Anti-Semitism?
It’s Israel Stupid!

This Thursday the High Court at the Strand will hear an application for
an Injunction preventing Iain Nicol and his racist friends from going ahead
with a meeting of Labour’s National Kangaroo Court (NCC) on December 11th. 

As was shown last summer, when the Court of Appeal approved the removal
of the vote in the leadership elections from over 100,000 Labour members, it
would be foolish to expect justice in bourgeois courts, regardless of how good
one’s case is.

Faced with an artificial and
imposed deadline of 1st December, I decided that I would submit a
response to the main accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ against me rather than
letting my case go by default.  I am copying my response below but it can also be downloaded from here.

I have tried to cover the main
allegations although, for reasons of time, I was unable to answer all the
spurious nonsense contained in 189 pages of dross.

People will notice that one of
the main charges against me is that I called the execrable ‘Labour’ MP for Liverpool
Riverside, Louise Ellman, a supporter of the Israeli military’s child
abuse.  Apparently the truth is a
‘sensitive’ subject for the Compliance Unit.

I have two favours to ask you.

Firstly:            If you
haven’t yet signed the petition
to support Jackie, Marc and myself on Change.org please do so.

Secondly:        If you can afford it please support the
crowdfunding appeal set up to finance this litigation and also a future defamation
action against the far-Right Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.  The CAA labelled Palestine Expo 2017 which was
held this summer as a ‘Jew-hate festival’.
It attacked me as a ‘notorious anti-Semite’.
It has attacked vulnerable students and other activists as anti-Semitic simply because
they supported the Palestinians.  We need
to call a halt to this hate organisation and make it accountable for its libellous
and defamatory comments.  

I am prepared to take them on in a
libel action but to do that I desperately need to raise the funds to do this. Will
you help? So far we have raised 8% of the £25,000 minimum that is needed.

If you can afford it I ask you to
dig deep in your pockets. Just a fraction of the oil wealth that the Saudi princes
misspend could put this organisation out of business for good!  Please donate to my crowdfunding
appeal.

Below is my submission to Labour’s
National Kangaroo Court.

Introduction

It is an outrage
that I am facing a series of complaints and accusations by people whose
identity has been kept hidden. It means that I am unable to question or
cross-examine them.  There is no court of
law where this would be allowed. Charles I’s Star Chamber was abolished in
1641. Its successor in the Labour Party is still sitting. It is contrary to all
notions of natural justice that you do not know who your accusers are. Evidence
against me is redacted. The fact that the NCC are happy to go along with this
charade demonstrates that it is too kind by half to call them a Kangaroo Court.
The Kangaroo is an inoffensive animal. 

Despite having
been suspended for 20 months, itself an outrage, and 17 months having elapsed
since my Investigation Hearing, I was given 4 weeks to prepare a response to a
189 page bundle, despite being notified by email whilst recovering in hospital.
The practices of the NCC and its patsy of a Chair who made these rulings
demonstrates that the NCC is a rubber stamp. 
The NCC is too gutless even to reveal their own names!

I emailed back
asking for further time in view of the long wait before being charged. Despite
providing medical evidence and informing them that I had care of a disabled
son, my request for an adjournment was refused. No reason was given. The
refusal of the Chair of the NCC to agree to a postponement demonstrates that
for this miserable cipher for McNicol, the hearing of these charges is a mere
formality. A verdict has already been reached.

If anyone wants to
understand what my expulsion from the Labour Party is about, they only need to
read the report above. Iain McNicol was the hero of the Labour Friends of
Israel [LFI] fringe meeting at Conference. LFI’s platform included Mark Regev,
Israel’s Ambassador and a former spokesman for Netanyahu.  In which role he was an apologist for war
crimes, including the machine gunning of 4 Palestinian children on the Gaza
beach.  This is what the fight against
‘anti-Semitism’ involves.

4 young children were machine gunned to death by an Israeli fighter plan – Israel’s investigation found it was a ‘tragic accident’

My proposed expulsion from the
Labour Party has nothing to do with anti-Semitism and everything to do with
anti-Zionist and opposition to Israel, the world’s only Apartheid state.
When I first became politically active in 1970 it was in opposition to the
campaign against the South African Springbok tour of Britain. It is ironic that
I am now being penalised by the Labour Party for opposing the world’s only
remaining Apartheid state.

On November 28th
Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson Mandela, after a visit to the West Bank
was reported
as saying that “Israel is the worst
apartheid regime… Palestinians are being subjected to the worst version of
apartheid.” It is in defence of this regime that the NEC is seeking to
expel Jackie Walker and me as it tried to do with Professor Moshe Machover
recently.

Jewish
anti-Zionists are seen by Zionism in exactly the same way as White opponents of
South African Apartheid were seen: traitors to kith and kin. It is a matter of
deep shame that the NEC has allowed Labour’s unelected Compliance Unit under
McNicol to do the bidding of Israel’s racist supporters in the Jewish Labour
Movement [JLM] and LFI.

Just this week comes
news of two more examples of openly racist legislation in Israel. First a proposal to
triple the level of fees for non-Jewish residents ie. Palestinians of the West
Bank who want to gain access to Israel’s High Court in order to prevent the
theft of their land. Secondly an amendment
to the Jewish Nation State Bill will entrench make lawful the establishment of
Jewish only towns and villages. The legal fiction of ‘separate but equal’ i.e.
segregation was outlawed in the USA in 1954 in Brown
v The Board of Education which declared that separate was inherently
unequal.  In Israel segregation is alive
and kicking.

My expulsion is
being proposed because I have criticised the Jewish Labour Movement which
describes the Israeli Labour Party [ILP] as its ‘sister party’.  Yet there is no difference between Likud and
the ILP when it comes to anti-Arab racism. The ILP’s previous leader Isaac
Herzog declared
that his nightmare
was waking up to find that Israel had a Palestinian Prime Minister and 61
Palestinian Knesset members.  Herzog also declared that he wanted to
dispel the false impression that the ILP were ‘Arab Lovers’ Herzog
slammed for remark about ‘Arab lovers’. Imagine that someone said that
their nightmare was to wake up and find Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister or
that the Labour Party was not a ‘Jew lovers’ party.  These terms used to
be part of the discourse of the National Front and BNP.  

The present
leader of the ILP, Avi Gabbay is even worse, criticising Netanyahu for not
being draconian enough with African refugees from Sudan and Eritrea. According
to Zehava Gal-On, the leader of Meretz, Gabbay had “forgotten what it means to be a human being.” Party
Leader Gabbay Forces Zionist Union To Back Expulsion Of Migrants.

Background

I was suspended
on March 18th 2016 for comments I was alleged to have made. No
detail was provided as to the nature of these comments and my requests for
information went unanswered. It is telling that none of the charges against me
relate to comments made before I was suspended. In other words I was targeted
first and then a search was made for evidence.

