Google+ Followers

Thursday, 5 May 2016

Who is Driving the ‘anti-Semitism Witch Hunt in the Labour Party?

The Jewish Labour Movement – British Branch of the Racist Israeli Labor PARTY
The Jewish Labour movement, led by serial liar Jeremy Newmark, is the British branch of the Israeli Labour Party.  The ILP has a racist track record second to none.  They were the government of Israel for the first 30 years.  In that time Israel’s Palestinian population spent the first 18 years under military rule.  All the institutions of apartheid, such as Jewish National Fund, were integrated into Israeli society as para state organisations in that period. 
Isaac Herzog - Racist leader of Israeli Labour Party
The Nakba, the expulsion of ¾ million Arabs in 1947/8, the massacre of thousands and the confiscation of most Arab land was carried out by Labour terror militias primarily – Hagannah and Palmach (shock troops) in particular.

The left Zionist  Mapam (now Meretz) party was no better.  The infamous massacre at Dawayima was carried out by these ‘Marxist’ Zionists:  “Their socialism did not extend to their non-Jewish fellow men.” Wrote David Hirst in his book ‘The Gun and the Olive Branch’ (p.25)
Jeremy Newmark - racist liar
In November 1948, Eliezer Peri, the editor of Mapam’s newspaper Al Hamishmar, received a letter describing a massacre at al-Dawayima.  Benny Morris estimates that there were ‘hundreds’ of dead. [Survival of the Fittest, Ha'aretz 8.1.04. see also Welcome To al-Dawayima, District of Hebron]  Agriculture Minister, Aharon Cisling referred to a letter he had received about the atrocities from Eliezer Kaplan declaring: ‘I couldn’t sleep all night . . . This is something that determines the character of the nation . . . Jews too have committed Nazi acts.’ [The Birth of the Palestine Refugee Problem Revisited, p.488., Benny Morris, Cambridge University Press, 2004]  Cisling agreed that publicIy Israel must admit nothing; but the matter must be thoroughly investigated.  ‘The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks.  There was not a house without dead’, wrote Kaplan, the Jewish Agency [JA] Treasurer and later Minister of Finance [Morris, p.470]
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Fraser v University College Union re Newmark
The Political Committee was briefed on 11 November 1948 by the recently ousted Chief of Staff of the Haganah, Yisrael Galili, about the killing of civilians during Operations Yoav and Hiram. Aharon Cohen led a call for an independent inquiry. [Falsifying the Record: A Fresh Look at Zionist Documentation of 1948, Benny Morris Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3. (Spring, 1995), pp. 44-62]. The problem was that the commanders of these operations were senior Mapam members, Yitzhak Sadeh and Moshe Carmel.  Ben-Gurion however was opposed to any investigations of atrocities committed by the Israeli military. 

There is nothing that Likud has done that Labour didn’t do before them, nor have they changed.  Israeli Labour’s election campaigns have focussed on scaring Jewish voters that Netanyahu’s policies, of not allowing even the tiniest little Palestinian Bantustan will result in Israel becoming an Arab state (god forbid). 

Last week Isaac Herzog, Labour’s leader said that the ILP mustn’t be identified as an ‘Arab lovers’ party.  The term ‘Arab lover’ is a racist taunt flung by the Right.  Herzog is saying that he doesn’t want the ILP to be considered in such terms.  In Britain during the fight against fascist from the National Front and British National Party we were accused of being ‘nigger lovers’ and a previous generation were ‘Jew lovers’. 

The irony today is that the racists of the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel are driving the witch  hunt of Black and Asian members of the Party in particular.  Anyone who stands out against Zionism and Israeli Apartheid is liable for the chop.

It is a myth that the ILP bears any resemblance even to the pale pink European social democratic parties.  As Zeev Sternhell shows in his book The Founding Myths of Israel, the ILP or Mapai as it was, was always an anti-socialist party.  Mapai was formed in 1930 as a result of the merger of Hapoel Hatzair, an avowedly anti-socialist party whose creed was the  labour of the land and Poalei Zion, under David Ben-Gurion.  Although nominally socialist, it had in fact junked socialism years ago when it committed itself to Jewish Labour i.e. a boycott of Arab labour.  It levied a special sum from all of its members in order that a campaign was waged to picket out Arab labourers from Jewish employers.  The ‘union’ Histadrut which the Labour Zionist parties formed in 1920, saw class struggle in national terms.  In other words it was the Arabs, not Jewish employers, who were the class enemy.  Hence Histadrut was a Jewish only ‘union’.

Today the ILP is a shadow of its former self.  Apart from 2 governments, under Rabin and Barak and a shared administration of Peres and Shamir, the ILP has been out of power for 40 years.  Whereas in 1949 and subsequent elections, the Labour Zionist parties secured a majority of seats in the Knesset today they can muster less than a quarter.

But though diminished in size, their racism is stronger than ever.

Tony Greenstein

Opposition leader tells party activists that Yair Lapid is taking Labor's votes in opinion polls and Labor must prove they can change the status quo without abandoning security.

Opposition head MK Isaac Herzog said Tuesday in Ashkelon that in order to attract more voters there is a need to shake the feeling that Labor Party members are “Arab-lovers.

Herzog, the Labor Party chairman, was speaking at a toast for party activists in Ashkelon, where he discussed the changes in Israeli society and the need for the party to change in order to attract voters.

“It’s true – Lapid is taking votes from us today in the opinion polls,” Herzog said, referring to Yesh Atid chairman MK Yair Lapid. “Among other things, he is moving to the right of us in the national consciousness and that requires a discussion of what that says. After all, we won’t be right-wing, but what does it say? Where do we enter the hearts of the public, so they’ll believe that we have not only experience but the ability to change the situation in the country without abandoning security?”

