve' and in the bank and whilst paying fat cat salaries to Gardener and his mates.

In short the CST is a parasite on the Jewish community, using the bogy of anti-Semitism, which they have an interest in blowing out of all proportions, as the means of levering these funds. Below are the charities that we have been able to locate which have been tricked into giving CST their money.

Charities Contributing Money to the CST

Kirschel Foundation £2,500 [Community Service Trust]
Morris Leigh Foundation [unspecified]
Acacia Trust [£5,000]
The Alliance Family Foundation [£39,000]
Arbib Foundation [£5,000]
The Ardwick Trust [unspecified]
The Baker Charitable Trust [unspecified]
The Bertie Black Foundation [unspecified]
The Sir Victor Blank Charitable Settlement [£30,000]
David Blank Donations Ltd. [unspecified]
The Neville & Elaine Blond Charitable Trust [£8,000]
The Bonamy Charitable Trust [£4,000]
The M Bourne Charitable trust [£500]
The R M Burton 1998 Charitable Settlement [£10,000]
The Carlton House Charitable Trust [£1,000]
The Carroll Marx Charitable Foundation [£4,500]
The Denise Cohen Charitable Trust [£2,000]
The John S Cohen Charitable Trust [£5,000]
The Muriel & Gershon Coren Charitable Trust [£4,000]
The Sydney & Elizabeth Corob Charitable Trust [£2,500]
The Steven & Sheila Crown Charitable Trust [unspecified]
Datnow Limited [£1,750]
The Richard Desmond Charitable Trust [£15,000]
Alan and Sheila Diamond Charitable Trust [unspecified]
The Djanogly Foundation [£2,000]
The George Elias Charitable Trust [£6,000]
The Eventhall Family Charitable Trust [unspecified]
The Exilarch’s Foundation [£1,000]
The Family Foundations Trust/The Mintz Family Foundation [unspecified]
The Gerald Fogel Charitable Trust [£2,500]
The Garrard Education Trust Ltd. [£15,000]
The Joseph & Queenie Gold Charitable Trust [£500]
The GRP Charitable Trust [£3,000]
The H & J Spack Charitable Trust [£1,500]
The J & J Charitable Trust [£10,000]
The Maurice Hatter Foundation [£17,000]
Heathside Charitable Trust [£25,000]
J I Charitable Trust [£50,000]
The Jackson’s Charitable Trust [£5,000]
Jacobs Charitable Trust [£20,000]
The Yvette & Hermione Jacobson Charitable Trust [£3,100]
Susan and Stephen James Charitable Settlement (Stephen James Ch. Trust) [£6,500]
The N B Johnson Charitable Settlement [£3,000]
The Joron Charitable Trust [£10,000]
The Ian Karten Charitable Trust [£900]
The Michael and Ilse Katz Foundation [unspecified]
The C D Korn Charitable Trust [£300]
The Lauffer Family Charitable Foundation [£3,000]
The Kennedy Leigh Charitable Trust [£30,000 over 3 years]
The Maisie & Raphael Lewis Charitable Trust [£2,500]
The Ruth & Stuart Lipton Charitable Trust [£10,500]
Jack Livingstone Charitable Trust [£5,000]
The Lowy Mitchell Foundation [unspecified]
The Sir Jack Lyons Charitable Trust [£1,000]
Malcolm Lyons Charitable Foundation [£2,000]
The M and C Trust [unspecified]
Normalyn Charitable Trust [£1,000]
The Phillips Family Charitable Trust [£5,000]
The Joseph & Lena Randall Charitable Trust [£2,500]
The Fanny Rapaport Charitable Settlement [unspecified]
The Rayden Charitable Trust [£1,250]
Reuben Brothers Foundation [£20,000]
The Rubin Foundation [£25,000]
The Michael Sacher Charitable Trust [£5,000]
Basil Samuel Charitable Trust [£40,000]
The Peter Samuel Charitable Trust [£2,000]
The Schmidt Bodner Charitable Trust [£5,000]
The Sears Foundation [£2,000]
The Solo Charitable Settlement [£14,000]
The Cyril & Betty Stein Charitable Trust [£500]
The Steinberg Family Charitable Trust [£10,000]
The Stoller Charitable Trust [£7,500]
The Tangent Charitable Trust [unspecified]
The Weinberg Foundation [£10,000]
The Weinstock Fund [£10,000]
The Weldon UK Charitable Trust [£1,000]
The Maurice Wohl Charitable Foundation [£5,000]

David Young Charitable Trust [£7,000]
TOTAL £529,800 (64 charities) + 14 unspecified

CST Harassment of Anti-Zionist Jews
Below is the experience of 2 Jewish activists, Deborah Fink & Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, of harassment by the Community Security Thugs, whose alleged remit is to prevent ‘anti-Semitic’ attacks on the Jewish community. As can be seen, their real role is to innoculate the Jewish community from anti-Zionists and non-Zionists such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Jewish Socialists Group.

