The Mask of Deceit Slips from the Face of Chakrabarti as She Supports Livingstone’s Expulsion

The Mask of Deceit Slips from the Face of Chakrabarti as She Supports Livingstone’s Expulsion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Post-Blog

Chakrabarti Demonstrates the flaws in her Report as she capitulates to Zionist Apartheid

When
the Chakrabarti Inquiry was first set up I was extremely sceptical as to the
outcome.  I wrote that Chakrabarti
will be a rubber stamp for the Zionist Labour Movement & Progress
.  After having given evidence to the Inquiry, as the only Jewish person
suspended for ‘anti-Semitism’, I was to some degree reassured. 
Zionist Royall, as I termed Lady Jan Royall, the author of the Report into the fake anti-Semitism
allegations at Oxford University Labour Club, who had clearly written her
report before she even set foot in Oxford would not, as one of the wing members
of the Chakrabarti Inquiry, have any say in the final Report. She would simply
be there to advise. Chakrabarti had emphasized to me that the Report was hers
and hers alone.  #
In what was an astounding remark on the Jewish
Labour Movement site, Royall stated that
‘I know that you will share my disappointment and
frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no
institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.’ 

The Chair of the Labour Club, Alex
Chalmers had resigned claiming it was a cesspit of anti-Semitism.  His reason for resigning was that the club
had endorsed Israeli Apartheid Week. 
Chalmers soon left the Labour Party altogether, having been exposed as a
former intern for BICOM, the disgusting Israeli propaganda unit that Luciana
Berger headed. Asa Winstanley’s How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s
anti-Semitism crisis
described the origins of Labour’s media manufactured anti-Semitism affair.
On the day when
I gave my evidence Chakrabarti had such a stinking cold that I wasn’t sure how
much she took in. Naomi Wimborne-Iddrissi from Free Speech on Israel accompanied
me. Yet I remembered that she asked me about the publicity and press leaks that
had accompanied my suspension and sure enough her condemnation of leaks by the
Compliance Unit figured prominently in the Report. 
Nonetheless,
almost uniquely on the left, I was not overwhelmed by the Chakrabarti Report.  Like many others I was pleased at her
recommendations over the disciplinary process and her emphasis on due process
and natural justice.  I was also happy at
the way she dealt with the attempt of the Jewish Labour Movement and the Zionists
to distort the recommendations of the MacPherson Report into Stephen Lawrence,
which had proposed that where someone complained of a racial attack it was the
Police’s duty to record the attack as a racial incident. 
The Zionists,
who had never once been part of the Stephen Lawrence campaign used this
recommendation to say that when someone said they had been the victim of a
racial incident they were to be believed without further question or investigation.
The subjective viewpoint of the ‘victim’ was all that was necessary. 
So according
to this ‘logic’ where a woman complains of rape the man is automatically guilty.  Where someone complains of being the victim
of a racial attack they are to be believed automatically.  Court hearings, cross-examination and evidence
would become redundant.  Such a system
sounds more like Israel’s policy of ‘administrative detention’ or internment without
trial.  Suffice to say, any manner of
racists, Zionists especially, could claim to be the ‘victim’.  Chakrabarti dispensed with this nonsense
quite thoroughly.
Yet
I was not happy with the sections on Zionism and racism. My blog post Chakrabarti
– A Missed Opportunity to Develop an Anti-Racist Policy for Labour
did
not prove popular.  I can remember giving
a talk on the Chakrabarti Report to the London Communist Forum and Professor
Jonathan Rosenhead of the LSE and FSOI came along to critique my contribution.
As did others.  In some ways this led to
a parting of the ways politically with FSOI. Yes Chakrabarti’s Report had been
good in some areas but its belief that Zionism was merely a rich strand of Jewish
identity and its belief that comparisons between Zionism and Nazism were ‘incendiary’ and its description of the
term ‘zio’ as racist I believed were fundamentally mistaken. Chakrabarti had no
concept or understanding of what Zionism meant.
At the Chakrabarti press conference Marc Wadsworth was the subject of a vicious attack by Ruth Smeeth MP who falsely claimed she had been been subject to an antisemitic attack – Chakrabarti  apologised to Smeeth without ever speaking to Marc
I also said
that Chakrabarti was no radical.  She has
always been a conservative defender of civil liberties. She is a former
Director of Liberty (formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties) which has
a record of people like Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and others jack knifing
to the illiberal right.  Chakrabarti seemed
no different.
Her appearance
on the BBC’s Sunday
Politics
show has proven me correct. Chakrabarti launched into a vicious
attack on Ken Livingstone. Ken had learnt nothing from his behaviour.  He had been given a very lenient sentence and
had then repeated the same ‘offence’.  He
had brought the Labour Party into disrepute. 
His mentioning of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis was an attack on
all those Jews trying to escape Germany and so she went on.
What Chakrabarti
revealed is that she is a petty minded, illiberal ignoramus who knows nothing
about Zionism, the Jewish supremacist ideology of the Israeli state. Perhaps
this gullible fool might take to heart the lessons of the past few days when Israel
has murdered 60 Palestinians for the crime of trying to cross the fence that