Herzog said he finds a feeling “in endless encounters with the Israeli public that we are always Arab lovers. It’s complicated, but that’s part of the issue, that’s part of the challenge. We are a party that always knew how to be a ruling party.”

Herzog said one of the reasons that he had “put out feelers to see if it was possible to link Israel’s two large national movements into a political turnover” stemmed from the need for “a large Israeli center.” Herzog said that in his opinion the gap between him and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon is relatively small.

Herzog verbally attacked members of his party, saying that they do not appreciate the achievement of the party under his leadership in the last elections. “Since 1992 we haven’t had such great political power, 24 Knesset seats are a lot…So what do we get? Whining. Whining in the party and in the movement and MKs who hand us out grades all day long. Instead of saying ‘look what wonderful work our faction is doing’…”

As for the criminal investigation against him, Herzog said: “These are not easy days. I am completely calm. And I know that I have to go through this like any other citizen.” Herzog added, however, that the difference between him and an ordinary citizen is “that a citizen doesn’t get headlines, and when I go through it, it serves all kinds of factors and interests.”

Herzog leveled veiled criticism at Zionist Union members saying: “That is why a party should stand behind the leader, without blinking."

Herzog’s bureau responded: “We are not afraid to deal with problems that we discover about the public’s attitude toward the Labor Party and Zionist Union. One of the problems is the mistaken and dangerous feeling that they are trying to label us with that we take the needs of the Palestinians into consideration before those of the State of Israel and its citizens. This is clearly a mistaken feeling, but it increases in magnitude among groups that did not know us in the last elections and it’s important for us to reach them in the process of a deep and broad campaign that we are doing with our ‘expanding circles’ plan, the length and breadth of the State of Israel and the communities that live here.” 

Wednesday, 4 May 2016

EXCLUSIVE Naz Shah’s Map – Where did it come from?

Naz Shah MP for Bradford West has been publicly disgraced and humiliated.  She was forced to make a grovelling apology for her terrible anti-Semitism.  She is expected as Norman Finkelstein says below, to combat the ‘inner anti-Semitism’ in her because of a map that she displayed on her website/facebook page.

The subtext of her apology was that she had to promise never, ever again to upset the Israel lobby.
I have just one question.  Where did that map of the United States with Israel in it come from?  Assuredly some fascist site, perhaps the British National Party?  No they are pro-Israel.  How about Hungary’s Jobbik?  No they are too stupid. 

Ah yes, I’ve found it at last.  The site?  The Jewish Virtual Library, a recognised site for anyone wanting to know anything about Jewish people, Judaism etc.  A site which is part of the American-Israeli Cooperative Institute.  How anti-Semitic of them!

Norman G. Finkelstein talks Naz Shah MP, Ken Livingstone, and the Labour ‘antisemitism’ controversy.
Norman Finkelstein, (image: Youtube)
Norman Finkelstein is no stranger to controversy. The American Jewish scholar is one of the world’s leading experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the political legacy of the Nazi holocaust. Apart from his parents, every member of Finkelstein’s family, on both sides, was exterminated in the Nazi holocaust. His 2000 book The Holocaust Industry, which was serialised in the Guardian, became an international best-seller and touched off a firestorm of debate. But Finkelstein’s most recent political intervention came about by accident.

Last month, Naz Shah MP became one of the most high-profile cases to date in the ‘antisemitism’ scandal still shaking the Labour leadership. Shah was suspended from the Labour party for, among other things, reposting an image on Facebook that was alleged to be antisemitic. The image depicted a map of the United States with Israel superimposed, and suggested resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict by relocating Israel into the United States. It has been reported that Shah got the image from Finkelstein’s website. I spoke with Finkelstein about why he posted the image, and what he thinks of allegations that the Labour party has a ‘Jewish problem’.

Did you create the controversial image that Naz Shah reposted?

I’m not adept enough with computers to compose any image. But I did post the map on my website in 2014. An email correspondent must have sent it. It was, and still is, funny. Were it not for the current political context, nobody would have noticed Shah’s reposting of it either. Otherwise, you’d have to be humourless. These sorts of jokes are a commonplace in the U.S. So, we have this joke: Why doesn’t Israel become the 51st state? Answer: Because then, it would only have two senators. As crazy as the discourse on Israel is in America, at least we still have a sense of humour. It’s inconceivable that any politician in the U.S. would be crucified for posting such a map. 
Shah’s posting of that image has been presented as an endorsement by her of a ‘chilling “transportation” policy’, while John Mann MP has compared her to Eichmann.

Frankly, I find that obscene. It’s doubtful these Holocaust-mongers have a clue what the deportations were, or of the horrors that attended them. I remember my late mother describing her deportation. She was in the Warsaw Ghetto. The survivors of the Ghetto Uprising, about 30,000 Jews, were deported to Maijdanek concentration camp. They were herded into railroad cars. My mother was sitting in the railroad car next to a woman who had her child. And the woman – I know it will shock you – the woman suffocated her infant child to death in front of my mother. She suffocated her child, rather than take her to where they were going. That’s what it meant to be deported. To compare that to someone posting a light-hearted, innocuous cartoon making a little joke about how Israel is in thrall to the U.S., or vice versa…it’s sick. What are they doing? Don’t they have any respect for the dead? All these desiccated Labour apparatchiks, dragging the Nazi holocaust through the mud for the sake of their petty jostling for power and position. Have they no shame?

What about when people use Nazi analogies to criticise the policies of the State of Israel? Isn’t that also a political abuse of the Nazi holocaust?

