Jewish Chronicle Editor Stephen Pollard Compares Jeremy Corbyn to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis

Jewish Chronicle Editor Stephen Pollard Compares Jeremy Corbyn to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis









Israel & Zionism to the Nazis is ‘anti-Semitic’ but comparing the opponents of
Israel and Zionism to the Nazis is alright!

 Earlier this week the Labour Party produced a new Code
of Conduct on Anti-Semitism
. [See Labour’s
Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct – Be careful of what you wish for
] on
how it is unlikely to defuse the fake anti-Semitism campaign that has been
waged against Jeremy Corbyn and pro-Palestinian Labour Party members for the
past two years.

Nick Cohen’s usual bile – this is from the person who predicted Corbyn would get under 100 seats at the General Election

The concern of the media over ‘antisemitism’ is in sharp contrast to their lack of concern over Islamaphobia and racism against Gypsies
The Code has produced an apoplectic reaction from the usual
culprits.  Nick Cohen, the Guardian’s Islamaphobic columnist, writes that Labour cultism
fools members, who never had a racist thought before Corbyn became leader, into
believing accusations of antisemitism are Zionist “smears”.
’ Sky News reports that ‘Labour’s
new anti-Semitism code of conduct slammed as ‘toothless’.
The letter which I have sent to the Jewish Chronicle – I don’t expect it to be published!
The shadowy Labour Againt Anti-Semitism group,
which consists mainly of people who are actively hostile to the Labour Party
and in one case an outright fascist, has described it
as ‘a racists charter.’
What is the objection to the Code of Conduct?  In
essence that the Labour Party has refused to adopt the complete International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
 definition of anti-Semitism which
conflates anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
Mike Katz and Adam Langleben of the Jewish Labour Movement argue that
the Labour Party should have adopted the IHRA definition in totality, despite
it having been severely criticised by eminent legal scholars such as Hugh
Tomlinson QC
 and former Jewish Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen
Sedley (Defining
). Of course Katz and Langleben had a problem in so far as
their Chair, Ivor Caplin, had given his assent to
the new definition!
The JLM’s new Chair, Ivor Caplin, got the line wrong – he forgot that the whole purpose of the fake antisemitism attacks is not to solve the ‘problem’ but to continue the war until Corbyn is removed
The arguments attacking Labour’s Code of Conduct are fatuous,
shallow and outright dishonest.  Langleben and  Katz argue that
the IHRA should be supported because it was created by a body consisting of 31
countries, 24 of which are EU member countries.  Yes it is supported
by the Polish and Hungarian governments as well as a host of far Right
governments from the Czech  Republic to Slovakia, Austria and
Italy.  Poland and Hungary are led by 24 carat anti-Semites. What
kind of definition of anti-Semitism is it that anti-Semites support?
Katz and Langleben dishonestly argue that uniquely  ‘the
party has directly contravened the practice established by the Macpherson
report of allowing minorities to define the prejudice they face’.
This is of course utterly dishonest since it omits the small fact
that Jews who are not Zionists disagree with the IHRA definition of
anti-Semitism.  In other words there is no Jewish consensus on what
constitutes anti-Jewish prejudice.
The far-Right Pollard is only interested in anti-semitism when it comes to defending Israel
Although Jews are a minority, unlike Black and Asian people they
are not oppressed.  On the contrary most Jews are white and privileged and
what this demand is about is using Jewish identity as a stick to beat the
genuinely oppressed with. It is utterly ludicrous to compare the Jews of Hendon
or Golders Green to Black youth in Brixton.  Jews are not disproportionately
gaoled or victims of police violence.  Jews do not suffer state racism or
economic discrimination and that is why the demand that Jews can define their
‘oppression’ is in reality a demand that some Jews can define
those who are genuinely oppressed as their oppressors because they insist on
raising things like Apartheid Israel.
 It is in any case untrue that Macpherson established any
such principle.  The JLM has repeatedly distorted and bastardised the
MacPherson Report of the Inquiry into the murder of Black teenager Stephen
