We are facing a Coup by Attrition as the Zionists and the BBC pore over every last word Corbyn has ever uttered

We are facing a Coup by Attrition as the Zionists and the BBC pore over every last word Corbyn has ever uttered

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Post-Blog

The Zionist war against Corbyn could become a
self-fulfilling prophecy and INCREASE anti-Semitism

Many people who are deceived into thinking that the Zionist groups
attacking Corbyn represent all of British Jews, who believe the lie
that the Board of Deputies represents all Jews rather than the most
reactionary and racist section of Jews, are likely to
feel resentful at the way ‘antisemitism’ has been prioritised over their
needs and concerns.  Especially when it is clear to anyone who can has
eyes to see or a brain to think that British Jews do not suffer
from any discernible form of oppression.

There were after all not many if any Jews who were living in Grenfell Tower
nor are there many living in the slums of Hackney or earning a living on a zero
hours contract. The predominance of refugees and Black people at Grenfell was obvious to all.
In their attempt to take down the most radical leader that the
Labour Party has ever had the Zionists are increasing not decreasing
anti-semitism.  Jonathan Arkush, President of the Board of Deputies of
British Jews, who described Corbyn
as an anti-Semite was the same Jonathan Arkush who effusively welcomed the
anti-Semitic administration of Donald Trump to power. However most people will
not understand why these right-wing and reactionary Jews are so concerned about
what seems to them to be a non-existent antisemitism.
Black people fearful of Theresa May’s ‘hostile environment’ policy
and who have barely recovered from the shock of Grenfell Tower are not
likely to be impressed by the claim that British Jews are suffering from an
epidemic of anti-semitism in the plush neighbourhoods of Golders Green. Anti-semitic
attacks in Hendon are few and far between and it is not synagogues but mosques
that are at risk from fascist firebombs.

The homeless and those living in insecure accommodation,
struggling to survive on reduced benefits or eking out an existence in the gig
economy are likely to feel resentful at Jews for trying to remove the one hope
that millions have for challenging the vice-like grip that the rich and
powerful have on society.  Why is it they ask that the George Osbornes,
Theresa Mays and Sir Eric Pickles are so concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ and
Israel when the same people are indifferent if not actively hostile to Black
and ethnic minorities?  
People who really are oppressed and exploited will not understand
that the Zionist campaign in the name of all Jews is a fake and phoney campaign
on behalf of the British Establishment. Black, Muslim and ethnic minorities are
likely to ask why it is that the concerns of a rich millionairess, Margaret
Hodge, someone who turned a blind eye to child abuse when she was Council
leader, should take priority over their very real needs and concerns.
Even the paper wot supported Hitler is opposed to ‘antisemitism’
Zionism has never been concerned about genuine
anti-semitism.  Quite the contrary. As we saw in Paris in 2015 in the wake
of the killing of 4 Jews in the Hypercacher kosher supermarket, the Zionist
movement are always eager to exploit Jewish tragedy for Zionist purposes. 
Whilst the bodies were still warm, Benjamin Netanyahu flew in to tell
French Jews that Israel, not France, was their ‘real home’ and that they should depart for Israel to become settlers.  The Zionist solution for the
Jewish diaspora, to abandon their actual homes, is no different to the solution
of anti-semites through the ages. Netanyahu
to French Jews: ‘Israel is your home’
This is the irony of the campaign in the Labour Party against the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Definition of Antisemitism. 
It is a campaign which will increase, not decrease anti-semitism and that is a
prospect which most Zionists will be entirely happy with.  Zionism has
never fought anti-semitism.  On the contrary Zionism has always seen
itself as a political beneficiary of anti-Semitism.