I have also had some run-ins with them, notably when I was leafletting at the Independent Jewish Voices first public meeting on Monday 19th February I was targetted by 2 of their thugs for giving out leaflets inside Hampstead Town Hall and was manhandled. It would be interesting to know how anti-Zionist Jewish leaflets are ‘anti-Semitic’ even according to their loose definition.

It is clear that the Community Security Trust is hiding behind its charitable status in order to acts as the internal policing arm of the Zionist Federation in Britain. As such its activities are anything but charitable and the question of these thugs charitable status will be the subject of a complaint to the Charity Commission.

Tony Greenstein

Report of Debbie Fink

1) CST stop us leafleting outside Wigmore Hall, Sunday 2.11.03
Earlier in the year, JfJfP had met with the CST, having been stopped from giving out JfJfP leaflets at Jewish Book Week. As it seemed that the CST had not honoured their agreement not to stop us leafleting, JfJfP wrote to them on my behalf about this incident, and the CST apparently apologised, though I never saw this apology. This was the report JfJfP enclosed in their complaint.

‘Today at 3.45pm, outside the Wigmore Hall, an older female friend and myself started to give out leaflets containing events and information, which we thought would be of interest and concern to people attending the co-existence concert. A man from the CST asked to see the leaflet and then ordered us to stop giving them out on the grounds that it was on a sensitive issue. We offered to move further down the road, but this was not accepted. Although he claimed to be non political, his objection was purely political and indicated a position not actually shared by the promoters of the concert, the New Israel Fund. Considering that the job of the CST is to protect internal security, I do not see how our leafleting on a public highway, was any of his business - he is not policeman. As it was, leaflets were accepted graciously by the audience, some of whom came back for more.

We nevertheless, moved further up the street, only to later be photographed against our will, by another member of the CST, who refused to give me his name. I consider this to be an infringement of our privacy and unlawful. It is in my rights to be informed as to what purposes he intends to use these photos.’

We never did find out what they did with the photos, but it might explain why I have had more trouble with them since then.....

2) CST tell me not to give out leaflets Thurs. 14th June 2007 – ‘Any Jewish Questions’, London Jewish Cultural Centre, Ivy House, Golders Green

I went to a panel discussion where one of the questions was on the academic boycott of Israel. There were anti-boycott leaflets on the seats. After the meeting, a CST member saw me give one of the panel, Anthony Julius, a ‘Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods’ (J-BIG) leaflet and told me I could not leaflet in there. I said that I was not leafleting as such, to which he replied that he saw me give out leaflets. All I had done, was given a couple of interested people, and then an opponent (Julius), my J-BIG leaflets, after the meeting. It was irrelevant to him that there were anti-boycott leaflets on the seats. Again I pointed out that this was political censorship and that they did not own the building or run the event. The CST then asked me to leave which I refused- I was doing nothing wrong –so they then demanded to search my bag, even though the event was over. I have witnesses to this.

(3) CST bar activists from Liberal Judaism meeting on Gaza
Monday 12th January 2009 - Indian YMCA

Naomi Wimbourne-Idrissi, a calm and unthreatening woman of 56 and I, were hoping to attend a meeting on Gaza here, organised by Liberal Judaism.

We arrived shortly after the meeting began, having not been given clear details about the location of the venue which had been changed from the Montagu Centre. We were genuinely interested in listening and possibly asking some questions and had no intention of being disruptive. Why would we be? I knew one of the panellists and knew it would be a balanced discussion.

Since we had previously been at a vigil in Parliament Square, Naomi was carrying the Jews for Boycotting Israeli goods (J-BIG) banner and poles in her bags. While waiting for me, she approached the CST men in a friendly fashion, saying she would like to park the poles somewhere before going into the hall as she did not want them with her at the meeting. They asked how she’d heard of the meeting and she said she'd read about it on Rabbi Rich's website. They asked if her name was on the list and she said she understood her friend's name plus one had been put on it in advance by a rabbi friend of mine. While she waited for me, they said they would have to search her bag and she drew their attention at once to the banner, which she said she would also like to leave outside with the poles. They immediately said "You can't go in". She explained again that she wanted to leave the banner and poles outside and didn't see that they had the right to stop her attending an important discussion, but they were adamant that they had decided and that was it.