It’s not a simple question. First, if you’re Jewish, the instinctive analogy to reach for, when it comes to hate or hunger, war or genocide, is the Nazi holocaust, because we see it as the ultimate horror. In my home growing up, whenever an incident involving racial discrimination or bigotry was in the news, my mother would compare it to her experience before or during the Nazi holocaust.

My mother had been enrolled in the Mathematics faculty of Warsaw University, I guess in 1937-38. Jews were forced to stand in a segregated section of the lecture hall, and the antisemites would physically attack them. (You might recall the scene in Julia, when Vanessa Redgrave loses her leg trying to defend Jews under assault in the university.) I remember once asking my mother, ‘How did you do in your studies?’ She replied, ‘What are you talking about? How could you study under those conditions?’. 

When she saw the segregation of African-Americans, whether at a lunch counter or in the school system, that was, for her, like the prologue to the Nazi holocaust. Whereas many Jews now say, Never compare (Elie Wiesel’s refrain, ‘It’s bad, but it’s not The Holocaust’), my mother’s credo was, Always compare. She gladly and generously made the imaginative leap to those who were suffering, wrapping and shielding them in the embrace of her own suffering.

For my mother, the Nazi holocaust was a chapter in the long history of the horror of war. It was not itself a war – she was emphatic that it was an extermination, not a war – but it was a unique chapter within the war. So for her, war was the ultimate horror. When she saw Vietnamese being bombed during the Vietnam War, it was the Nazi holocaust. It was the bombing, the death, the horror, the terror, that she herself had passed through. When she saw the distended bellies of starving children in Biafra, it was also the Nazi holocaust, because she remembered her own pangs of hunger in the Warsaw Ghetto.

If you’re Jewish, it’s just normal that the Nazi holocaust is a ubiquitous, instinctual touchstone. Some Jews say this or that horror is not the Nazi holocaust, others say it is. But the reference point of the Nazi holocaust is a constant.

What about when people who aren’t Jewish invoke the analogy?

Once the Nazi holocaust became the cultural referent, then, if you wanted to touch a nerve regarding Palestinian suffering, you had to make the analogy with the Nazis, because that was the only thing that resonated for Jews. If you compared the Palestinians to Native Americans, nobody would give a darn. In 1982, when I and a handful of other Jews took to the streets of New York to protest Israel’s invasion of Lebanon (up to 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were killed, overwhelmingly civilians), I held a sign saying, ‘This son of survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Auschwitz, Maijdenek will not be silent: Israeli Nazis – Stop the Holocaust in Lebanon!’. (After my mother died, I found a picture of me holding that sign in a drawer among her keepsakes). I remember, as the cars drove past, one of the guys protesting with me kept saying, ‘hold the sign higher!’ (And I kept replying, ‘easy for you to say!’).

If you invoked that analogy, it shook Jews, it jolted them enough, that at least you got their attention. I don’t think it’s necessary anymore, because Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians now have an integrity of their own. They no longer have to be juxtaposed to, or against, the Nazi holocaust. Today, the Nazi analogy is gratuitous and a distraction.
Is it antisemitic?

No, it’s just a weak historical analogy – but, if coming from a Jew, a generous moral one.

Last week, Ken Livingstone took to the airwaves to defend Naz Shah, but what he said wound up getting him suspended from the Labour party. His most incendiary remark contended that Hitler at one point supported Zionism. This was condemned as antisemitic, and Labour MP John Mann accused Livingstone of being a ‘Nazi apologist’. What do you make of these accusations?

Livingstone maybe wasn’t precise enough, and lacked nuance. But he does know something about that dark chapter in history. It has been speculated that Hitler’s thinking on how to solve the ‘Jewish Question’ (as it was called back then) evolved, as circumstances changed and new possibilities opened up. Hitler wasn’t wholly hostile to the Zionist project at the outset. That’s why so many German Jews managed to survive after Hitler came to power by emigrating to Palestine. But, then, Hitler came to fear that a Jewish state might strengthen the hand of ‘international Jewry’, so he suspended contact with the Zionists. Later, Hitler perhaps contemplated a ‘territorial solution’ for the Jews. The Nazis considered many ‘resettlement’ schemes – the Jews wouldn’t have physically survived most of them in the long run – before they embarked on an outright exterminatory process. Livingstone is more or less accurate about this – or, as accurate as might be expected from a politician speaking off the cuff.

He’s also accurate that a degree of ideological affinity existed between the Nazis and Zionists. On one critical question, which raged in the U.K. during the period when the Balfour Declaration (1917) was being cobbled together, antisemites and Zionists agreed: could a Jew be an Englishman? Ironically, in light of the current hysteria in the UK, the most vociferous and vehement opponents of the Balfour Declaration were not the Arabs, about whom almost nobody gave a darn, but the upper reaches of British Jewry.

Eminent British Jews published open letters to newspapers like the Times opposing British backing for a Jewish home in Palestine. They understood such a declaration – and Zionism – as implying that a Jew belonged to a distinct nation, and that the Jewish nation should have its own separate state, which they feared would effectively disqualify Jews from bona fide membership in the British nation. What distinguished the Zionists from the liberal Jewish aristocracy was their point of departure: as Theodor Herzl put it at the beginning of The Jewish State, ‘the Jewish question is no more a social than a religious one . . . It is a national question’. Whereas the Anglo-Jewish aristocracy insisted Judaism was merely a religion, the Zionists were emphatic that the Jews constituted a nation. And on this – back then, salient – point, the Zionists and Nazis agreed.

