Who does the board and jlc represent

It seems the whole country and more is running scared shitless of the Israelist ” leadership ” it might be worth taking a look at the credentials of these organisations. Starting with The Bored of deputies and the JLC. The BoD, of course, is deferred to as the ” democratically elected leadership of the Jewish community”. This is complete bollocks of course.

The Board is essentially synagogue based. Each synagogue may send Deputies to the BoD, the number is dependent on how many members it claims. It is true that a majority of Jewish families are affiliated to a synagogue. Some out of religious conviction and preference and a lot because membership is an important facilitator of rites of passage. Many are excluded by the eye watering cost of membership.

So the first identifiable group that the Board does not represent are the poorest sectors of the Jewish population.

The second group, of course, is the ultra orthodox, the fastest growing sector of the famous “community”. Their synagogues do not send deputies to the BoD.

There are something like 400 synagoges in the UK. We can’t be sure exactly how many send representatives to the BoD but a glance at the general make up suggests that 150 would be a top figure.

Now these Deputies are supposed to be elected representatives. In reality if you wanted to count the number of Deputies that found their way to the BoD  via a contested election you would need more than one pair of  hands but less than four. The overwhelming majority of Shuls that send Deputies, are, in this context, rotten boroughs. It is a matter of finding a volunteer. The volunteers are invariably right wing activists. We even have the absurd situation that one of the BoD’s vice Presidents lives in London and is a deputy for a Shul in Wales !!! So the congregation of this Welsh Shul are deemed to be represented.

The BoD is a bastion of the conservative and right wing United Synagogue. So much so that when Laura Marks, a member of a Reform synagogue , ran for President in 2015 she felt a need to add an affiliation to a US shul to her membership of a Reform Shul.  She was right. Only US deputies get elected President as the US deputies vote in a religious block on matters pertaining to their privileges. It didn’t do Marks any good. The President of the US declared that her action would be divisive and could result in the US  distancing itself from the BoD. This was a potent threat. The BoD would be no more.

You might also find yourself becoming a Deputy if you are a member of the right kind of organisation that has in excess of 500 members and has had during the two years preceding application. Well 500 members is a high bar and its purpose is to make sure the organisation is firmly ” mainstream”.  The Board is terrified of plurality and diversity.  It doesn’t mind a few racist off the scale right wing  nutters like Jonathan Hoffman because they are sound on Israel. Indeed it accomodates more than a few.The defensive wall is shored up by the requirement that an organisation must secure the votes of two thirds of Deputies. It would be an interesting plenary if Jewdas really did apply for affiliation. Geoffrey Cohen versus Jerry Lewis would be fun.

And of course the applicant organisation must sign up to the Board’s aims and objectives foremost of which is ” the advancement of Israel’s security, well being, and standing”  You don’t have to be concerned about the well being of any other country, not even that of the UK. Obviously if you are anti-Zionist, a non Zionist or could not give a flying watsit about Israel, but are more concerned about the condition of Jews in the UK, you are excluded. The Bored does not represent you.

Be clear. In practice this means the Board positively FORBIDS itself ANY criticism of Israel and would impose the same restriction on the rest of us if it could. Maybe it can. Its erstwhile treasurer, Laurence Brass, had enough of this and was consequently hounded out of office. Brass ruefully observed, ” The perception that the Board is an extension of  the Israeli Embassy is not helpful.”

Deputy places are also reserved for appointed reps of special interest groups including places reserved for Israelis !!!! Yes, you have to be an Israeli to fill one of those places.

The idea that the Board is some kind of democratic elected body representing all the Jews in Britain is ludicrous.

ARKUSH GETS ONE THING RIGHT

 The JLC is unelected, unaccountable and unacceptable

Jonathan Arkush

The Jewish Leadership Council represents nobody but itself. It came to be when a bunch of very rich Jewish grandees decided that the Board was no longer fit for purpose. That its bureaucratic lumberings hampered the task of creating an Israel friendly Britain. What was needed was a well funded and highly connected organisation that was much faster on its feet. These oligarchs then simply declared themselves ” Jewish Leaders”. What we have seen since then is an unseemly turf war

The JLC has slowly but surely elbowed the Board out of its traditional roles, in particular out of its role as the organisation that has the ears of, and access to, the high and mighty. It is all about money and monied connections. The JLC  grandees are mega rich and the Board is perennially flying by the seat of its financial arse. The grandees are not shy about exploiting this situation.