When I arrived, I told them that my name had been put on the list, which was then confirmed, but the CST continued to deny us entry and threatened us with the police. I pointed out to them, that they don't own the building, it was not their meeting and they aren't police, so what right did they have to order us not to go in? They even blocked the stairway so I could not go down! Naomi then went to ask the building reception staff if they could provide a place to leave the banner and poles. They said that as long as she was allowed into the meeting they could put them in a locked store room for her.

But this made no difference to the CST men who were now saying that the banner was not the issue – I could not go in! So first it was the banner, then it was my attendance that was the issue! They sneered when they said my name and talked to me in a condescending manner and so had obviously heard of me. Indeed, they might have records on me.

A police officer then arrived and a colleague of Rabbi Rich's came out. Alarmed by the fracas she decided to uphold the CST decision, which was unfortunate given that it would not have occurred without their determination from the start to bar us as soon as they worked out that we were activists.

It turns out that the CST had lied to the police officer, (and no doubt to the organisers), telling him that we intended to unfurl the banner inside the hall (although they had no idea what kind of banner it was, and despite Naomi’s desire to leave it outside). Apparently they told him that they had had dealings with me before.

CST's Mark Gardner, talks to UJS -

On Wednesday 3rd February 2009, I gate-crashed a talk given to the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) at Hillel House by Mark Gardner, the smooth talking, seemingly friendly, Head of Communications of the Community Security Trust (CST). It was part of their ‘Campus campaign training’ programme for ‘Campus activists’ entitled Debating, Analysing arguments and subtitled, ‘Creating a strong argument and ripping your opponent to shreds’.

Gardner introduced himself as the CST’s only spokesperson and an expert on anti-Semitism, claiming that the CST represented the Jewish community.....He said that they worked with the UJS in direct confrontation with the ‘enemies of our community’, whoever they are.....

I would say that the talk did not really live up to how it had been described, other than the aggressive element – we were encouraged to be physically violent towards Fascists, (not pro-israel ones, I suspect!). Much of it was vague, shallow waffle, full of contradictions and little substance, but the gist of it seemed to me to be, how to lie to the media.

He said that the purpose of propaganda is not to persuade the enemy he is wrong, but to destroy him. However, he did not advocate this, but said that one deflects whatever your enemy is chucking at you. "It is not about being right but showing that your opponent is wrong". (But suppose our opponent is right? Not that the truth came into it, apart from when talking about the Holocaust...). "Sometimes it’s easier to shoot down your opponent" he said, pointing out that "It’s a lot easier to kick your opponent when he’s down rather then when he’s waving a banner in your face". (They don’t like banners, do they!)

Gardner kept stating that we must "tell our story" while never actually saying what ‘our story’ is. He said that the object was to win rather than present both sides and that it may not be in our interests to present a balanced opinion. (Funny then, how the organised Jewish community are always criticising the media for a lack of balance! )

He then seemed to encourage us to agree with our opponents as a tactic - and I think this was what he was later doing with me.

The next piece of advice was to be aware of the audience. He asked who the audience of the UJS is and what the goals were. UJS, he said, represents the Jewish students....Some may beg to differ....

He talked about putting pressure on public opinion and here, he made some more revealing comments. He asked what we do not have to do. "We are not", he said, "obliged to answer the questions, and should use questions which tell ‘our story’"...Yes, that again......

He went onto discuss the issue of the behaviour of the spokesperson. People are not going to believe him if he is evasive, shifty and a liar.. Gardner joked that the CST employs him as people believe a Scottish accent and that spokesmen should appear rational and reasonable...(Like him, I presume.....).

Now, I thought, that if one is telling the truth, one is unlikely to appear shifty or dishonest....Likewise, one would surely not have a problem answering all the questions or presenting a balanced report.... But then came a contradiction. Gardner said there are no right or wrong answers, but then admitted that there were when it comes to the Holocaust.....(Could this mean that there are no right or wrong answers about Israel? That would be convenient!)