Earlier
this week Luciana Berger, Parliamentary Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, made
what the Daily Mail described
as ‘her most outspoken attack on the
Labour leader to date’. 
According to
the Guardian
a speech by Jeremy Corbyn five years ago made her ‘feel unwelcome in my own party.’
It
is good that Luciana Berger should feel unwelcome. She has no business in the Labour
Party. She is a racist not a socialist and she is a supporter of the world’s only
apartheid state. She is deeply unpopular
in the constituency she was parachuted into, Liverpool Wavertree and if she
departed there would be few who would regret her passing.
It is true that Luciana Berger is unwelcome in Labour it is however it has nothing to do with her being Jewish and everything to do with her being a racist 
Joan
Ryan, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel followed this with a call for
Corbyn to ‘apologise & take responsibility
for actions which have caused such hurt anger & distress.’
Given her
disgraceful role in falsely accusing Jean Fitzpatrick of anti-Semitism, as
revealed by Al Jazeera’s The Lobby, it is
Ryan who should be apologising. Joan Ryan is someone whose main concern in Parliament is claiming the maximum amount of expenses. Her Wiki entry notes that she
claimed £173,691 in expenses for 2006/2007, the highest for any MP having come
runner-up in 2005/2006. Ryan’s dedication
to her expenses didn’t prevent her penning an article in last week’s Jewish
Chronicle Jeremy
Corbyn appals me – and his behaviour will get no better
The idea that this corrupt racist MP has suffered ‘hurt, anger and distress’ is for the birds!
Even
the most stupid right-wing member of Momentum (Jon Lansman excepted) should be
able to see that there is a pattern here. Old speeches from Corbyn expressing
solidarity with the Palestinians and opposing the antics of Zionist disrupters
are now being dug up and recycled in what is a war of attrition.  People like Luciana Berger then express how ‘hurt’
they are by what was said 5 years ago!
The time has long since gone when we need to fightback against Israel’s surrogates in the Labour Party. The
meeting called last week by Camden Momentum, which was attended by over 110
members of Momentum from 16 groups in London, is a start. It decided to begin
the organisation of a fightback since it is blindingly clear that Lansman and his
National Coordinating Group have no intention of doing anything to defend
Corbyn against the ceaseless attacks of the Zionists.
Even the Sun, which  employed the vile Katie Hopkins, is opposed to ‘anti-semitism’
Quite simply Momentum is
politically paralysed at the moment as its owner and Leader is in bed with the
very Zionists who are attacking Corbyn.
As
the film of Jeremy’s speech shows he said nothing
which was in any way anti-Semitic. The professions of hurt expressed by Luciana
Berger and Joan Ryan are entirely synthetic.
Joan Ryan MP – Chair of Labour Friends of Israel which justified Israel’s murder of 160 unarmed demonstrators in Gaza
We
are however in a dangerous situation and Corbyn’s own reticence in fighting
back is making things worse. It is crucial that maximum pressure is put on
Labour’s National Executive Committee next week not to adopt the International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.
That is why Labour Against the Witchhunt
and other organisations are calling for a mass lobby of the NEC to make our
voice heard.  It is ESSENTIAL that people
make every effort to attend.
Labour’s
Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct is dead in the water.  It was a bridge too far.  It tried to reconcile the irreconcilable by
accepting the IHRA whilst, at the same time, defending people’s right to free
speech on Palestine.  This is not
possible. The whole purpose of the IHRA is to limit freedom of speech.
Indeed
the Code bends the stick so far that Brian Klug, an Oxford philosophy don, an expert in anti-Semitism and founder of Independent Jewish Voices wrote
that ‘Ironically, it is the drafters
of the Labour party’s NEC Code, not their critics, who have grasped the meaning
of ‘working definition’
.
The
‘working definition’ is another name for the IHRA. Brian is right yet he is
also wrong, because he accepts the bona
fides
of the Code’s critics. This is a great mistake since the Zionist
critics of Corbyn aren’t in the slightest concerned about anti-Semitism but
Israel. ‘Anti-Semitism’ is a means to an end and Corbyn’s Zionist critics are intent
on redefining anti-Semitism to mean hostility to Israel as opposed to Jews.
The IHRA has one and only one
purpose, to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. It is important to
remember this.
Anti-Semitism
itself is easy to define. According to the Oxford
English Dictionary
it is ‘hostility
to or prejudice against Jews.’
All of 6 words.  According
to
Klug antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as
Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.
’ That
comes out as 21 words.  By way of
contrast the
IHRA Working Definition on Anti-Semitism
is over 500 words.
Professor
David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemism, described the IHRA as ‘bewilderingly
imprecise’.
Hugh Tomlinson QC described it as
having a ‘potentially chilling effect’ on free speech and Sir Stephen
Sedley, the former Court of Appeal judge who is himself Jewish wrote in the
London Review of Books (Defining Anti-Semitism) how the
IHRA ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite.’
The
Origins of the IHRA
It is instructive to consider just exactly why it
was considered necessary to construct a 500+ word definition of anti-Semitism when
6 words would do. Michael Whine, of the Zionist Community
Security Trust, in A
Short History of the Definition
wrote how the intention was to create a
definition ‘which could adequately
describe both the demonization and disproportionate criticism of Israel which
masqueraded as anti-Zionism, and which came increasingly from Muslims…’