separates the concentration camp of Gaza from the Israeli state.  A fence that divides a land of plenty from a
land of hunger, dirty water, poverty and no electricity or medicine.  Over 2,000 people were injured and many of
them will die in the next few days and weeks because the health facilities of
Gaza are overwhelmed, they don’t have the medicines and the ordinance that the Israeli
troops use are explosive bullets deliberately designed to cripple and maim for
life.
Despite this
no less than 83% of Israelis support this gunning down of unarmed Palestinians.  Every survey of Israeli Jewish opinion shows
that a majority of Israelis are deeply racist in not wanting to live next to
Arabs, wanting their physical expulsion from Israel and a large majority even
wanting to deprive them of the vote.
The main fear
of Israelis is not ‘terrorism’, because these are unarmed civilians but the
nightmare that refugees who were expelled from Israel in 1948 are seeking to
Return.  This naked and raw racism is an
integral part of Zionism.  Zionism isn’t
some cuddly form of identity politics it is the belief that Jews have superior
rights over non-Jews.  It means a
permanent Jewish majority in Israel and state policies aimed at ensuring that
as few Palestinians or non-Jews live in the country. It is also Zionism which
dictates that the 40,000 Black African refugees in Israel have to leave. They
are a threat to the Jewish racial majority. 
What
Livingstone said was simply a matter of fact. 
It is incontestable that the Nazis supported Zionism in Germany. It has
nothing to do with an attack on Germany’s Jews not least because Zionism represented
5% at most of German Jews before the advent of Hitler. Many Zionists welcomed
the rise of the Nazis to power because they saw it as a golden opportunity to
prosper.  For years the Zionist movement
alone in Germany had propagated the belief that Jews were a separate people who
did not belong in Germany at all.  They
were an alien people.  As Noah Lucas, a Zionist
historian wrote:
 ‘As the European Holocaust erupted, Ben Gurion
saw it as a decisive opportunity for Zionism… Ben Gurion above all others
sensed the tremendous possibilities inherent in the dynamic of the chaos and
carnage in Europe… In conditions of peace,… Zionism could not move the masses
of world Jewry. The forces unleashed by Hitler in all their horror must be
harnessed to the advantage of Zionism. … By the end of 1942… the struggle for
a Jewish state became the primary concern of the movement.’ [Lucas, The Modern
History of Israel pp.187/8].
This is not
even controversial.  Other Zionist historians
– Saul Friedlander, Shabtai Teveth, David Cesarani – also come to the same
conclusion. Of course this is embarrassing to Zionism’s merchants of false ‘anti-Semitism’.
How can they accuse others of anti-Semitism if they themselves subscribe to a
movement which is a Jewish version of anti-Semitism?  Hence the cries and the squawks of Zionism’s
apologists.
What Chakrabarti
is really saying is that because Livingstone insists on expressing his viewpoint,
even though he is right, he has to be expelled. 
Like the illiberal tyke that she is, Chakrabarti doesn’t attack Livingstone’s
views instead she attacks his right to express them.  Hence why she frames her criticism in terms
of ‘bringing the party into disrepute’ the standard McCarthyist charge of those
who wish to demonise someone whilst avoiding challenging their argument. Chakrabarti
talks about a ‘lenient’ sentence,
because Livingstone was not expelled the first time round for speaking his mind
thus assuming that there has been any offence committed.
Let us
remember that this hypocrite was Director of a group allegedly dedicated to
protecting peoples’ civil liberties. 
Here she is directly attacking someone’s right to express their views
about a matter of history without being penalized. Instead of repeating what he
said Ken should have shut up.  This is no
academic matter. I am defending
Stan Keable
who is in danger of losing his job at Hammersmith & Fulham Council
because he dared to express his view that the Nazis and the Zionists
collaborated.
Instead of
defending the right to freedom of speech within the Labour Party Chakrabarti talks
about Livingstone’s ‘offence’ as if criticising
Zionism’s record during the Holocaust is some kind of thought crime.
This pathetic
little echo of dictators past went on to say that it would be ‘very difficult for any rational decision
maker’
to allow Ken to stay in the Labour Party. Of course this execrable
woman has no problem in allowing the defenders of Israel’s shoot to kill policy
in Gaza, the stalwarts of Labour Friends of Israel such as Joan Ryan MP, to
remain in the Labour Party. Chakrabarti has no problem with Louise Ellman and
her defence of the imprisonment, torture and sexual abuse of Palestinian children
to  remain in the party because, like
Chuka Ummuna Chakrabarti too has nothing to say about the politics of
race.  She too is an accepted part of the
White establishment, Black outside White inside.  There have been no expressions of support for
either Marc Wadsworth or Jackie Walker.  Support
for Israel is a sine qua non of being accepted in the British Establishment.
In her final
flourish this establishment muppet talks of ‘incendiary’ remarks. 
Presumably anything which upsets the supporters of Apartheid Israel is incendiary
i.e. controversial.  As for equating Jews
with the Nazis Chakrabarti merely demonstrates her own ignorance of what Zionism
is.  Livingstone criticised the Zionist movement
not the Jewish victims of Nazism.  The
fact that she doesn’t understand this is a good reason why she should shut up
and learn something about the period in question.  Instead this police state democrat calls for
the expulsion of Livingstone for daring to dissent.
Tony
Greenstein

 

 

 

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This