John Mann, when he accosted Livingstone in front of the cameras, asked rhetorically whether Livingstone had read Mein Kampf. If you do read Mein Kampf, which I suspect none of the interlocutors in this debate has done (I used to teach it, before the ‘Zionists’ drove me out of academia – joke!), you see that Hitler is emphatic that Jews are not a religion, but a nation. He says that the big Jewish lie is that they claim to be a religion; whereas in fact, he says, they’re a race (at that time, ‘race’ was used interchangeably with ‘nation’). And on page 56 of the standard English edition of Mein Kampf, he says that the only Jews honest enough to acknowledge this reality are the Zionists. Now, to be clear, Hitler didn’t just think that Jews were a distinct race. He also thought that they were a Satanic race, and ultimately, that they were a Satanic race that had to be exterminated. Still, on the first, not trivial, premise, he and the Zionists were in agreement.

As a practical matter, the Zionists and Nazis could therefore find a degree of common ground around the emigration/expulsion of Jews to Palestine. It was a paradox that, against the emphatic protestations of liberal Jews, including sections of the Anglo-Jewish establishment, antisemites and Zionists back then effectively shared the same slogan: Jews to Palestine. It was why, for example, the Nazis forbade German Jews to raise the swastika flag, but expressly permitted them to hoist the Zionist flag. It was as if to say, the Zionists are right: Jews can’t be Germans, they belong in Palestine. Hannah Arendt wrote scathingly about this in Eichmann in Jerusalem, which is one of the reasons she caught hell from the Jewish/Zionist establishment.

Even if there was a factual basis for Livingstone’s remarks, to bring the issue up at that moment – wasn’t he just baiting Jews?

I can understand his motivation, because I’m of roughly his generation. If he was ‘baiting’, it was a reflexive throwback to the factional polemics in the 1970s-80s. Israel marketed Zionists as the only Jews who had resisted the Nazis. The propaganda image projected back then was, the only resistance to the Nazis came from the Zionists, and the natural corollary was, the only force protecting Jews now is Israel. Every other Jew was either a coward, ‘going like sheep to slaughter’, or a collaborator. Those who dissented from Israeli policy back then, in order to undercut this Zionist propaganda, and to strike a nerve with them, would recall this unsavoury chapter in Zionism’s history. Some pamphlets and books appeared – such as Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (1983) – to document this ‘perfidious Zionist-Nazi collaboration’. Livingstone’s recent comments were born of the same reflex that motivated us back then. These certifiable creeps who went after Naz Shah got under his skin, and so he wanted to get under their skin. That’s how we used to fight this political battle: by dredging up those sordid chapters in Zionist history.

Livingstone based himself on Brenner’s book. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that perhaps Brenner’s book contains factual errors, it’s more of a party pamphlet than a scholarly tome, and it’s not exactly weighed down with copious documentation. Still, the fact of the matter is, when Brenner’s book was published, it garnered positive reviews in the respectable British press. The Times, which is today leading the charge against Livingstone and the elected Labour leadership, back then published a review praising Brenner’s book as ‘crisp and carefully documented’. The reviewer, the eminent editorialist Edward Mortimer, observed that ‘Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler’s’. So, it’s a tribute to Ken Livingstone that at age 70 he remembered a book he read more than 30 years ago, that got a good review in the Times when it first appeared. If the Times is upset at Livingstone’s remarks, it has only itself to blame. I myself only read Brenner’s book after the Times review. 

Let’s zoom out a bit. You’ve written a great deal about how antisemitism accusations have been used to discredit and distract from criticism of Israel. Should we see the current campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Left more generally as the latest episode in that history?

These campaigns occur at regular intervals, correlating with Israel’s periodic massacres and consequent political isolation. If you search your nearest library catalogue for ‘new antisemitism’, you’ll come up with titles from the 1970s proclaiming a ‘new antisemitism’, titles from the 1980s proclaiming a ‘new antisemitism’, titles from the 1990s proclaiming a ‘new antisemitism’, and then a huge uptick, including from British writers, during the so-called Second Intifada from 2001. Let’s not forget, just last year there was a hysteria in the UK over antisemitism. A couple of ridiculous polls purported to find that nearly half of Britons held an antisemitic belief and that most British Jews feared for their future in the UK. Although these polls were dismissed by specialists, they triggered the usual media feeding frenzy, as the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent hyperventilated about this ‘rampant’ ‘new antisemitism’. It was exposed as complete nonsense when, in April 2015, a reputable poll by Pew found that the level of antisemitism in the UK had remained stable, at an underwhelming seven percent.

This farce happened only last year. One would have imagined that its mongers would be hiding in shame, and that we would enjoy at least a brief respite from the theatrics. But lo and behold, in the blink of an eye, right in the wake of the Pew poll showing that antisemitism in the UK is marginal, the hysteria has started up all over again. The reality is, there is probably more prejudice in the UK against fat people than there is prejudice against Jews.

Ask yourself a simple, but serious, question. You go for a job interview. Which trait is most likely to work against you: if you’re ugly, if you’re fat, if you’re short, or if you’re Jewish? It’s perhaps a sad commentary on our society’s values, but the trait most likely to elicit a rejection letter is if you’re ugly. Then fat; then short. The factor least likely to work against you is, if you’re Jewish. On the contrary, aren’t Jews smart and ambitious? Pew found antisemitism levels at seven percent. Is that grounds for a national hysteria? A May 2015 YouGov poll found that 40 percent of UK adults don’t like Muslims and nearly 60 percent don’t like Roma. Imagine what it’s like to apply for a job if you’re a Roma! So where is your order of moral priorities?

Many of those involved in last year’s ‘antisemitism’ hysterics are also participants in the current campaign against Corbyn. 