Lawrence in order to defend the Israeli state.  Not once did the
Zionist led Jewish community play any part in opposing the Police racism that
led to the setting up of the MacPherson Inquiry.  The Report itself
simply said that where people are victims of what they perceive to be a racist
attack that should be recorded.  It said nothing about ‘defining’
racism not least because racism is an extremely easy thing to
define.  It is discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or
nationality.  Anti-Semitism is hostility to Jews as
Jews.  The problem arises because the Zionist movement amongst
British Jews wants to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
When it comes to someone who is a genuine anti-Semite Pollard is more than forgiving
However no critic has taken their criticism as far as Stephen
Pollard, the far-Right editor of the Jewish Chronicle.  Pollard it
was who defended Michal Kaminski, the Polish Law and Justice Party MEP who
defended the ‘good name’ of the village of Jedwabne in
Poland.  Jedwabne was the site of the murder of up to 1600 Jews, who
were herded into a barn which was then set alight by fellow villagers in
1941.  Kaminski according to Pollard was ‘one
of the greatest friends of the Jews’
 because he also happened to
be an ardent supporter of Israel.
to Pollard
, a member of the far-Right cold war Henry Jackson Society, it
would be as ludicrous to ask Hitler or the Nazi party to define anti-Semitism
as it would be to expect Jeremy Corbyn to do so. He didn’t explicitly name
Corbyn as a Nazi but that was the unmistakable message.  After ruling
out Hitler and the Nazi Party Pollard went on to ask ‘Ok, so who else would
be on the shortlist of the least suitable people to draw up a definition of
antisemitism? Perhaps you can tell where this is heading.’ 
Indeed it was quite obvious because Pollard then turned his
attention to the Labour Party and Corbyn.
All this is
somewhat ironic since the Zionists IHRA definition classifies comparisons
between Israel’s policies and the Nazi anti-Semitic.  However it
seems to be fine for Zionists to accuse their opponents of being Nazis!
At a time when
the Palestinian village of Khan al Ahmar is under threat of forcible demolition
with its residents being forcibly transferred to live next to a rubbish dump
and after over 120 unarmed Palestinian demonstrators were gunned down in Gaza,
the Zionists are more determined than ever to equate criticism of their bastard
state with anti-Semitism. 
Although I
have severely criticised the new Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct  because it
is based on the IHRA definition, it remains to be seen whether or not Corbyn
and Formby back down under the weight of the Zionist and MSM attacks.
If Corbyn and the Labour Party leadership had taken a principled
position and rejected in toto the IHRA definition then it would have
been easier to ward off their critics.  By
adopting some of the IHRA definitions but not others they have lent credibility
to the definition as a whole and have thus, once again, made a rod for their
own back.
Zionists  don’t like requiring intent to be part of the new Code of
Conduct.  This is perfectly understandable.   Far from
being a free pass for racism it separates out those who are opposed to Zionism
and those who are opposed to Jews.  To say, as Langleben and Katz do
that the requiring proof of intent ‘goes directly against the Macpherson
principle, which Labour wrote into law when it passed the Equality Act
.’ is
another absurdity.
Where there is no intent to discriminate the chances are that
there is no discrimination.  Where there
is clear evidence of discrimination then intent is normally assumed.  So it is with anti-Semitism.  If someone shouts anti-Semitic abuse then
they can be assumed to have intended to cause offence. 
Pollard ludicrously claims
that ‘you can feel free to go right ahead and scream “Zio” at any random Jew
you encounter’.
Not true.  Zio itself
is not anti-Semitic but if you were to accuse any ‘random Jew’ of being a
Zionist simply because they are Jewish then yes that would be anti-Semitic and
the intent would be part of the act itself. 
It really is that simple but the real intent is on the part of those who
want to label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
Hence the
shrieks and cries of Britain’s Zionist lobby amply aided by its racist media.





Submit a Comment

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

Share This