During the Presidency of Vivian Wineman, there was much talk of the Board and JLC merging. That is, of the JLC  taking over the Board. During this time the JLC  kindly kept the Board afloat financially. All this merger talk came to an abrupt end when Wineman moved on and Arkush took over.

Arkush hates the JLC . In particular he hates a previous CEO the would be union buster, fare dodger, serial embezzler, perjurer and one man crime wave,Jeremy Newmark ,on account of his dalliance with the Labour Party. Arkush of course, being a rabid hard right Tory.

Even more does he hate Mick Davis, who recently vacated the Chair of the JLC to become chairman of the Conservative and Unionist Party. But not before he had bought a knighthood off David Cameron for £1.4 million.

Arkush had a long standing ambition to be President of the Board and regarded the end of Wineman’s second term as his big opportunity. Imagine his pain as he watched Wineman’s retreat in the face of the JLC encroachment. He stood to get to be President of nothing. Someone as emotionally erratic and with so little impulse control had to erupt at some point. And he did.

The tipping point came in 2012. The JLC had established for itself an annual audience with David Cameron, the then Prime Minister. The purpose was to give Cameron his instructions for the coming year and to make sure Cameron fully understood what was required of him. The JLC  were in the habit of taking reps from a few affiliated orgs along for the ride including a rep from the Board. By this time the Board was an affiliate of the JLC. Arkush, of course thought it should be the other way round. He has never accepted that the Board walks and money talks. So the Board were to be there AT THE INVITATION OF THE JLC. 

But anyway Arkush had an almighty wobbler at a Board plenary, denounced the JLC  as “unelected, unaccountable and unacceptable”.  He went on to accuse the JLC  of corruption in that they bribed organisations to affiliate. It was the Leeds and Manchester rep councils he had in mind.

Well the roof fell in on him. The nutter fringe cheered him but the saner, wiser among them understood the implications. Those that didn’t immediately grasp them were quickly reminded by Davis. He warned of ” consequences” , declared Arkush’s position to be ” untenable”  and  said JLC members “may feel that they can no longer provide ongoing financial support for the Board while being subjected to this sort of attack by the senior vice-president of the institution”.

Jerry Lewis demanded that Arkush resign. Laurence Brass suggested he take a break from communal politics.

The outcome was a series of the most grovelling apologies imaginable, including a letter circulated to all deputies in which he said that his remarks were ” inappropriate ” and had been made when he was ” unwell”. He was in particular “sorry to have made references to any financial matters. I withdraw those remarks in their entirety. There was no suggestion of impropriety.”

The Jewish News remarked that Arkush had ” lost all credibility.”

Of course subsequent events have shown us that his judgment that the JLC  is corrupt was well on target. When it became clear that  Newmark was ripping the JLC off big time Mick Davis embarked on a distasteful cover up. Newmark was allowed to resign on ” health grounds” and the grandees dipped into their pockets to plug the holes in the JLC  accounts that Newmark’s embezzlements had created. Under pressure from the Jewish Chronicle the JLC  announced an independent enquiry into its handling of the affair. Then we learned that permission had been obtained from the Charities Commission for the terms of reference to exclude the question of whether the JLC should have called in the police. In other words there wasn’t going to be a meaningful enquiry at all. This of course had nothing to do with the fact that the then Chairman of the CC was none other than the rabid Israelist William Shawcross, who by this time was spending more time in Israel than in the UK.

and god gave the israelists wiley

As the end of July crept up on us it had been a tough and barren summer for the Israelists. For months the nation had been stalked by a deadly virus. Citizens were dropping dead in their tens of thousands. The Israelists just kept banging on about what hey called “ antisemitism” but nobody was listening.  

If that wasn’t bad enough along came the murder of George Floyd and the consequent BLM demos complete with statues of slavers getting dumped into harbours etc etc. The Israelists persisted in banging on about what hey call “ antisemitism” but nobody was listening. 