The question you have to ask yourself is, why? Why has this issue been resurrected with a vengeance, so soon after its previous outing was disposed of as a farce? Is it because of a handful of allegedly antisemitic social media postings from Labour members? Is it because of the tongue-in-cheek map posted by Naz Shah? That’s not believable. The only plausible answer is, it’s political. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual situation; instead, a few suspect cases of antisemitism – some real, some contrived – are being exploited for an ulterior political motive. As one senior Labour MP said the other day, it’s transparently a smear campaign.

The ‘antisemitism’ accusations are being driven by the Conservatives ahead of the local and Mayoral elections. But they’re also being exploited by the Labour Right to undermine Corbyn’s leadership, and by pro-Israel groups to discredit the Palestine solidarity movement. 

You can see this overlap between the Labour Right and pro-Israel groups personified in individuals like Jonathan Freedland, a Blairite hack who also regularly plays the antisemitism card. He’s combined these two hobbies to attack Corbyn. Incidentally, when my book, The Holocaust Industry, came out in 2000, Freedland compared it to Mein Kampf. Although he appears to be, oh, so politically correct now, he didn’t find it inappropriate to compare a book by the son of Nazi holocaust survivors to Mein Kampf. We appeared on a television program together. Before the program, he approached me to shake my hand. When I refused, he reacted in stunned silence. Why wouldn’t I shake his hand? He couldn’t comprehend it. It tells you something about these dull-witted creeps. The smears, the slanders – for them, it’s all in a day’s work. Why should anyone get agitated? Later, on the program, it was pointed out that the Guardian, where he worked, had serialised The Holocaust Industry across two issues. He was asked by the presenter, if my book was the equivalent of Mein Kampf, would he resign from the paper? Of course not. Didn’t the presenter get that it’s all a game?
Compare the American scene. Our Corbyn is Bernie Sanders. In all the primaries in the US, Bernie has been sweeping the Arab and Muslim vote. It’s been a wondrous moment: the first Jewish presidential candidate in American history has forged a principled alliance with Arabs and Muslims. Meanwhile, what are the Blairite-Israel lobby creeps up to in the UK? They’re fanning the embers of hate and creating new discord between Jews and Muslims by going after Naz Shah, a Muslim woman who has attained public office. They’re making her pass through these rituals of public self-degradation, as she is forced to apologise once, twice, three times over for a tongue-in-cheek cartoon reposted from my website. And it’s not yet over! Because now they say she’s on a ‘journey’. Of course, what they mean is, ‘she’s on a journey of self-revelation, and epiphany, to understanding the inner antisemite at the core of her being’. But do you know on what journey she’s really on? She’s on a journey to becoming an antisemite. Because of these people; because they fill any sane, normal person with revulsion. 

Here is this Muslim woman MP who is trying to integrate Muslims into British political life, and to set by her own person an example both to British society at large and to the Muslim community writ small. She is, by all accounts from her constituents, a respected and honourable person. You can only imagine how proud her parents, her siblings, must be. How proud the Muslim community must be. We’re always told how Muslim women are oppressed, repressed and depressed, and now you have this Muslim woman who has attained office. But now she’s being crucified, her career wrecked, her life ruined, her future in tatters, branded an ‘antisemite’ and a closet Nazi, and inflicted with these rituals of self-abasement. It’s not hard to imagine what her Muslim constituents must think now about Jews. These power hungry creeps are creating new hate by their petty machinations. As Donald Trump likes to say – it’s disgusting.

Labour has now set up an inquiry that is supposed to produce a workable definition of ‘antisemitism’ – which is to say, to achieve the impossible. It’s been tried countless times before, and it’s always proven futile. The only beneficiaries of such a mandate will be academic ‘specialists’ on antisemitism, who will receive hefty consultancy fees (I can already see Richard Evans at the head of the queue), and Israel, which will no longer be in the spotlight. I understand the short-term political rationale. But at some point, you have to say, ‘enough already’. Jews are prospering as never before in the UK. The polls show that the number of, so to speak, hard-core antisemites is miniscule. It’s time to put a stop to this periodic charade, because it ends up besmirching the victims of the Nazi holocaust, diverting from the real suffering of the Palestinian people, and poisoning relations between the Jewish and Muslim communities. You just had an antisemitism hysteria last year, and it was a farce. And now again? Another inquiry? Another investigation? No.

In order to put an end to this, there has to be a decisive repudiation of this political blackmail. Bernie Sanders was brutally pressured to back down on his claim that Israel had used disproportionate force during its 2014 assault on Gaza. He wouldn’t budge, he wouldn’t retreat. He showed real backbone. Corbyn should take heart and inspiration from Bernie’s example. He has to say: no more reports, no more investigations, we’re not going there any more. The game is up. It’s long past time that these antisemitism-mongers crawled back into their sewer – but not before humbly apologising to Naz Shah, and begging her forgiveness.

Tuesday, 3 May 2016

Britain’s Cointelpro – How the Israeli Embassy and Guido Fawkes destabilised the Labour Party

Ken Livingstone Must Be Reinstated & Corbyn Must Fight Back

Ken Livingstone - under suspension for speaking the truth

The coin that the Nazis struck in commemoration of the head of the Jewish desk at the Gestapo visit to Palestine courtesy of the Zionist labour movement
 The late Phil Agee revealed in his book Inside the Company how the CIA went around Latin America destabilising governments and parties it didn’t like.  In American domestic politics there was a similar programme aimed at dissident and radical organisations known as Cointelpro, a series of covert projects conducted by the FBI that infiltrated, surveilled and disrupted domestic political organizations.