On April 2nd The
Times and Telegraph both ran stories concerning my suspension:  ‘Labour
welcomes back blogger who compares Israelis to Nazis’ and ‘Corbyn told to ‘exorcise’ anti-Semitism in
his party.’  [TG1] When threatened
with a libel action both papers backed down. 
A point that the NCC might want to consider! [TG2]

There can be no
doubt that the leaks came from the Compliance Unit.  The Telegraph article spoke
of: ‘‘Evidence compiled by Labour’s
compliance unit when Mr Greenstein attempted to join the party last
summer, seen by The Telegraph.’
(my emphasis)

When I complained,
McNicol wrote back deploring the ‘unwarranted
attack on a hardworking and diligent member of the Compliance Unit’. Quite
understandably he refused to investigate the leak because there’s little point
in investigating what you already know.

The Chakrabarti
Report which Jeremy Corbyn commissioned in April 2016 (and which has
disappeared from the Labour Party’s web site) was quite explicit:

Yet Jane Shaw,
Secretary to the NCC, had the gall to write to me: ‘‘The Party never discusses matters relating to individual members with
third parties.’  [email 22.11.17.]  There is a culture of lying and dishonesty
amongst Labour’s bureaucracy. Like a fish, an organisation rots from the head
down.

On May 30th
I had an Investigation Hearing where I was presented with a variety of clips,
tweets etc. What I was being interrogated about were my views on Israel and
Zionism. I was accused e.g. of equating Israel’s marriage laws to those of the Nuremburg
Laws. This was deemed to be anti-Semitic. As I explained in a letter to The
Telegraph, this comparison was first made by Hannah Arendt, herself a Jewish refugee
from Nazi Germany in her book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’.  It is a fact that Jews and non-Jews cannot
marry in Israel unless the Jewish person
converts to another religion.  In Israel
there is, quite deliberately, no secular marriage because they want to prevent Jewish-Arab
marriages.  In a society based on racial
supremacy, it is important to prevent such relationships, hence why a book
depicting relationship between an Israeli Jewish and Arab teenager, Borderlife, was banned from the
high-school syllabus by the Education Ministry.

I was also
quizzed about having said that Israel was waiting for the survivors of the
Holocaust to die in order that it could save paying them welfare benefits. I
pointed out to Harry Gregson [HG] that Ha’aretz had printed an article ‘Israel is waiting for its Holocaust
survivors to die’ The transcript of the Investigation interview can be
read here.
Thise is an actual transcript unlike the notes of HG which
can be found on pp. 31-35.  Since the
Labour Party produced them for the court hearing there is no reason why they
are not in the bundle.

Procedural Pretexts
and Excuses

This hearing is
being held according to Appendix 6 of the Labour Party’s Rules Procedural Guidelines
in disciplinary cases brought before the NCC. 
In an email of 21st
November I explained that these rules are not binding. Appendix 6 does
not even form part of the Party’s rules. [paragraph 2, Appendix 6] They are merely
advisory and should be read alongside for example the Report of the Chakrabarti
Report [CR].

Section
6(D)(i) of Appendix 6 states that complaints about the process leading up to
bringing charges will ‘not be entertained
by the NCC or panel thereof unless it is
material or relevant to the consideration of the evidence to be used by the
presenter in support of the charges.’  My
complaints of a 17 month delay are clearly material and relevant to the
consideration of the evidence, especially in the light of Chakrabarti’s
recommendations.

The
reliance on the timetable of ‘about 6 weeks’ in Appendix 6.5.B.i should be seen in the light of
Chakrabarti and basic principles of natural justice.  In any event November 5th, when I
signed for the Bundle, to December 11th is 5 not 6 weeks as a matter
of simple arithmetic.

In
an email of 20th November Ms Shaw accepted that the bundle and
papers were only ‘technically sent’
within the guideline at appendix 6.5.B.i, and she also admitted that I was ‘given
less than a full six weeks’ notice of the hearing’. Having accepted that I
was given less than the requisite time it is outrageous that my request for a
postponement has been refused. Clearly it raises the question of bias.

Section
5 of the CR notes ‘a lack of clarity and
confidence in current disciplinary procedures from all sides of the Party,
including on the part of those who have complained and been complained
against.’  Is it any wonder?

Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is
the pretext for the charges. Accusations of ‘Anti-Semitism’ are the
stock-in-trade of the Zionist movement and Israel’s supporters.  Understandably it is difficult to defend the
demolition of Palestinian homes and houses, ongoing colonisation, the routine
use of torture including against children. It is much easier to cry
‘anti-Semitism’. 

For most of my
adult life I have been an active anti-fascist. I was a founder member of
Brighton and Hove Anti-fascist Committee, Secretary of the local Anti-Nazi
League, an Executive Committee member of Anti-Fascist Action nationally and
I’ve written the only book on the fight against fascism in Brighton and on the
South Coast. (reviewed here).

My crime is that I’m not prepared to turn a blind eye
to the racism of Zionism and Israeli Apartheid. If you are an anti-racist you
cannot excuse Israel’s racism simply because it is carried out in the name of
Jewish people. It is those who have brought these accusations and charges who
are the racists. The NCC’s Chair has already demonstrated by their actions that
they are in full agreement with those who have launched Labour’s witch hunt.

Zionism and
anti-Semitism

HG
asked me about my assertion that there was collaboration between the Zionist
movement and the Nazis and that the Zionist movement was hostile to rescuing
Jews to places other than Palestine. I cited the memo of David Ben Gurion,
Israel’s first Prime Minister to Mapai of 9th December 1938 in
the wake of the Kindertransport of 10,000 Jewish children from Greater Germany
to Britain after Krystalnacht: It is can be found for example in Ben Gurion’s
official biography by Shabtai Teveth, The Burning Ground 1886-1948, p.855.

This
was Zionism’s racist logic. The Jewish State is of greater importance than the
Jews.  HG chose not to pursue this and I
notice that it has been entirely dropped from the charges. Despite the hue and
cry about Ken Livingstone ’s ‘anti-Semitism’ the Compliance Unit is unwilling
to pursue the matter because it is well documented unlike the vast majority of Jews, the Zionist movement did collaborate willingly and not when
it was under duress.

Of course the victors in any war write
its history and Zionism has attempted to rewrite its history erasing its role
as a movement of collaboration. The facts however have a habit of asserting
themselves regardless. Hence why between 1954 and 1958 Israel was gripped by
the Kasztner trial involving the leader of Hungarian Zionism whose
collaboration with Eichmann led to the death of nearly ½ million Hungarian
Jews. When he was found guilty (it was a libel trial) the second Israeli
government of Moshe Sharrett collapsed in 1955. As Yigal Elam, an
Israeli historian observed:

‘From the very first moment it (Zionism) gave up all
considerations connected with the situation of the Jewish people in the
diaspora, except in so far as they contributed to the Zionist enterprise…
when the demonstrations and protest actions against the Nazi regime of terror
reached their climax, the voice of Zionism was not to be heard.’ [Introduction
to Zionist History, Tel Aviv 1972, pp. 113, 122. Hebrew]

It
is quite understandable that the NCC does not seek to pursue these questions with
me!