If this wasn’t bad enough along came a tsunami of videos of British cops harassing black folks. The Israelists just kept banging on about what they call “ antisemitism” but nobody was listening.

You could almost smell the frustration, nay the desperation. The right wing, racist,  zero hours “ human rights lawyer” Adam Wagner let his exasperation get the better of him, put his hoof in his mouth once again, and told us explicitly that all talk of anti black racism was just  an attempt to divert attention from “ antisemitism”. 

It was as if the people had woken up and smelled the roses. That the penny had dropped. That they had realised that 99.99999999% recurring of talk about antisemitism was batshit and in reality was all about The State of Israel. That if racism in the UK were a food label, antisemitism would appear as “ trace “. About on a par with anti Hindu racism.

Even Mr Starmer could not save the situation. His declaration that his priority was “ restoring” relations with the Israelist establishment, only led to furrowed brows among the populace. Not the deadly pandemic ? Not getting rid of the Tories ? Not the NHS, education etc etc etc ? Hmmmm they thought.

Then along came Wiley and his two day antisemitic rant. Here was a 24 carat out and out antisemite with a bit of a profile. The Israelists were overjoyed. They could not believe their luck. There are not many antisemites around, and it is not every day that one drops into your lap.

But was this all really by chance? Might it be manna from heaven? Might it be a timely divine  intervention from The Great Real Estate Agent In The Sky?

Not ones to look a gift G-d in the mouth the Israelists immediately realised that there was an unmissable opportunity for a mega piece of performance art. Performance art is an Israelist speciality. The 48 hour twitter “ walk out “ was conceived. This potentially puts even the great muralgate Trafalgar Square wheeze into the shade.  It seems that Tracy Ann Oberman was the inspiration. Tracy is, of course, quite a decent actress, but she is no Ruth Smeeth.

It remains to be seen if anybody is listening.

 

The “Israel doesn’t have a right to exist” strawman

We are told that it is ok to criticise the policies of the Israeli government but not to deligitimise it. This often reduces to “ it is antisemitic to claim that Israel does not have a right to exist.” 

Well, I might not be paying sufficiently close attention, but I rarely, if ever, hear or see this being said. The purpose of banging on about it is to maintain a focus on the policies of the Israeli government, that is, “ it is all Bibi’s fault”. How the Israelists are going to deal with Bibi being no more is anybody’s guess.

But, anyway, the assertion that Israel does not have the right to exist is palpably false. The notion of a right only makes sense in the context of a closed system.I have the right to vote at the AGM of my village community store in virtue of having purchased a share in it. The closed system accords me the right. When it comes to the right of States to exist the relevant system is International Law. Now International Law is a very murky thing and I am no authority on it. Nonetheless, we all recognise a state that has the right to exist when we see one. It will be a member state of the UN. Most other states will exchange ambassadors with it etc etc. The only problem with Israel in this respect is that it refuses to tell us what its borders are. But the closed system seems to find this acceptable, and this settles the matter.

There are other statements that Israelists deliberately “confuse” with the no right to exist statement. These include……

“ It would be better if Israel did not exist.”

“ I would prefer it if Israel did not exist”.

“ The State of Israel was a bad idea that hasn’t got any better with time.”

“ Zionism had its chance and blew it.”

And famously……

 “ The State of Israel is a racist endeavour.”

These statements are of an entirely different kind to the no right to exist statement. They are matters of opinion. These opinions are ones that we may not hold and express without the threat of potentially serious consequences.

They too are stipulated  to be antisemitic. Declaring the latter to be antisemitic a la the IHRA batshit is itself of course, palpably racist. It brands every Palestinian, almost down to the last man, woman and child and the overwhelming majority of Muslims, as racist. There may be the odd Palestinian that doesn’t think, and is willing to say, that Israel is a racist endeavour. I have considerable direct experience and I never met one.

If you don’t accept that declaring this statement to be racist try going around saying that every Jew down to the last man, woman and child is a racist. If you fancy that I hope you have no plans to be a Labour Party candidate or otherwise have something to lose.