For the past few months the Labour Party has been subject to a similar programme of destabilisation.  A programme in which the Zionist movement played and is still playing a major role.
Identity Politics have wrecked havoc with Jones' socialist politics - He supports the Palestinians and he supports their oppressors
From July 2015 onwards, when it became increasingly clear that Corbyn would win the leadership election, we had a campaign, initiated by the Daily Mail EXCLUSIVE: Jeremy Corbyn's 'long-standing links' with notorious Holocaust denier and his 'anti-Semitic' organisation revealed and fronted by the Jewish Chronicle under Stephen Pollard, its far-right editor and member of the Henry Jackson Society, The key questions Jeremy Corbyn must answer   The aim of the campaign was to paint Corbyn as a ‘friend’ of ‘terrorists’ – Hamas and Hezbollah and an associate of holocaust deniers.
When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the campaign shifted to an attack on Gerald Kaufmann for having said at a meeting that it was ‘Jewish money’ that was responsible for the pro-Israel policy of the Conservative government.  Groups such as the misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, an overtly Zionist political organisation masquerading as a charity [see EXCLUSIVE - Lifting the Lid on the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism The Bogus Charity that Campaigns Against Corbyn, Muslims and Palestinians  waged a prolonged campaign against Kaufman as if he was the most notorious anti-Semite since  Adolf Eichmann.  
When I searched the Jewish Chronicle’s database for ‘Jewish money’ I turned up no less than 590 occurences of this phrase!  It is a phrase commonly used in the Jewish community.  As an example of Zionist hypocrisy, on May 1st a former prominent Jewish funder of the Labour Party, Michael Foster, was given nearly 10 minutes of airtime on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme to explain why Jewish people weren’t going to be funding the Labour Party whilst Corbyn was leader.  Of course ‘Jewish money’ is only anti-Semitic when used by opponents of the State of Israel. 

Jewish Chronicle columnist Geoffrey Alderman called for Kaufman’s excommunication from the Jewish community despite having used the very same term twice in the same article. A man who deserves banning Jewish Chronicle  Geoffrey Alderman and Gerald Kaufman –Jewish Chronicle Columnist’sExercise in Hypocrisy

Despite his outburst against Kaufman Alderman was remarkably tolerant in respect of David Whelan, the former owner of Wigan Athletic football club, who stated that ‘there is nothing like a Jew who sees money slipping through his fingers’ and when challenged by the Guardian responded that ‘I think they [Jews] are very shrewd people…. I think Jewish people do chase money more than everybody else.  I don’t think that’s offensive at all.’ To most people this would count as anti-Semitism.
Lansman  holds talks with racist Zionist groups and supports Livingstone's expulsion whilst remaining Chair of Momentum
Alderman’s take was thatIt was ‘a sad and miserable tale of political correctness taken to new depths of absurdity.’  This football fuss is a bit rich 5.12.14.    Despite ‘shrewd’ being used in the sense of canny or mean, i.e. a stereotypical comment about Jews and money, Alderman’s comment was ‘who reading this column could take umbrage at that?’  And as for Jews chasing money, Alderman believed that ‘as far as I’m aware no serious research has been done on this subject.  But it’s certainly true that the Jewish view of money differs considerably from that of Christianity.’  
Pollard himself was more than willing to excuse anti-Semites when they were pro-Israel.  Michal Kaminski, the Conservative’s new partner, in the European and Conservative Reform group in the European Parliament, was ‘the best friend of the Jews’ despite being anti-Semitic. [see Poland’s Kaminski isnot an anti-Semite: he’s a friend to Jews’:  and Weapon of Choice   
Ben Gurion - 'it is in our interest to use Hitler' as they 'turn a disaster (the Holocaust) into a productive force
The reason why Kaminski could not possibly be anti-Semitic, despite being a member of a former neo-Nazi party and opposing a Polish apology for Jedwabne, when up to 900 Jews were burnt alive in a barn, was that ‘Far from being an antisemite, Mr Kaminski is about as pro-Israel an MEP as exists.'  David Miliband's insult to Michal Kaminski is contemptible Jewish Chronicle 1.10.09., 

Other incidents of ‘anti-Semitism’

In February there began the new phase in the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign.  It centred on Oxford University Labour Club whose co-chairman Alex Chalmers resigned claiming that his fellow Labour Club members were anti-Semitic .  The occasion of this resignation was the decision of the Club to support Oxford’s Israel Apartheid Week.  Oxford University Labour Club co-chair, Alex Chalmers, resigns amid anti-Semitism row

Since then we have had the case of Vicky Kirby,  an ex-Bradford Mayor who tweeted that 6 million Zionists died in the holocaust when complaining that even greater acts of genocide didn’t receive the same attention as the Jewish genocide and now of course Ken Livingstone’s reference to Hitler’s support for the Zionist solution to German anti-Semitism.

In what is the first comprehensive investigation of these allegations of anti-Semitism by Electronic Intifada researcher and journalist Asa Winstanley it becomes clear that these allegations are not what they seem. How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’santi-Semitism crisis
Alex Chalmers was an intern with BICOM the Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre, which despite describing itself as an an independent research centre’  is an Israeli propaganda group. 

The case of Vicky Kirby which was one of the worst examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ presented turns out  to be a case of someone quite innocent fitted up.  Her ‘big noses’ comment was nothing more than quoting from a play  the 2010 comedy film The Infidel.  The information had been taken from the far-right Conservative web site Guido Fawkes which had cropped a screenshot of a tweet to make it appear that these were her own words.’  In other words the usual Tory dirty tricks.  The article 
analyses the role of New Labour MP and ex-NUS President Wes Streeting who attended a key anti-BDS Conference in Tel-Aviv.  Streeting, who le arnt the tricks of the trade in NUS, is almost certainly working with the Israeli embassy and no doubt has other intelligence links.