HG
also asked me about my remark that Zionism is a form of Jewish anti-Semitism. This charge too has
disappeared from the charge sheet and again it is not difficult to understand
why. I cited as an example the quotation from Israel’s first Justice Minister
Pinhas Rosenbluth, that ‘‘Palestine is an institute for the fumigation of
Jewish vermin.’  A comment which, if you did not know the
author, you would assume came from a Nazi. In fact it can be found in an
article Classic Zionism and modern
anti-Semitism: parallels and influences’ (1883-1914), Studies in Zionism, No. 4, Autumn 1983. 

If Israel were to admit non-Jewish refugees they would threaten Israel’s identity

There are those
misguided souls in the Labour Party who genuinely believe that Zionism stands opposed
to anti-Semitism, that its concern is genuine rather than a pretext for wielding
it as a weapon against their opponents. I hate to disabuse such innocents.
Zionism began from the belief that anti-Semitism was inherent in non-Jewish
society. Indeed it held it to be justified because it was the Jewish situation
that was anomalous. Zionism had no
principled disagreement with racial nationalism. Hence why, today, Israel
refuses to accept African refugees, since they threaten Israel’s Jewish
identity.  As Yigal Elam wrote:

‘Zionism did not consider anti-Semitism an abnormal,
absurd, perverse or marginal phenomenon. Zionism considered anti-Semitism a
fact of nature, a standard constant, the norm in the relationship of the
non-Jews to the presence of Jews in their midst…, Zionism considered
anti-Semitism a normal, almost rational reaction of the gentiles to the
abnormal, absurd and perverse situation of the Jewish people in the
diaspora.’  [Ot, organ of the Israeli Labour Party Ma’arakh no. 2, Tel Aviv
1967.

Theodor Herzl, the founding father of political
Zionism, wrote at the time of the Dreyfus Affair that:

‘In Paris… I achieved a freer attitude towards
anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon.
Above all, I recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat’
anti-Semitism.’ [Diaries, p.6, Ed, Ralph Patai]

Yair Netanyahu’s cartoon was redolent of traditional anti-Semitic conspiracy theories

Today
the Zionist movement everywhere is in an alliance with the Right and the
far-Right.  Labour Zionism only exists in
any strength today outside Israel.  In Israel itself, as it moves ever further to
the right it is a marginal movement. 
Virtually every far-Right party in Europe sees Israel as a bulwark
against Islam and Muslims. France’s Le Pen, Geert Wilders in The Netherlands,
Herr Strache’s Freedom Party in Austria, Alternatives for Germany (AfD) and of
course our own BNP, Britain First and EDL. In the USA the White Supremacists around
Breitbart are enthusiastic about Israel and their CEO, Steve Bannon was the guest of honour
at the recent gala dinner of the Zionist Organisation of America! The idea that
socialists have anything in common with Zionism is a sign of the political and
ideological decay of social democracy, a decay which the NCC represents.  It is a legacy of the New Labour and Blair
era.

The Charges

The
charges are divided into 3 parts but I will take them in specific
categories.  Bearing in mind that because
of the lack of time I have been afforded I can only respond to a selection.

Social
Media Posts/Twitter

The
monitoring of social media posts by the Compliance Unit and their acolytes is
not a neutral exercise. It became notorious when Jeremy Corbyn was challenged
by Owen Smith when Labour Party staff pro-actively search Twitter feeds of
thousands of members in order to deprive them of a vote. This exercise was
conducted exclusively against supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. Some of the more
notorious cases included Ronnie Draper, President of the Bakers Union and the
woman suspended for saying that she liked the ‘fucking Foo Fighters.’

This exercise
was wholly corrupt and if this had been a local authority election then Iain
McNicol and the Compliance Unit would have been arrested for corrupt electoral
practices.

This legacy still persists. Abusive
posts by supporters of the Right and Progress are routinely ignored. I have
three times made a complaint to McNicol about a comment on the Facebook page of Warren
Morgan, leader of Brighton and Hove Council. Having sent a letter to McNicol
accusing Labour’s conference of ‘anti-Semitism’, former Brighton councillor
Craig Turton then posted the above tweet. 
In other
words  the indignation over social media
posts is highly selective and partisan.

I am not going to spend any time over
what are considered offensive social media posts, for a number
of reasons:

The Question of Zio

Points 5-9, 16
and possibly other paragraphs are taken up with the question of ‘Zio’.  I have used this on Twitter as a shorthand for
Zionist given its previous 140 character limit. 

However I defend
the use of this term. It is not a ‘racist epithet’ or in any way racist.  Yes it is used perjoratively and why not?
Zionism is a racist, settler colonial movement. How would the Panel have me use
it?  In a complimentary way?

Far from ‘Zio’ being anti-Semitic it
is those who assert it is racist who are being anti-Semitic. Zio is short for
Zionist in exactly the same way as
‘fash’ is short for fascist or commie is short for communist etc. They may all
be used in a perjorative sense but they aren’t racist. ‘Zio’ is only racist if Zionist and Jew are synonymous.
Now to fascists and anti-Semites Jew and Zionist are interchangeable. To
Zionists they are also interchangeable, but historically most Jews weren’t
Zionists and most Zionists weren’t Jewish. Many anti-Semites were and are
Zionists, for example Arthur Balfour and Richard Spencer, because if you
believe Jews should not live in the diaspora you are either an anti-Semite or a
Zionist. In the USA the largest number of Zionists are Christian fundamentalists
like Pastor John Hagee, who is a notorious anti-Semite. However he is also
President of Christians United for Israel. Hagee who was defended by the
Zionist movement in the US became famous when John McCain was forced to disavow
him in the Presidential campaign against Obama because he preaches
that Hitler as an agent of god sent to drive the Jews to Israel. Yet
another example of an anti-Semite who was also a Zionist.

A racist and Islamaphobic tweet – Compliance Unit took exception to my response

Yes Chakrabarti recommended that Zio should
not be used however it is noticeable that those who quote Chakrabarti over ‘Zio’
are content to ignore her recommendations concerning procedure. Hypocrisy is
the tribute that vice pays to virtue so I am not surprised!

John Mann MP

According to Nos.
13- 15 exception is taken to my description of John Mann as ‘addicted to Murder and racism’ on a
public forum (I’m not sure which one since whoever compiled the bundle hasn’t
come to terms with the concept of page number referencing). This is not only ‘potentially defamatory but grossly
detrimental and/or prejudicial to the Party.’

Utter nonsense.
Mann has made a living out of ‘anti-Semitism’. 
This is the same John Mann who staged a media confrontation with Ken
Livingstone, accusing him of being a ‘Hitler supporter’ on the basis of a
factual statement about Nazi support for Zionism. It was Mann’s behaviour that
brought the Labour Party into disrepute.

Mann compared
Naz Shah to Adolph Eichmann and in the middle of the first leadership election
he penned An
open letter to Jeremy Corbyn on child abuse, exploiting the serious issue
of child abuse for factional advantage. 
Nothing I could say about this disgusting rent-a-mouth could compare
with what he himself says.  