The charge of antisemitism usually occurs in tandem with the asserion that you are ” denying the Jewish people the right to self determination”. This is a meangless mumbo jumbo. Nothing and nobody self determines otherwise I would be the absolute monarch of the whole world. I tried it. Unfortunately other people kept getting in the way. It reduces to nothing but ” we are Jewish we can do whatever the fuck we want.” So there is no reason to be intimidated by this blah blah blah stuff

There is one country and one country only that we may not,with impunity, make such assertions about. In fact there may not have been another in the whole of history. The Soviet Union is an interesting comparative case.

Seventy two per cent of the population of the Soviet Union were East Slavs. Seventy four per cent of the population of Israel is Jewish. Not much in it. Now there was no shortage of people that felt it would be better that the Soviet Union did not exist, that shouted it from the roof  tops and, indeed, worked to bring such a happy situation about. Never did anyone say that this was motivated by anti Slav racism. Rather it was always recognised that these sentiments were a consequence of the nature of that God forsaken entity.

Similarly many of us would wish that North Korea ceased to be, but nobody claims that the fact that the population is ninety nine per cent Korean is the issue.

And the point is ?

The point is that it has never been more important to speak up on behalf of the Palestinians. At the same time it has never been harder and it is going to get a lot harder yet. Flushed with securing an unbreakable grip on the Labour Party, the Israelists confidence and ambition has soared. What once was a witch hunt is now a Reign of Terror. We are faced with the most intense and coordinated assault on our hard won civil liberties in living memory. At least in peace time. The Universities and the wider education system as a whole, the Churches and the owners or controllers of  venues are currently at the top of the ” to get” list.

What do you think all this talk of ” antisemitism” education and training is all about ?

So if you are going to open your mouth or get involved in related arguments with Israelists and/or Israelist orgs it is essential to have an understanding of how the bastards work. Particularly how they switch from notion to notion as if the notions were synonymous. The above is just one example among many.

You need to take special care if you are in a vulnerable occupation. They have no qualms about going after your job a la Holly Rigby.

As a general rule it is probably best if you don’t get into arguments with them at all. Just telling them to fuck off is probanly the best policy. Imagine if Corbyn had gone this route at outset. The Labour Party would have been spared all this anguish and wouldn’t be the hopeless, laughing stock of a basket case it is today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Jewish Chronicle: Evil is as Evil does

The Jewish Chronicle, under the “leadership” of the rabid racist Stephen Pollard, has evolved into a representation of the very worst of the gutter press. Most people know this but because the title has the word “Jewish” in it, very few feel able to say it. Since I don’t give a fuck about the God forsaken rag and its bullying ( or its lawyers ) I can be one of the few.

I have long been of the view that it was impossible for the Chronicle  to sink any lower. However, its role in the horrible pile on against Holly Rigby has blown that theory out of the water.

This pile on was inspired by a certain Gabriel Webber, a wannabe Rabbi proud of what he regards as his consumate cleverness and his ” liberalism”. The reality is that Webber is a racist with the intellectual capacity  on a par with that of my sister’s pet canary’s retarded cousin. He  spends most of his time on twitter being ” clever”. Except whenever he encounters someone who calls out his bullshit he runs away. He is obviously a chip off the old Mirvis block.

Holly Rigby is a teacher. She works in an inner city London school with a student population as diverse as you would expect. She is, by all accounts talented and dedicated. She upset the Israelists with comments that implied a less than eulogistic attitude to The State of Israel. As she has pointed out these were statements of obvious political fact .

Now Holly expected the Israelists to come after her. She was from the outset expecting it to cost her her membership of the Labour Party which, thanks to the likes of Jon Lansman and Owen Jones, the Israelists now own. She had ruefully accepted this as the price of speaking truth to power. What she didn’t expect, and didn’t factor in, was that they would also seek to destroy the career of this pricelessly dedicated teacher by whingeing and whining to her employer like the narcissistic cry babies that they are.

Webber kicked it off with a not so subtle threat.

Replying to @hollyarigbyAre you currently a teacher? Your anti-Semitic tweet is plainly a breach of the Teachers’ Standards (see in particular page 14): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665520/Teachers__Standards.pdf

Pollard, took it to another level, naming the school at which she was employed and extracting a craven, sinister and disturbing comment from the school.