In other words it wasn’t anti-Semitism but Israel which was their main concern from the start.
Likewise
Dave Rich, Deputy Director of the CST, explained
that ‘The Working Definition was not
created as a guide to antisemitic discourse.
’ In other words this whole
exercise that Labour’s NEC is going through is impermissible because its
primary target is the spoken or written word. 
Rich writes that ‘it can be used
to identify antisemitic discourse in non-criminal contexts, but only as a rough
guide, or a starting point’
and that the original purpose of the Working
Definition was for law enforcement
Even the principal
author of the IHRA, Kenneth Stern, in testimony to the
House of Representatives in November 2017, warned that:
The definition was not drafted, and was never
intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus. In fact, at
a conference in 2010 about the impact of the definition, I highlighted this
misuse, and the damage it could do.
Stern has subsequently spoken about how the IHRA
was ‘was being employed in an attempt to restrict
academic freedom and punish political speech’
. One could argue that Stern
was being hypocritical since the IHRA’s whole purpose was to render anti-Zionist criticism as  antisemitic. 
Stern
described how Zionist pressure groups in the US, even when they lost court
cases against supporters of the Palestinians ‘argued that even if  the cases
lost, they had what seemed to them a positive benefit – they  chilled pro -Palestinian  expression.’
Stern also
asked a question particularly relevant to the current debate.  Could Afro-American groups demand a specific
definition of racism that included opposition to affirmative action, opposition
to removing  statues of Confederate
leaders and opposition to the agenda of Black Lives Matters? Stern went on:
‘Imagine a
definition designed for Palestinians. If  “Denying the Jewish people their right to
self- determination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism,
then shouldn’t “Denying  the Palestinian people
their right to self- determination,  and
denying Palestine the right to exist”  be
anti -Palestinianism?’
Stern
described how the IHRA had been used to curtail free speech in Britain, listing
the “Israel Apartheid Week” event which was cancelled by Central Lancashire University and the case of the Holocaust survivor who was required to change the title
of  a campus talk by Manchester university
after an Israeli diplomat
complained that the title violated the definition.’
  Stern described as ‘Perhaps most egregious’ of all the call on a  university to conduct an inquiry of  a professor for  antisemitism, based on an article she had
written years before. Accurately describing what had happened as ‘chilling and McCarthy -like.’
Stern also gives
a good example of why the IHRA is irrelevant when dealing with acts of genuine anti-Semitism.
He describes how, when he was at the American Jewish Committee, he filed a
complaint on behalf of Jewish high school students who were targeted for
harassment because they were Jewish –
they were  called “cheapie,”
chants of “Heil Hitler” and “Nazi” were offered in their presence,
and many  were kicked on a so -called “Kick a Jew Day.” The case was
successfully resolved. It was clear to  the
Department of Education that these students were being harassed because they were
 Jewish ; there was no need to consult a definition  to make this determination.
And that
is precisely why there is no need for a definition of anti-Semitism.  It is like the elephant in the room – you recognise
it when you see it.
In The
Working Definition –
A  Reappraisal Stern
described how some Jewish
organizations were using it ‘in an
inappropriate way, which bastardizes what it was intended’
.  He described their modus operandi as having ‘the subtlety of a mallet.’ 
Jonathan Cook gives
an example of why the IHRA is a threat to free speech.
After
17 years of writing about Israel, after winning a respected journalism prize
for being “one of the reliable
truth-tellers in the Middle East”,
the Labour party is about to declare
that I, and many others like me, are irredeemable anti-semites.
What we have seen in the past three
years is a deliberate attempt by Britain’s Zionist leadership to create an
atmosphere bordering on hysteria in sections of British Jewry. The campaign has
been both cynical and manipulative. The idea that anti-Semitism is prevalent in
British society is absurd.  We are living
in a golden age where anti-Semitism is barely measurable.  It is vanishingly small. [See The
chimera of British anti-Semitism (and how not to fight it if it were real)