Mann’s ‘concern’
with ‘anti-Semitism’ has more to do with his right-wing pro-imperialist politics
than racism. It is noticeable that Mann has never spoken out about asylum
seekers, refugees, deaths of Black teenagers in prison or Islamaphobia. What
concerns him is criticism of Israel. Mann has repeatedly stoked the fires of
the false anti-Semitism campaign and it was this that damaged the Labour
Party.  This campaign has been directed almost
exclusively against supporters of the Palestinians. Mann launched a vitriolic
campaign against a 90 year old Jewish doctor from Gateshead, Dr Glatt, who had the
temerity to criticise him. Mann was forced
by my blog into take his lying Facebook posts down.

If what I said
about Mann was defamatory then he has a very simple option. Sue me for libel,
bearing in mind that the truth is an absolute defence and Mann might lose some
of his ill-gotten gains.  One thing is
for certain. My comments are no business of McNicol’s puppets.

As for the
allegation that using a public forum I have caused gross detriment or prejudice
to the Party. Prove it! This is another McCarthyite lie. An assortment of petty
censors who, lacking any substantive argument, rely on the catch-all charge of a
detriment which is impossible to prove or deny. According to these useless
apparatchiks, freedom of speech too is detrimental. One shudders to think how the
radical pamphleteers, the Cobdens, Brights, Wilkes and Paines, would have fared
under the police state censors of the Compliance Unit. The Compliance Unit
stands in the tradition of the Witchfinder General Matthew Hopkins. They would have
been in their element in Salem.

Louise Ellman – MP for Liverpool Riverside and Tel Aviv South

According to Louise Ellman this is a dangerous Palestinian terrorist

Louise Ellman MP

In Numbers 24-26 I am
taken to task for criticising the MP for Liverpool Riverside and Tel Aviv,
Louise Ellman. Great exception is taken to my description of her, ‘on a public forum’ as ‘a supporter of Israeli child abuse – night
time arrests, beatings and incarceration of Palestinian children.’ My
accusers dare not say whether I am correct though. Instead these pathetic dissemblers
revert to the old McCarthyite generalities of causing prejudice and ‘gross detriment to the Party.’

If
telling the truth about the execrable Ellman has caused detriment then the
answer is to remove her and allow her constituency to find a socialist MP to
replace her. 

Palestinian child terrorist poses threat to Israeli peace keepers

If
what I have written is true then considerations of detriment, gross or
otherwise, fall away.  See for example Time to Deselect Louise
Ellman MP for Liverpool Riverside and Tel Aviv North and Louise Ellman MP is a Racist
Supporter of Child Abuse of Palestinian Children

On 6th January 2016 there was a debate in the
House of Commons on Child
Prisoners and Detainees: Occupied Palestinian Territories introduced by Sarah Champion. Champion described how, in June 2012, a delegation of British lawyers published a report
on children held in Israeli military custody. The Report found that Israel was
in breach of 6 of its legal obligations under the UN Convention on the rights
of the child and 2 obligations under the 4th Geneva convention. The
report concluded that if the allegations of abuse were true, Israel would also
be in breach of the absolute prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, in other words torture
against children, which is a war crime.

Ms Champion explained that 8 months after the UK report was
published, UNICEF released its own assessment of the military detention system
for children. After reviewing over 400 sworn affidavits from children detained
in a system that allows the prosecution of 12-year-olds in military courts,
UNICEF concluded that:

“the ill-treatment
of children who come in contact with the military detention system appears to
be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process, from
the moment of arrest until the child’s prosecution and eventual conviction and
sentencing”.

This is what Louise Ellman is defending

In February 2015 UNICEF updated its report and noted that
allegations of ‘ill-treatment of children during arrest, transfer,
interrogation and detention have not significantly decreased in 2013 and 2014”.
Amongst the issues that British officials
raised, were ‘the use of painful plastic ties to restrain children,
arresting children in the middle of the night in terrifying military raids, and
the mandatory use of audiovisual recording of all interrogations.’ 

Paula
Sherriff MP for Dewsbury, who had
visited the West Bank with Ms Champion in September 2015 asked a most relevant
question:

Does
my hon. Friend share my concern at the significant disparity between treatment
of Palestinian and Israeli young people, including lack of legal representation
and parental support, allegations of widespread abuse and having to sign
confessions in Hebrew…’?

To put it bluntly, why are Jewish children and Palestinian
children are treated differently? This
is quintessentially racist. Why do Jewish children from the settlements
have a parent or legal advisor with them at all times? Why are Jewish children rarely
if ever incarcerated? Why are Palestinian children forced to sign confessions
in a language they don’t understand?

Sara
Champion responded that ‘The disparity between the two legal systems
includes, for example, a maximum period of detention without charge of 40 days
for an Israeli child and 188 days for a Palestinian child.’ The late Jo Cox
MP also contributed to the debate:

‘I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing
this debate. She will be aware that evidence from Military Court Watch suggests
that 65% of children continue to report being arrested at night in what are
described as terrifying raids by the military. Will she comment on that
worrying fact?’

Louise Ellman made 3
contributions on behalf of the Israeli military and the JLM, of which she is
Vice-President:  Ellman (and Ian
Austin) were determined to defend Israel’s military. Every excuse for torture,
the beating of children, the night-time arrest of children, who are blindfolded
and handcuffed in painful plastic cuffs, was made by them. 

Ellman repeated Israeli army
propaganda.  An army whose statements have repeatedly been show to be fabricated
such that the Israeli human rights NGO B’tselem no longer cooperates with them.
Its soldiers have brutally attacked cameramen, murdered wounded prisoners and
physically attacked children in broad daylight.  Ellman appears to be more
the MP for Tel Aviv than for Liverpool Riverside. In her first contribution she stated that

‘the context in which
these situations occur is an organised campaign conducted by the Palestinian
authorities of incitement, to try to provoke young Palestinians to carry out
acts of violence towards other civilians, some of which result in death,
including the death of young children?’ 

This is a lie. The
Palestinian Authority is considered by most Palestinians to be a Quisling
authority which works openly in coordination with Israel’s army.

What Ellman was really saying is that the Palestinians
would be perfectly happy living under military occupation but for the ‘incitement’
of ‘young Palestinians’. For Ellman it is not
Israel’s 50 year long military occupation that causes Palestinian resistance
but ‘incitement’. Presumably Palestinians just love seeing their land
confiscated, their houses demolished and their economic prospects blighted. This is a colonial fiction.
Would the French have been happy with the Nazi occupiers but for the
Resistance?  The violence of the Occupier is transferred by Ellman onto the Palestinians.
Ellman continued:

 ‘I note my hon. Friend’s comments that a child
should not be detained, and I assume that she means in any circumstances.
Suppose a child was involved in an act of violence that resulted in the deaths
of other human beings. That is what has happened with young Palestinians
throwing stones—people have been killed. In those circumstances, surely she
thinks that there should be detention.’ 

Ellman doesn’t condemn Israel’s military because in her eyes,
the occupation is legitimate and the Military are merely agents of law and
order. In a third contribution Ellman asked:

 ‘Does my hon. Friend really believe that the
solution to this horrendous conflict between two peoples—the Israeli and the
Palestinian people—can be found by encouraging individual child Palestinians to
commit acts of violence against other human beings?’ 