“…..it was taking reports of her comments seriously.  We are looking into the matter using our internal policies and processes and will take any appropriate action that is necessary.”

Hopefully Holly will get the support of her colleagues and her union that she deserves.

Evil and meaning are difficult concepts. But if this behaviour by Webber, Pollard and others isn’t evil then the word must be consigned to the trash can as being meaningless.

So what do Holly Rigby’s crimes consist of ?

Well there was some of the same old tired stuff blah blah blah. She defended Chris Williamson and Pete Willsman and / or maybe Ken Livingstone. Who knows. Who cares. But  the real crimes were some comments that reflected badly on stuff dear ro the Israelist heart.

First she addressed the issue of the intervention of Mirvis. She might have said Mirvis is a racist. And/or she might have made reference to……..erm……..lets call it his intellectual limitations. I would have. But then Holly is a much nicer person than I could ever hope to be. She simply put the intervention into its proper and rightful political context. That is, Mervis is on the hard right wing of the politic spectrum and a mega fan of BoJo, referencing his eulogistical welcoming of BoJo’s election to the Tory leadership.

Pollard, under his nom de plume, Rosa Doherty, protested that the congratulating of BoJo was a common formality whenever a new party leader is chosen. Really ? I have no recollection of the Chief Rabbi congratulating Corbyn when he was elected. My powers of recollection are not all they used to be so if someone can help me out on this one………In any event this was more than a piece of common courtesy and established protocol. Mirvis expressed his ” delight” at BoJo’s election. Nor was Pollard’s case helped when the very day after his intervention photos appeared of Mirvis being high fived by the racist President of Israel.

Holly went on to describe the Labour Party’s adoption of the batshit thing known as the IHRA ” definition” of antisemitism as ” shameful”. Now the thing to remember about this is that not only does the “definition” define antisemitism in a way that would not be recognised by the overwhelming majority of the 1.5 billion stake holding speakers of the language but it has a not so secret protocol to the effect that criticising the ” definition ” is itself antisemitic. It is this not so secret protocol that Holly has fallen foul of. And then of course the notion that the meanings of words and expressions in the English language are established by bums on chairs around a table is absurd. But absurd does not equate to ” shameful”.

What is shameful about the IHRA thing is that it is profoundly racist. Declaring the sentiment that ” The State of Israel is a racist endeavour ” is antisemitic, brands just about every Palestinian down to the last man woman and child as racist. Imagine my saying every Jew is a racist. There may be a few Palestinians that don’t think Israel is a racist endeavour but in a total of nine months in and around the Jordan Valley I never met one. In order to argue against the sentiment without being racist one should argue that it isn’t true, not that it is antisemitic. Thats racist. Similary, of course it labels the vast majority of Muslims as racists. Maybe Pollard, Webber et al think they are. Koff.

Now Israelists trying to screw perceived enemies through their employment and destroy their careers is not entirely new. But until recently it has been an activity confined to the lunatic fringe, the Colliers, Hoffman’s, Phillips and Pickens of this world. Now it is a tactic employed by what we may call the ” mainstream” so that these orgs are not now distinguishable from the traditional nut jobs. They are all the lunatic fringe now.

As luck would have it, the case of Audrey White came along at about the same time. It is important to understand that this case is not a one off. This is how Pollard works, it is merely that it is all here in illustrative detail.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ipso-upholds-labour-activist-s-accuracy-complaint-against-jc-1.493698

Note the last two paragraphs. IPSO realised they were dealing with a serial dissembler and its concerns about Pollard were ” drawn to the attention of IPSOS standards department”

“The Committee expressed significant concerns about the newspaper’s handling of this complaint. The newspaper had failed, on a number of occasions, to answer questions put to it by IPSO and it was regrettable the newspaper’s responses had been delayed. The Committee considered that the publication’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable.

The Committee’s concerns have been drawn to the attention of IPSO’s Standards department.”

Why Lansman stabbed Corbyn in the back

 Why did Lansman and Rhea Wolfson stab Corbyn in the back and humiliate him at the September 4th NEC  meeting, a few short weeks after declaring the LP’s Code of conduct to be ” The Gold Standard” ?