Ken Livingstone
On April 28th in an interview with BBC Radio London’s Vanessa Feltz Ken Livingstone, in the course of defending suspended MP Naz Shah from accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ remarked that:
Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.’ Labour antisemitismrow: Ken Livingstone interview transcipts in full   These remarks can be best understood in the context of Hitler supporting the Zionist solution to German Jewry i.e. expulsion, though even this is not strictly accurate. Ken Livingstone says Labour should reinstate himbecause everything he said about Jewish people "was true" 
From the biography of David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister and Chairman of the Jewish Agency, by Shabtai Teveth - this is BG's reaction to Britain's Kindertransport plan to save 10,000 Jewish childen by bringing them to Britain in 1939 - saving half Germany's children in Palestine was better than saving all of them in England
There is no doubt that Ken made a number of minor mistakes.  Israel didn’t exist in 1933, the area was called Palestine, it was a British Mandate territory.  Secondly Hitler didn’t win any election in 1932, on the contrary his vote in the November election compared to July dropped by 2 million to 11.74 million (33.09%) compared to 13.,23 million (37.3%) for the KPD and SPD.  Hitler was put into power on January 30 1933 by reactionary political and military forces who sought the destruction of the German labour movement. Thirdly the final solution was not a product of Hitler’s madness. Even without Hitler the final solution would have taken place.  It was the product of war imperialism and the fanatical anti-Semitism of a section of the Nazi Party.  The final solution had a logic and momentum of its own.  When the expulsion of Jews was no longer an option after 1939 the countdown to the destruction of European Jewry had begun.  It began in June 1941 with Operation Barbarossa.
Ben Gurion's official biographer  Teveth concludes that for Ben Gurion and implicitly the whole Jewish Agency Executive, there was a very thin line separating him from seeing the Holocaust as a 'beneficial disaster' 
Livingstone’s comments weren’t the wisest thing to have made in the course of an ‘anti-Semitism’ witch hunt.  However  in essence they are correct.  The Nazi movement singled out the Zionist movement as their favourite Jews. 

For example on 28 January 1935 Heydrich, the ‘“real engineer of the final solution” [Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p.13.] issued a directive to the Bavarian Gestapo that ‘The activity of the Zionist-oriented youth organisations…. lies in the interests of the National Socialist state’s leadership…. (they) are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish (assimilationists).Lucy Dawidowicz, War Against the Jews, p.118,  citing Hans Mommsen, ‘Der nationalsozialistische Polizeistaat’ pp. 78-9.

The Zionists were allowed to organise, hold meetings, fly flags, have a newspapers whereas the ‘assimilationists’ were repressed.  The Zionists used their patronage by the Nazis to encroach on the position of the majority of the Jewish community demanding parity in the Reichsvertretung, the Jewish communal organisation in 1935.  Indeed they took over all the positions on the Reichsvereinigung, which was established in 1939 after Krystalnacht.

The Zionist policy was that Jews should flee to Palestine or nowhere.  Their twisted logic was that if other countries could solve the crisis of anti-Semitism in Germany and Europe then Palestine would be made redundant.  In any case anti-Semitism, being a disease, would simply spread to other countries.  Only Palestine could provide a long-term solution to anti-Semitism.  It was a racial concept of humanity.   The Zionists therefore lobbied the Gestapo not to allow Jews to emigrate to countries other than Palestine.  It was a consistent Zionist policy to oppose the emigration of Jewish refugees to countries other than Palestine such as Santo Domingo which had offered to take 100,000 refugees as a result of the Evian Conference.

In a memo to the Jewish Agency Executive after Krystalnacht, Ben-Gurion wrote:
if the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand, and aid for the national museum in Palestine on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail and our people's entire strength will be directed at aid for the refugees in the various countries. Zionism will vanish from the agenda and indeed not only world public opinion in England and America but also from Jewish public opinion. We are risking Zionism's very existence if we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem. [Y. Elam, Introduction to Zionist history, Tel Aviv 1972, pp.125-26. See also Ot, paper of youth cadre of Mapai, No.2, winter 1967 cited by Machover-Offenburg p. 58 and Brenner, p. 149. Memo of 17.12.38]
It is essential that socialists defend Livingstone.  The suspension of a National Executive member, a former MP and London Mayor and a figurehead of the Labour Left for the last 30 years marks a new stage in the witchhunt.  According to reports, Corbyn was extremely reluctant to suspend Ken but he was bullied into it.  After a staged confrontation with the boorish bully John Mann MP, Livingstone was suspended.  Popular opinion holds that it is Mann, not Livingstone, who should have been suspended.  Mann is Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on anti-Semitism which devotes its time to opposing BDS and support for Palestinians.

Tweets and comments made even before Naz Shah was an MP were dug up and she was dismissed as John McDonnell’s PPS.  Naz Shah suspended by Labour party amid antisemitism row  
One tweet, issued in the middle of Israel’s genocidal Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014, when 2,200 people in Gaza were murdered by Israel, including 551 children, was to joke that Israel should be relocated inside the United States as this would save the US the trouble and expense of maintaining the Israeli state and preserve Palestinian life.  She displayed a map showing Israel as the 51st state of the USA.  It turns out that this was produced by Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish American academic and anti-Zionist who is the son of two holocaust survivors.  There was nothing anti-Semitic about this map.  It was a twitter type fantasy solution to the problem of Israel’s barbarism. 