Ellman’s is the voice of the colonialist. For her Palestinian
children are the guilty ones and Israel’s military are innocent. Ellman’s assertions
lack even the slightest evidence. Ellman is an echo chamber for Israel’s
military. The torture and beatings by an army which refuses to record its
interrogations and which refuses access by lawyers or parents to their
children, is acceptable. Nothing I could say about this wretch of a woman could
be strong enough.

What the racists from the Compliance Unit means when they speak
of ‘the sensitivity of the subject
matter, obvious care needs to be taken when discussing the issue’ (No: 25)
is that we should turn a blind eye to Israel’s human rights abuses and not call
out Israel’s war crimes.

The owner of the Daily Mail’s thoughts on the Nazi regime in the 1930’s

Of course there are precedents. In the 1930’s when the Jewish
Boycott of Nazi Germany was in full swing (the Zionists excepted) Lord
Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail wrote in Nazi Youth in Control [Daily
News 4.9.33] that:

They have started a clamorous
campaign of denunciation against what they call ‘Nazi atrocities,’ which, as
anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for him self, consists merely of a
few isolated acts of violence.’ 

The Israeli Labour Party

In
Points 28 and 29 my assertion that the JLM (not Labour Party members) were ‘holding hands with Israeli Labour ethnic
cleansers’ ‘is not an acceptable way of engaging in political debate’.  In a repetition of the same stale formula,
because apparatchiks love repetitious formula because it saves them from thinking,
‘doing so on a public forum has further
prejudiced and/or caused gross detriment to the Party.’ Telling the truth according
to these mendacious pen pushers is to cause detriment or prejudice. 

It
is a matter of fact that the ILP is and always has been a party of ethnic cleansing.  From the 1920’s when it picketed out Jewish
employers who employed Arabs, they called it ‘Jewish Labour’ to 1947-8 when it organised
the expulsion of ¾ million Palestinians. Of course in 1944 the Labour Party’s
own manifesto supported the ‘transfer’ of the Palestinians – ‘let the Arabs be
encouraged to move out as the Jews move in.’

Benny Morris, a
Zionist historian goes on to quote the Labour Zionist Director of the Jewish
National Fund, Joseph Weitz, quoting from his Diary of 20th December
1940: [Benny Morris, The Birth of the
Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p.54, Cambridge University
Press] 

There is
no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, and to
transfer all of them, save perhaps a few…. There is no other solution.”

The
immediate past leader of the ILP Isaac Herzog declared
that his nightmare was waking up to find that Israel had a Palestinian Prime
Minister and 61 Palestinian Members of Israel’s Knesset
(Parliament).  Who needs the Right when we
have Isaac Herzog? 
Herzog also declared that he wanted to dispel the false impression that the ILP
were ‘Arab Lovers’ Herzog slammed for remark
about ‘Arab lovers’ 

Imagine if someone in Britain had said
that their nightmare was waking up to a Jewish Prime Minister?  Or if
people talked of ‘Jew lovers’.  Anti-fascists used to get accused
by the neo-Nazi National Front of being ‘nigger lovers’.  Herzog’s
rhetoric however goes virtually unnoticed in a country where Prime Minister
Netanyahu talks about Arabs outside Israel being ‘wild beasts’ Netanyahu plans fence
around Israel to protect it from ‘wild beasts’

Herzog has recently been replaced as leader by
Avi Gabbay who is, if anything to the racist Right of Herzog.  He declared that“We will not sit in
the same government as the Joint List I don’t see any [connection] between
us.” The Joint List is the 3rd largest group in the
Knesset.  It comprises 3 different parties including nationalist Balad and
the Communist Party. Gabbay has not however ruled out being in coalition with the
far Right Habayit HaYehudi and Yisrael Beteinu, both parties that support
transfer i.e. ethnic cleansing.

Ofer
Aderet reported in Ha’aretz 17.11.17 that the Israeli Labour Prime Minister at the time
of the 1967 War, Levi Eshkol stated, in respect of the newly conquered
territory of Gaza:

The question is whether Israel is a settler
colonial state today.  If so it must be
racist. In January an ‘unrecognised’ Bedouin village in Israel’s Negev desert
was demolished at dawn with dozens of heavily armed Israeli Police in
attendance. They shot a Palestinian, a teacher, dead. No Jewish demonstrator,
no matter how violent has ever been killed nor have the Police ever opened fire
on a Jewish demonstration.  Racism?  Perish the thought.

Half the Arab villages in Israel are
unrecognised, they have no right to be there. 
They are liable to instant demolition. They are not connected to water,
electricity or sewerage etc.

Umm al-Hiran was established in 1956.  The Negev is 98% empty but the Zionist
authorities decided to build a Jewish-only town on top of the village, not
besides it.  No Jewish village has ever
been demolished. No Jewish village is unrecognised. Not one new Arab village or
town has been created since 1948, even though their population has increased 10
fold. 

So was the demolition of Umm al-Hiran the act of a racist,
settler colonial state?  The answer should
be obvious to all but the racists who are seeking to expel me.

Bizarre

Charges Numbers 43-45 are truly bewildering and
an example of the McCarthyite mentality. Free speech, open debate, critical
thinking – all of these are anathema to the tiny closed minds of Compliance and
those on the NCC Panel who are willing to do their bidding.

In number Charge No: 43 I state that Gerald
Kaufman’s speech to
the House of Commons on January 15 2009

“was unforgivable (to the Zionists) because we must not compare Israel to Nazi Germany.  Only Zionists may use the Holocaust to defend
their bastard state of racial supremacy.”

 I stand by every word. What possible reason is
there for this to form part of the disciplinary charges against me? Kaufman’s
speech will go down as one of the great parliamentary speeches. During Operation
Cast Lead, which killed 1400 Palestinian civilians he declared:

My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland.
Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the
holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town
of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

My grandmother did not die to provide cover for
Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.  The current Israeli Government
ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the
slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of
Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives
of Palestinians do not count.

Charge 44 says that on 4th March
2017 I posted a blog entitled ‘The abuse
of Anti-Semitism to silence free speech on Israel.’  Yes, there has been an outrageous attempt
to use ‘anti-Semitism’ as a means of silencing debate on Zionism and
Palestine.  This is what this hearing is
about!  That is what I believe? Is that
verboten? Do the members of the NCC wish to see an internal equivalent of a police
state regime? Do members of the NCC find it so difficult to comprehend that
there has been a media campaign aimed at creating an atmosphere whereby it is
taken for granted that anti-Semitism is prevalent in the Labour Party, despite
the lack of any evidence?  That after all
is why the main targets of McNicol’s witch hunters are Jewish! 

An interview with Avi Shlaim, an Israeli
Professor of International Relations at St. Anthony’s College, Oxford is
instructive. 