by Norman Finkelstein]
Yet the Zionists have had a considerable
success in creating the apprehension of anti-semitism amongst sections of British Jews because of the closed nature of the synagogue going Jewish community
(secular Jews are largely outside their orbit) in what amounts to a campaign of
panic inducement.  I would argue that very Jews actually change their patterns of behaviour in any measurable way.  There is no rapid upsurge in British Jews emigrating to Israel for example.
According to a survey
carried out for the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism ‘more than half of all British Jews feel that anti-Semitism now echoes
the 1930s (CAA
).’ Leaving aside criticisms of the methodology of this
survey, Anshel Pfeffer of Ha’aretz hit the nail on the head when he wrote concerning the finding that 56 percent of British Jews agree that “the recent rise in anti-Semitism in Britain
has some echoes of the 1930s.”
If
the majority of British Jews and the authors of the CAA report actually believe
that, then it’s hard to take anything they say about contemporary anti-Semitism
in their home country seriously. If they honestly think that the situation in
Britain today echoes the 1930s… then not only are they woefully ignorant of
recent Jewish history but have little concept of what real anti-Semitism is
beyond the type they see online.
The latest battle is not about a form of
words.  That is another act of deception.
The IHRA is totemic. The Zionists will never be satisfied with how it is implemented.
As Joan Ryan wrote in last week’s Jewish Chronicle ‘Nor should we pretend that even full acceptance of IHRA ends the battle
against antisemitism in the Labour Party.’  
In the words of the joint
editorial
of Britain’s 3 Zionist newspapers ‘hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour and Momentum members would need
to be expelled.’
That is why Len McLuskey’s view that the
IHRA should be accepted in full in order that the false anti-Semitism campaign
against Corbyn will stop is pie in the sky and utterly stupid. Far from relieving pressure adoption of the IHRA will
intensify the Zionist campaign.

After three years of denying that
the false anti-Semitism controversy was just a convenient way to vilify criticism
of Israel, the Zionists have now admitted that this is precisely what their
objective is. In Sham:
Labour’s plan to back down on IHRA
Jewish Chronicle Political Editor Lee
Harpin wrote that:

Instead of adopting the full IHRA definition,
they are planning to insert a new clause which opens the door to criticism of
the state of Israel as a “racist endeavour”.

The editor of the Jewish Chronicle and
ex-editor of the Daily Express, Stephen Pollard, was even clearer in an article
condemning the Labour Party as ‘institutionally anti-Semitic’. He complained
that ‘instead of adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies,
Labour has excised the parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel
can be antisemitic.’ 

And if there were any doubt about their agenda, Pollard
complained that:

Labour makes a distinction
between racial antisemitism targeting Jews (unacceptable) and political
antisemitism targeting Israel (acceptable).’
For the Zionists
targeting Jews racially is perfectly ok but targeting Israel for criticism is
wholly unacceptable. The Zionists would like criticism of Israeli state racism to
be automatically branded as ‘anti-Semitic’. 
Even the truth will be outlawed. 
Israeli racism which it will be antisemitic to criticise

Only a few weeks ago hundreds of
demonstrators in the northern Israeli town of Afula came on to the streets to
protest that a house in this all-Jewish city had been sold to an Arab. Hundreds of Israelis Demonstrate Against Home
Sale to Arab Family
Mentioning the above could
now be considered ‘anti-Semitic’.

All over Israel towns and cities
are segregated and there are nearly a thousand all-Jewish communities with the
powers to reject Arab applicants under the Reception
Committees Law
. Suggestions that this is racist would clearly be anti-Semitic.

Presumably the existence of a
policy to separate
Arab and Jewish women in maternity hospitals
is also an example of Israeli
multi-culturalism? And what of the religious
edict
, handed down by the Chief Rabbi of Safed, Shmuel Eliyahu, that Jews are
forbidden to rent rooms or flats to Arabs. 
An edict which, when subject to criticism, was backed by hundreds of Israeli
rabbis.  Eliyahu isn’t simply a racist
bigot.  He is a salaried state
official.  But to mention the above or
hundreds of examples like it will also be ‘anti-Semitic’ if Labour accepts the
IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

If the NEC approves the IHRA it
will be an act of racism in itself. Although the Zionists claim that Councils
and police bodies approve of the IHRA, Britain’s  Black and Asian, Migrant and Refugee organisations
certainly don’t.’ [See UK
black and minority ethnic groups blast Labour Party antisemitism debate for
seeking to defend Israel by erasing Palestinian history
] In a statement 101 organisations reject
the IHRA because of its effect on freedom of expression.

We should not despair. The idea
that the Labour Party is a racist, anti-Semitic party is a ruling class
narrative. It is an accepted truth for the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland, the
New Statesman and assorted pundits who live in the Westminster bubble. However
it does not have a popular echo. If you were to ask the man or woman on the
Clapham Omnibus what anti-Semitism was, they wouldn’t give you a 500 word
reply, they would say something like ‘It
is someone who doesn’t like Jews’
not someone who doesn’t like Israel.