Next, Gardner reported the increase in anti-semitic attacks since the Gaza onslaught and asked how we might respond if the media rang us. So far, I had been sitting quietly at the back but was now wondering if I should use this as an opportunity to introduce Jewish students to another perspective. Gardner actually asked,"How about someone from the back?" so I answered that yes, it is bad that there have been attacks but that it is not surprising given that Israel claims to speak for all Jews. Gardner wrote my point down but I don’t think he really wanted to go into it too deeply.

After getting other responses he asked, what do we mean by an anti-Semitic incident, (though he never answered that); is Israel to blame and how should Jewish students react? He suggested that we "focus on anti-Semitic impact rather than the intent" and answered his second question with,"It's not Israel's [fault], it's the fault of anti-Semites. It's the fault of the sort of people who can't distinguish between Jew and Israel." And who’s fault is that? Apologists for Israel often conflate Zionism with Judaism and even conflate Israeli with Jew, as in ‘when they say boycott Israeli goods, they mean Jewish goods’....But now Gardner was voicing the same complaint that Jewish critics of Israel do!

I jumped in saying that Israel is not to blame, but it does not help and I recounted how Olmert and Sharon claimed that they were doing this for all Jews. I then added that the Board of Deputies claimed that the Jewish community supported the attacks on Lebanon and Gaza. In their defence, Gardner said their rally "was a call for Peace and for an end to conflict, unlike all the other demonstrations which called for Hamas to win." I disagreed and said, "I was there"....This caught him by surprise. So far, he had tolerated my views and said they were different to what people were used to in here but that it was good that I voiced them. Now, I seemed to be part of the enemy camp. He had lost his friendly, calm manner and was now on the defensive. "But Galloway likened Gaza to the Warsaw ghetto", as if that had anything to do with his previous point. "Well, so have I". He called it morally and historically bankrupt and replied saying, "You’re in the wrong building".....Hang on, didn’t he say that the UJS represents Jewish students? Not ones with my opinion, it seems, but then we always knew that.....I replied, "But I’m Jewish!" I then explained that there had been a 2 year siege before the onslaught.

As I didn’t think I’d get the chance to ask another question and their pizzas would get cold (!), I decided to do one of the things I’d set out to do: expose the CST and while I was at it, the UJS. I asked if the UJS represented Jews critical of Israel, then went into a rant about how the CST don’t protect all Jews and how they stopped myself and a friend going to a meeting. I pointed out how Gardner told the ‘independent on Sunday’ that the CST don’t keep records of attacks within the Jewish community. He denied this, even though it is on the Independent web site, and said there are no records...! Yet the ‘Independent on Sunday’ actually listed a few such attacks.

At some point, Gardner advised us to be careful about accusing people of being anti-Semitic as it can end up in libel cases or the accuser losing his credibility. He said we can make the point without using that term. "I would really urge you both for moral reasons and practical reasons - do not use this word [antisemitism]" Wow! here is someone who seems to have made a career out of recording ‘anti-Semitic’ (by his definition) incidents, who was now telling us not to use that word! Well, we all know how it has lost its meaning, thanks to apologists for Israel....

After the meeting, I challenged Gardner, without initially, revealing my identity. He said he knew nothing about the incident whereby a couple of activists were stopped from leafleting outside Wigmore Hall. Funny, as not only had I written to the CST about this very recently, JfJfP had actually complained to them about it at the time. I then described how two activists had been stopped from going to a meeting. Before realising who I was, Gardner told me I’d got it wrong. Then I got the same nonsense that he, (yes, it was him) sent me in his anonymous emails, about it being because of my behaviour that they did not let me in and that they might have indeed let Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi in after all had it not been for me! He said that they were not discriminating against us for our views as they had people in there with all sorts of views....But then he said that when they caught sight of her banner with the words ‘Israel’ and ‘End the’ (not that these words are on the J-BIG banner!) they thought she might be a trouble-maker! (She really looks like one....not!). Hang on, he had just said that there were all sorts of views represented at the meeting, and, not forgetting that Naomi had been given permission to leave the banner outside!

I also pointed out how the CST did not protect the Jewish protestor who had disrupted the Chief Rabbi’s speech at the rally, and did nothing about the man who had thrown ice at him. His response was to say "The police were there". Not really the point. It did not stop them pulling the protester out of the fountain. Couldn’t the police have done that?

Our discussion ended with him pointing out his objection to Nazi comparisons. Yet, when I said israel had used phosphorous bombs, he said he didn’t know about that and is not interested in what Israel does...More contradictions....