‘Anti-Semitism is not a real phenomenon within the Labour Party or any
of the other major political parties. There are anti-Semitic incidents but they
are usually related to Israel’s behaviour, Israeli brutality.  So every time there is an Israeli attack on
Gaza and there have been 3 in the last 7 years there is a rise in anti-Semitic
episodes and incidents in Britain. Fundamentally Israel and the Israeli
propaganda machine and Israel’s friends in England and the Israel lobby in
Britain deliberately confuse or conflate, and I stress they do it deliberately,
anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. 
Anti-Zionism is nothing to do with Jews. Anti-Semitism is hatred of the
Jews as Jews.  Anti-Zionism is opposition
to Israel as a colonial power and as an exclusive Jewish state.’

That should be clear, even to the dimmest
member of Compliance or the NCC. In Charge 45 exception is taken to my statement
that ‘What we have seen is an exercise in
state-sponsored destabilization of the Party and we are also witnessing  wholesale attack on the Palestine Solidarity
movement using the weapon of ‘anti-Semitism’. 

I should have added what we are also seeing is
a whole attack on free speech in the Labour Party by police-state democrats (as
the supporters of Hubert Humphrey were termed). 
At the behest of the Israel lobby, the Compliance Unit and McNicol have
given warning that debate in the Labour Party is only allowed within strict
confines. They wish to import the censorship and ‘gag orders’ so beloved of the
Israeli state. It will be for others to decide whether or not they will be
allowed to get away with it as I have no illusions in the NCC’s tame lapdogs.

I cannot find Tab 7 that is referred to in
Point 45 because it didn’t occur to the bureaucratic fool who compiled the
bundle that page references might be helpful. 

The
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Definition of Anti-Semitism

Throughout the Bundle there are references to
the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. It informs the definition of
anti-Semitism that I am accused of.  The
definition in total is 495 words. The way the IHRA is presented in the charges
against me it is as if this definition was unproblematic.  The impression given  is that this is a consensual definition
whereas nothing could be further from the truth.

Those who drew up the bundle cannot but have
been aware of the controversies surrounding the IHRA. If they weren’t their
ignorance is astounding. To make no reference to these controversies or the fact that the Labour Party has only
adopted the short 38 word introduction to the IHRA is symptomatic of the
dishonesty and deceit of my accusers.

 Orban and his Fidesz
party have sought to rehabilitate Admiral Horthy, Hungary’s fascist ruler between 1920 and
1944 and the author of Hungary’s war-time alliance with Nazi Germany. 
Horthy was quite open about the fact that he was an anti-Semite:

19:     On the 15th January 2017, in response to a Labour Party member
being reported as saying “so shoot me”, Mr Greenstein stated on Facebook
“Yes it is rather tempting. At least if someone does it they can say there
was an open invitation”.

20. On the 17th January 2017, in
response to a Labour Party member being reported as saying “so shoot me”, Mr
Greenstein stated “Ella Rose, racist Director of @JewishLabour invites us to
shoot her – it is tempting but…..”

Clearly the
humourless scoundrel who inserted these Charges didn’t read the last ‘but’ it
wasn’t a threat to murder her but a humorous commentary on this spoilt brats
idea of herself as some kind of martyr.

In my court action
against the McNicol under s.7(9) of the Data Protection Act, solicitor Jai
Sharda, in his first witness statement (Para. 20(i)(b) wrote that the Claimant
(me) ‘talks with his followers about how it is “tempting” to shoot
a Jewish Labour Movement staff member for being a Zionist’ [332 –
333].  I guess there is no humour in
McCarthyism.

Charge Number 3         A Humorous E-mail sent 3rd
May to Iain McNicol

Under Charge
3, I am charged with the most heinous all crimes trivialisation of the
Holocaust and belittling the experience of the Holocaust victims. 

Charge 3:            ‘On
3rd May 2016, Mr Greenstein sent an email to the General Secretary of the
Party, Iain McNicol, in which he proposed a “rule
change” which would require that “all
membership applications and nominations for party office or for Labour
candidacies should first be submitted for approval to the Israeli embassy.”
In that email he uses language reflecting the Nazi plan under Adolf Hitler to
exterminate Jewish people: “If passed, it
would provide a final, I mean complete, solution”:

47. repeats the above

48. In an email to Mr McNicol on the 3rd May 2016, Mr
Greenstein trivialized the very serious issue of antisemitism – thereby trivialising
and belittling the suffering of those who experience anti-Semitism. In doing
so, Mr Greenstein acted in a way which is prejudicial and/or grossly
detrimental to the Party.

49.
In addition, the references to a “final solution” used language
connected with the atrocities committed against Jewish people in and by Nazi
Germany in the 1930s and 40s, which is deeply offensive, provocative and highly
insensitive.

On 3rd
May, shortly after having been suspended and in contemplation of a situation
whereby I had been suspended without being given any reason, I decided to send
a humorous email to McNicol. I freely admit that I made a terrible error
in assuming that he or any of the misfits he surrounds himself with had a sense
of humour. Whether that should be the subject of Labour’s disciplinary process
is for the NCC to decide.  Perhaps this
is the one real error of judgement I have made, though whether it is an
expulsion offence is doubtful.

In the witness statement of McNicol’s solicitor Jai Sharda
it was recorded that ‘The Claimant (myself) also openly regards Muslims as “the route
[sic] cause of our [the Party’s] problems” The (sic) spelling error
was not mine.  As the email, which I have
reproduced below makes clear, this too was an attempt at humour.  A forlorn attempt I admit.

McNicol, who seems to make a virtue out
of stupidity, failed to understand that what I wrote was an example of parody,
a spoof or send up designed to demonstrate not only the absurdity of the false
anti-Semitism witch hunt but the manipulative and sordid way in which the
Holocaust is portrayed for political purposes. 
It is an example of irony and is completely lost on these humourless
bastards.

I am of course at fault for not
realising that when you are engaged in the business of ferreting out deviance,
dissent or dissidence in Labour’s ranks, when your priority is to defend the
world’s only apartheid state and with it the American alliance, then humour is a
luxury you cannot afford.  My crime is
akin to imagining that there was anything humorous in the activities of Joe
McCarthy or the House of UnAmerican Activities. Although the Compliance Unit is
restricted in the penalties it can impose, it can’t imprison me for the
contempt I have for them, it operates on exactly the same ideological wave
length and with the same thought processes. 
Anti-Semitism is the new anti-communism. Anti-Zionist are the reds under
the bed that the scum are looking for.

How
to make people into anti-Semites

If anyone is fooled by the Zionist
assertion that being Jewish and Zionist are synonymous and is thereby tricked
into making an anti-Semitic comment by virtue of associating Jews with Israel’s
war crimes, then the full force of McNicol’s enforcers will be felt.  

It is, when you think about it quite a clever
trick.  The JLM and LFI do their utmost
to pretend that Israel and Jews are the same and when they criticise or attack
Jews for what Israel does then they are called anti-Semitic.  It is however a trick with sometimes lethal
consequences.

 The World Zionist Organisation’s Jerusalem
Program makes it absolutely clear that Jews
are a nation whose bonds with Israel are indivisible. The
foundations of Zionism are:

1.     
The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its
historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of
Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation;

Israel is the embodiment of the ‘Jewish
nation’. As Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis explained

 ‘Zionism
is a belief in the right to Jewish self-determination in a land that has been
at the centre of the Jewish world for more than 3,000 years. One can no
more separate it [Zionism] from Judaism than separate the City of London from
Great Britain.’ 