Packed meeting at London’s Conway Hall

Last week we saw a meeting packed
to over flowing in Conway Hall dedicated to opposing the latest coup attempt. The
fightback is on: hundreds rally behind Corbyn in London

Huda
Elmi, who is standing for a position on Labour’s NEC spoke of how the debate on
the IHRA has been used to prevent Palestinians from describing their own
oppression. She gave the example of Austria, which has adopted the IHRA
definition, and is also governed by the far-right, where a proposal to make
Jewish people register for kosher meat is being discussed. “This definition is failing Jewish people and
criminalising Palestine activism.”
This cartoon, unlike the mural controversy around Corbyn earlier in the year, is clearly antisemitic.  Yet the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party, Heinz Christian Strache, is an ardent Zionist who in 2016 visited Israel’s Holocaust propaganda museum Yad Vashem
What Huda
didn’t mention is that Austria’s far-Right Freedom Party, which contains large numbers
of neo-Nazis loves Zionism. In 2016 its leader Heinz Christian Strache visited Israel
and paid the normal visit to the Holocaust Propaganda Museum, Yad Vashem. Israel
finds strange bedfellow in Austria’s far-right
Tony Greenstein

Migrant, Refugee, and BAME Communities Speak out Against Public Silence

As
migrant and BAME groups in Britain, we reaffirm our fundamental right to the
freedom of expression, and publicly to express our anxieties about the
suppression of information on the history and lived experience of our communities.
Many of
us arrived in the UK as migrants and as refugees, seeking safety from war and
repression, and the effects of racism, persecution and colonialism both past
and present. As a result, we know their oppressive impact on our communities,
and can identify where many of the current experiences of injustices we face in
Britain today are also based on racism and colonialism.
These
problems are having a destructive impact on public discussions about race and
immigration. It is therefore our right, and also our responsibility, to relay
our direct experiences of human rights abuses suffered here and abroad, as well
as their structural and historical causes, to address them. This democratic
obligation is recognised in Article
10
of the Human Rights Act, to “receive and impart information”, and
provides the basis for a democracy to function. As the Institute
for Race Relations
recently confirmed, our communities: “have a right to be
heard, to make…information public, while others have the right to hear them,
and the arguments based on these facts”.
We are deeply
worried about current attempts to silence a public discussion of what happened
in Palestine and to the Palestinians in 1948, when the majority of its people
were forcibly expelled. These facts are well established and accessible, are
part of the British historical record, as well as the direct experience of the
Palestinian people themselves. The Palestinian
community
in the UK has raised the disturbing
absence
of key information about these past and current injustices, and
highlighted the racism it exposes then, and now.
Public
discussion of these facts, and a description of these injustices, would be
prohibited under the IHRA’s guidelines, and therefore withholds vital knowledge
from the public. This silencing has already begun. Today we can freely describe
the racist policies experienced in the era of British and European colonialism
in our countries of origin (indeed it is taught in British schools), but the
colonial history of the Palestinians is continually erased. This is a dangerous
breach of our own rights, and of the wider British public: we must all hear the
full story of the Palestinians in order to make sense of the current
discussions about racism and Israel.
We also
know of the efforts by organisations
– including UK-based fundamentalist groups aligned
with the far-right in the US – to deny Palestinians’ basic humanity by
suppressing their entire history and current plight. At the same time,
hard-line conservative groups in the US, such as the Middle East Forum, are
providing funding
and support
to anti-Muslim extremist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy
Robinson), deliberately increasing hatred, fear, and confusion. These
coordinated efforts by right-wing extremists are being actively encouraged by
President Trump’s racism and fear-mongering, which is now aimed at dismantling
UNRWA, the UN
agency that protects
Palestinian refugees.
Over this
past year, several terrible events have demonstrated the dangers of silencing
migrant, and BAME communities. The fatal fire at Grenfell Tower and the
shameful Windrush scandal have shown the active legacies of British
colonialism, where racism forms an integral part of British policies, and
renders our communities invisible. This denies our dignity and humanity, and
our right to fair treatment under the rule of law: the bedrock of British
society.
We
urgently remind politicians and public bodies of their responsibilities to
uphold the principles of the Human Rights Act for every British citizen and
resident in the UK equally, especially the direct victims of colonialism,
racism, and discrimination. As migrant and BAME communities we stand as one,
united against all attempts to suppress our voices and our calls for justice,
freedom, and equality.
Signed by 101 National Membership
Organisations and Coalitions
SEE ALSO:

Israel
running campaign against Jeremy Corbyn
,

Asa
Winstanley

By Jonathan Cook

Hijacking
Victimhood and Demonizing Dissent
, Media Lens

 

 

 

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

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

Share This