To the humourless and vindictive squad of Progress MPs such as Mann and Streeting, Naz Shah was the next worst thing to Eva Braun and she was forced to resign her position.  She was suspended from the Labour Party and forced to make a humiliating apology like a prisoner in a Stalinist re-education camp.  When Vanessa Feltz asked me why she would confess to anti-Semitism if she wasn’t  guilty I explained that there have been many false confessions in history, such as the defendants in Stalin’s purge trials.  It’s not difficult to persuade someone that they are guilty if you apply enough psychological pressure and you see your career disappearing before you.

The media, the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland in particular have played a despicable role in the witch hunt.  see for example Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem   Freedland, a ‘liberal’ Zionist berates the left in particular for not accepting the Israeli state.  My plea to the left: treat Jews the same way you’d treat any other minority 

What if, he asked, Israel were the only Black state in the world.  Would we oppose it then.  Professor Kamel Hawwesh of Birmingham University answered yes, Palestinians would reject any coloniser, whatever their colour. A Palestinian view on the antisemitism row   Freedland demonstrates both his ignorance and his malevolence when he compares a Jewish Israel to a Christian Britain.  In Britain Christianity is an adornment.  It doesn’t entitle you to special privileges.  It doesn’t mean that your planning application in the Jewish town of Afula will be rejected because you are Palestinian.  Israel's Virulent Housing Bias Runs Deep — and It's Not Only Aimed at Arabs

The BBC has also lived up to its reputation.  It has afforded the Labour Right every opportunity to air their allegations whilst denying anti-Zionists a platform.  There has been an almost one-sided media barrage.  One of the only exceptions was the BBC Big Questions programme on Sunday May 1st at 10 am when there are relatively few viewers.  Moshe Machover, Daphne Baram and myself were widely considered, even by Zionists, to have trounced those who alleged that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are one and the same thing.  I also did an interview with Vanessa Feltz, BBC London’s Zionist interviewer where I refused to be diverted from explaining why Israel is an apartheid society, but these are very much the exception.

One of the most egregious examples of BBC bias was that of Andrew Neil’s Sunday Politics show on March 18th which gave MPs West Streeting and John Mann opportunity to wax at length about Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ problem.  Neil himself is a former Murdoch editor and Conservative Party research assistant.  James Schneider, a supporter of Corbyn was given just 25 seconds whereas Streeting had 45 seconds and Mann was allowed 6 minutes and 4 seconds. 

Andrew Neil, rather than subjecting his claims to cross-examination, urged Mann on to greater excesses.  Take for example this penetrating question:  ‘Why has it [anti-Semitism] come back?’  Note that Neil assumes the very thing he is asking. 

Corbyn has shown not only spinelessness throughout this affair but a culpable failure to understand what is at stake.  He has continuously rowed back from the positions he adopted in previous years.  Alongside MPs such as the late Joan Maynard he was a sponsor of the Labour Committee on Palestine and the Labour Movement Campaign on Palestine, both of which I chaired.  These organisations supported a democratic, secular state solution in Palestine.  We opposed a 2 state solution which at that time was supported by George Galloway’s Middle East Council!  George has now come round to our way of thinking!

If Livingstone is expelled from the Labour Party Corbyn will not last long as leader.  John McDonnell has taken an even worse position.  He backed off last September from his comments over Ireland.   Now he has added Palestine to his retreat from the Left.  Rather than sacking Naz Shah he should have backed her. Instead with his ‘out, out, out’ remarks about alleged anti-Semites he has encouraged those making false allegations to greater efforts.
Jon Lansman welcomed Livingstone's suspension and has effectively backed his expulsion
Momentum under Jon Lansman has been equally abysmal.  Lansman has held secret talks with Labour Friends of Israel and the so-called Jewish Labour Movement, the  British branch of the racist Israeli Labour Party in order to reach some form of agreement.  It’s like the chicken negotiating for a safe pass from a fox.  Lansman openly criticised Livingstone and supported his suspension.   

In Left Futures Why the Left must stop talking about ‘Zionism’  Lansman argues that we should drop all mention of Zionism.  The movement that founded the racist settler colonial state of Israel should not be mentioned even though the World Zionist Organisation is alive and kicking, funding the settlement of the Palestinian territories.  Netanyahu proclaims that in the name of Zionism he cannot admit refugees to Israel, because it would undermine the national identity of the Jewish state.  IsraelPM: illegal African immigrants threaten identity of Jewish state.  Binyamin Netanyahu reignites row over fate of thousands of African migrants in Israel Harriet Sharwood, The Guardian, 20.5.12.   Lansman argues that if we pretend there is no such thing as Zionism then all the cries about anti-Semitism will go away.  Such is the craven attitude of left social democrats when they come under any pressure.
The Sex Pistols wrote a song about Owen Jones - Pretty Vacant
Owen Jones, the Guardian’s token left commentator,  has demonstrated that he is both politically and intellectually a light weight.  For the last 3 years he has written an annual article deprecating ‘anti-Semitism’.  Two of them even begin with the same fatuous phrase ‘anti-Semitism is a menace.’  He is incapable of understanding that when Israel is killing Palestinians, Zionists cry ‘anti-Semitism’. 
Owen Jones scabs in the witchhunt against 'anti-Semites' and backs the Zionist 'concern' over 'anti-Semitism'
It is not necessary to defend everything that Ken Livingstone said in order to oppose his suspension.  Defending Livingstone goes hand in hand with opposing the new McCarthyist witch hunt.  Whereas Joe McCarthy was an anti-Semite, his disciples come in the guise of opponents of anti-Semitism.

Tony Greenstein