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
makes it clear that Israel is a symbol of Jewish nationhood and that ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to
self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel
is a racist endeavor.’ is anti-Semitic. 
Now this sentence is a classic example of a non-sequitur and an example
of the shallowness of the IHRA definition. 
It is useless as a means of combating anti-Semitism.

According to the IHRA Israel is the
visible embodiment of the non-existent Jewish nation’s right to
self-determination.  However if you take
the IHRA at its word and start blaming Jews for what the Israeli state, having
been told the two are one and the same, then you are guilty if anti-Semitism because
‘Holding Jews collectively responsible
for actions of the state of Israel’ is also anti-Semitic!  Thus heads you lose and tails the Zionists
win.

Whatever you do you are anti-Semitic
unless of course you are actually an anti-Semite and support the State of
Israel. So a genuine neo-Nazi like the leader of the alt-Right Richard Spencer,
who declares
he is a White Zionist or a 24 carat anti-Semite like Steve Bannon of Breitbart
who told
his wife that he didn’t want his twin daughters
going to the Archer School for Girls because they had too many Jewish students
who were ‘whiny brats’, are ok.

I completely reject the assertion in
Charge 3 that my email to McNicol was anti-Semitic because I used ‘language reflecting the Nazi plan under
Adolf Hitler to exterminate Jewish people’ and stated that “If passed, it would provide a final, I mean
complete, solution”

I reject the mentality that associates
the genocide of European Jews with a fetishisation of words.  It is indeed a way of trivialising the
Holocaust.  The Holocaust is not a phrase
that causes offence.  It is also
noticeable that the pen pushers of Southside elide the Holocaust into genocide
of the Jews as if it didn’t encompass the Disabled and the Gypsies/Roma.

When Naz Shah MP was attacked and
pilloried for posting a light-hearted joke about how much better it would be if
Israel was relocated within the borders of its best friend, the United
States,(the cartoon actually came from the Jewish
Virtual Library) Norman Finkelstein, both of
whose parents were in concentration camps wrote:

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?

It’s an apt phrase ‘All these desiccated Labour apparatchiks, dragging the Nazi
holocaust through the mud for the sake of their petty jostling for power and
position.’  These
sentiments are entirely mine.  The people
who should hang their heads are those who brought these charges and who are
willing partners in the exploitation of the Holocaust for the purpose of
defending Israel’s policies of segregation and ethnic cleansing. 

My email highlighted the sacralisation
of words as part of the process of emptying them of their meaning. What I am
protesting is the use of the Holocaust as a means of defending the racist and
apartheid practices of a state that terms itself Jewish.

I was drawing attention to the
Zionisation of the Holocaust which destroys any attempt to draw meaningful lessons
from the Holocaust. How is it that Theresa May, who has adopted the IHRA
definition of anti-Semitism in toto
and who condemns Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘anti-Semitism’ is at the same time
facilitating genocide in the Yemen through her sales of arms to the Saudi
Arabian regime? How is it that no one has the temerity to point this out?  She condemns the Holocaust yet enables a
genocide?  How is this done?  Because of hypocritical bastards like
McNicol, Stolliday and the Compliance Unit. 
That is my response to this ridiculous charge. 

How is it that Israel is actively helping
Saudi Arabia in the Yemen and is the best friend today of Saudi Arabia whilst
it uses a Holocaust propaganda museum Yad Vashem as a staging post for
far-Right politicians?  Difficult
questions for the Holocaust mongers and the petty party functionaries whose
goal it is to ‘cleanse’ Labour of its genuine anti-racists.

What are the lessons of the
Holocaust?  Quite obviously that racism
and fascism are human constructs that should be opposed wherever and whenever
they occur. That should be a given for a socialist party.  Never Again means exactly that.  Never again should any people be singled out
for annihilation because of their ‘race’. 
The Holocaust has become Zionism’s primary ideological weapon against
its adversaries. We had Netanyahu try to put the blame for the Holocaust on the
Mufti of Jerusalem a year ago and in the process absolve Hitler.

Zionism has reduced the Holocaust to a
gauche sentimentality, devoid of any progressive political meaning. Indeed it
is worse. Because of Israel’s ruthless use of the memory of the Holocaust
victims, victims whom the Zionist movement abandoned during the Holocaust, the
phenomenon of Holocaust denial has grown up.

There was a time when Holocaust denial
was confined to a fringe neo-Nazi element who denied that which they wanted to
repeat. It is clear today on social media and elsewhere, that Holocaust denial
extends far beyond a neo-Nazi fringe. Why? Because Israel uses the Holocaust as
a means of legitimation and to justify its war crimes. Some fools believe that
if they deny the Holocaust then they have removed Israel’s legitimacy. What
they don’t understand is that Israel’s illegitimacy arises from its existence
as a racist, settler colonial state independently of the Holocaust. Since the
Holocaust is a fact, denying it merely reinforces and strengthens the Israeli
state.  To paraphrase Bebel, it is the
anti-Zionism of fools.  But the primary
responsibility for the spread of Holocaust denial ideas rests with not only
Zionism but the processes of sanctification and instrumentalisation of the
Holocaust of which McNicol, the Compliance Unit and the NCC are a part.

Each year, Israel takes thousands of
school children to Auschwitz.  Not to
imbue them with the values of anti-racism and anti-fascism, not in order that
they better understand what happens when the other is demonised and rendered
inhuman, but in order to cement and reinforce the values of nationalism. ‘Never again’ to Zionism means never
again to the Jews.  It has no anti-racist
meaning. After all how can a society in which segregation is rigidly enforced,
where Arabs cannot live in 93% of the land, where education is segregated,
where there is an ongoing fear of miscegenation, i.e. intermarriage between Jew
and non-Jew, be considered to have absorbed the lessons of the Holocaust?

In the words of
Professor Idith Zertal, a historian at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University

‘By
means of Auschwitz… Israel rendered itself immune to criticism and impervious
to a rational dialogue with the world around her… Israel because of its
wholesale and out-of-context use of the Holocaust, became a prime example of
devaluation of the meaning and enormity of the Holocaust.’
[Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, CUP, 2011] 

I realise that both the NCC and my
accusers are unlikely to understand the above. For imperialism and the Labour
Right, the Holocaust is a simple tale, depoliticised with a fairy story ending
of the founding of Israel.  That is the
myth that Zionism propagates and people like me are here to undermine. 

It is not my parody of the
fetishisation of words associated with the Holocaust, such as Final Solution,
Transportation etc. which are anti-Semitic it is the use of the Holocaust in
order to justify a regime of racial segregation, discrimination and ethnic
cleansing, combined with a vicious regime of military law.  It is that which makes a mockery of the
Holocaust victims and it is my accusers who are the real anti-Semites.  J’Accuse.

This is not just my view or even that
of a distinguished scholar such as Edith Zertal. In Israel there is a growing
recognition, amongst an enlightened minority, of the racist and nationalist use
to which the Holocaust is put. There has been a move by the more liberal
Israeli schools, which cater for the richest Israeli students, to stop these
trips to Auschwitz.  As Time magazine reported: Leading
Israeli Principal Warns Annual Trip to Concentration Camps Fuel Extreme
Nationalism

‘a prestigious and historic Israeli school, the Herzliya Hebrew
Gymnasium… announced
it is breaking with the tradition….

The school’s
principal Zeev Dagani says he has stopped the trips because of their cost and a
concern that it exacerbates nationalistic sentiments in youths, months before
the students embark on compulsory service in the Israeli military.

“In
recent years, the journey has increasingly overlapped with the current regime
and atmosphere in Israel, which revolves around fear and hatred for the
other,” Dagani told Israeli
daily Haaretz. He warned that “the popular
atmosphere here today is all about the delegitimization of the other and
nationalistic sentiments” – and that such trips can then “serve these trends.”  See also Why Israelis
Are Refusing to Send Their Kids on School Trips to Auschwitz Ha’aretz 5.5.16. 

Of course to McNicol and his cohorts,
the crimes committed against the Palestinians are illusory. Israel is the
equivalent of Reagan’s Shining City on the Hill. It can do no wrong, after all
it is the only democracy in the Middle East. 
Every time it commits another series of war crimes or mass murder it is
in ‘self defence’.  The laughable
proposition that a nuclear superpower, armed to the teeth with American
weaponry is somehow fearful for its existence is itself a product of the siege
mentality common to all settler colonial states.

I stand by my email below 100%.  Its purpose was to bring the issue of how Zionism
and Israel use and manipulate the Holocaust for ideological political purposes.
I referred earlier to the Ha’aretz article Israel
Is Waiting for Its Holocaust Survivors to Die. Israel’s use
of the Holocaust as an ideological weapon is inverse proportion to its concern
for the actual victims of the Holocaust. This doesn’t sit easily with the
Labour Right’s adoration of Israel. Israel is, as the Prince of Darkness Peter Mandelson
and others have said, a political litmus test for New Labour.  Why? Because Israel is the embodiment of the
special relationship with the United States.

A
good comrade of mine (pardon the unBlairish language) has suggested that the
following rule change should be submitted to the next party conference. 
If passed it would enable a final, I mean complete, solution sorry satisfactory
outcome to be reached in regard to the present impasse regarding
anti-Semitism. 

I
realise that it will probably involve a severe reduction in the number of
Muslims allowed into the party, because we all know that they are the root
cause of our problems, but I hope that you will agree that allowing the Israeli
embassy to vet all applications to the Party, both current, future and past,
would resolve all our problems.

Yours
in solidarity,

Tony
Greenstein

Rule Change Proposal Re Membership Applications to
Labour Party

To avoid any further
unpleasantness Labour should agree a rule change that all membership
applications and all nominations for party office or for Labour candidacies
should first be submitted for approval to the Israeli Embassy….

Any objections can be
disregarded as obviously coming from anti-Semites. Have we not been told that
the Macpherson report means that racism can only be defined by the victims, and
that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people, so that attacking
Israel’s legitimacy is necessarily antisemitic? Then who better to define
antisemitism than the government of the Jewish nation? Those who doubt this
have by definition outed themselves as antisemites.

All tweets and
Facebook comments of party members should be scrutinised so that the party can
be cleansed of those who during the siege of Gaza may have been guilty of hate
speech by denouncing Comrade Regev … in such antisemitic terms as ‘two face
lying zio hack’, Israel’s answer to Comical Ali’, a shameless apologist for
mass murder’, ‘PR man for war criminals’ and other vulgar abuse unbefitting a
responsible party of government.

Campaign
Against Anti-Semitism

The Charge
sheet against me also quotes from the far-Right Campaign Against Anti-Semitism
(Impact No. 50, p. 6 and pp. 172, 173, 175) and its bogus polls. These polls by
the CAA have about as much validity as the polls which McNicol and co. were
relying on before June 8th which said that Jeremy Corbyn would lose
votes for Labour.  One might have hoped
that even the more stupid members of the Compliance Unit would have learnt
something.

The CAA is viciously hostile to the Labour Party. A
search on their web site for ‘Racist Labour’ turns up 64 results. A
search on ‘Jeremy Corbyn’ turns up 107 results none of them flattering.
Indeed they made a complaint was made to McNicol that Corbyn was anti-Semitic!

But what about their polls?  Even if they are a nasty far-Right Zionist organisation
determined to tarnish any form of Palestine solidarity with the brush of
‘anti-Semitism’ perhaps their polls are sound? 
Unfortunately not.  They are a highly
political organisation determined to stir up discord between Jews and Muslims and
whose primary purpose is to create the impression of a wave of anti-Semitism in
Britain as part of the Zionist agenda of promoting Aliyah (emigration of Jews
to Israel). 

Jonathan Boyd, executive director of
the respected Institute for Jewish Policy Research dismissed the CAA’s survey of British Jewish opinion as
having ‘little, if any, methodological
credibility’. He also characterised the CAA’s presentation of the YouGov
poll as ‘deeply flawed’. In a
detailed critique, the JPR found the CAA’s survey to be ‘littered with flaws’ and ‘irresponsible’.
Coming from the IJRP these are very strong criticisms.  Due to ‘quite
basic methodological flaws and weaknesses’, its poll of British Jews had
‘very limited capacity’ to assess the representativeness of its sample.  In its poll it had absurdly claimed that ‘Almost
half of Britons hold antisemitic view, poll suggests‘, Guardian 14 January, 2015).

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s Racist Poster – Imagine if ‘Jewish Islamaphobia’ had been substituted for ‘Muslim Anti-semitism’

It is no surprise that those seeking to expel me are
attracted to the CAA like a dog to its own vomit. A cursory glance at their
site demonstrates they are a viciously racist, Islamaphobic organisation.  This delightful cartoon is in their publication British Muslims and Anti-Semitism.
I have posted on my blog extensive articles on the CAA.  Given the attention paid to my blog it must
be assumed that those who decided to quote from the CAA did so knowingly. This
is another example of my accusers’ racism. 
It is they not me who should be should be expelled from the Labour Party.  Or is the only focus on bogus ‘anti-Semitism’?

Still I guess that McNicol’s racist
sleuths have done better than Harry Gregson. 
During his investigation he quoted from one Paul Bogdanor’s attack on
me. A vicious anti-communist Bogdanor is a contributor to David Horowitz’s
Frontpagemag.com.  This delightful site
is on the list of the Southern Poverty Law Centre as a hate organisation.  It boasts Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch as
well as the virulent racist Trump supporter Pamela Geller.  Both Spencer and Geller are banned from
entering Britain but that didn’t stop Gregson including them in the
witchhunter’s family. When you swim in a sewer you cannot help but getting
covered in shit.

If this response is rushed and it
doesn’t cover all the allegations it is because the Chair of the NCC decided in
his wisdom that I should not have adequate time to respond to a bundle of
documents and charges that had accumulated over 17 months.

I hope that members have pleasant
reading!

Tony
Greenstein