Why did Lansman go on radio 4 on 25/0219 and go along with the assertion that it is all Corbyn’s fault ?

And what is Lansman up to now ?

So far as Wolfson is concerned the story is a short one. Lansman told her to. She is entirely beholden to Lansman who is the bedrock of her strategy for winning a seat in parliament. In Lansman’s own case the story is rather longer and more tortuous.

The Labour Party, Lansman  never tires of telling us, needs to regain the trust of the ” Jewish Community”.  Just who or what is being referred to here can be elusive, but that is an analysis for another day. But whatever it is Lansman is determined that its trust be regained. We don’t, for the moment need to address the question, of whether this loss of trust  is deserved. And we won’t, for the moment, go anywhere near the question of what the ” Jewish Community ” needs to do to regain the trust of  Labour Party members

For Lansman, it would seem, this ” trust” has to be ” regained” at ANY price. Including the riding roughshod over the rights of the membership not least their rights to free expression as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act and the labelling of every Palestian, down tho the last man, woman and child as racist a la the batshit dogs dinner, the IHRA thing. The price also extends to the undermining of the socialist project that Corbyn is the inspiration and the figurehead for, not least by risking the forfeiting of the projects majority on the NEC, and the precipitation of a split in what we might call  ” the  Corbynite left ” between Lansmanistas and the rest ( now affectionately known as cranks).

Shortly after his declaration of the  LP ” code” to be the Gold Standard, The Jewish News  announced that Lansman was now lobbying for the “adoption” the IHRA thing “in full.” In the course of composing a brilliantly economical and incisive article Asa Winstanley invited Lansman to comment on the Jewish News claim. This he refused to do. At that point it was clear which way the wind was blowing.

Lansman arranged for Pete Willsman to be removed from the ” centre left”  NEC  election slate even though it was too late to find a replacement. Pete had had a bit of a rant at the July NEC meeting when the adoption of the Code of Conduct had been discussed. Someone ( not a million miles away from the racist Jewish Labour Movement ) had secretly recorded the proceedings. The secret recording of goings on in allegedly ” safe spaces” is an established tactic of the JLM. Attend any of their ” trainings ” at your peril. There was the usual  hissy fit from the Israelists. There was nothing either untrue or unreasonable in the content of what Pete said. The manner was a bit OTT but that’s Pete. A long time associate commented ” Pete shouts when he is asking you if you would like a cup of tea. “

The outcome was the nine became eight so that Pete was effectively standing as an independent. This meant  that there was a real chance that the ninth place will fall into the hands of the right, which the slim socialist majority could ill afford and which would threaten the whole project. Democratisation, reselection, socialism and all the rest. This could  but cause us to wonder just what are Lansman’s priorities.

Now the thing is Pete’s little wobbler was on July 17th. Lansman was present and sat through it all. He never expressed any kind of disapproval. As late as July 29th he was exhorting people to vote for Pete. Shortly thereafter he arranged for Pete to be removed from the slate. Obviously he had been paid a visit and had been reminded on which side his bread was buttered.

So where is Lansman coming from when he behaves like this ?

When this whole LP/AS thing kicked off I was amazed at how it developed. Under Lansman’s malign influence Corbyn and the Party rolled over at the first wiff of grapeshot. They rolled over again at the second wiff,  and so on. I couldn’t believe the naivety. Did they have no understanding of what they were dealing with ? Did they not get that every concession is pocketed without so much as a ta very much and, with barely a pause for breath, they are back for more ? Did they not get that every concession is Danegeld ? Did they not get that there is no drawing a line under it ? Or not until the last pip has been squeaked. And even then you are not free. You are on probation. Once you have fallen into what Mark Braverman calls the Fatal Embrace, your chances of finding your way out are slim. And the LP’s embrace of the Israelists is as close now to fatal as makes little difference.

You would have thought the natural leaders of resistance to all the politically motivated batshit would be the influential democratic left. But what we found from Lansman and the opinion formers of the glam left luvvies, the Jones’, the Zarb-Cousins, the Segalovs the Shabis etc. was not no pasaran, but complicity. Be clear. Without this complicity, and it must be reluctantly said, without the complicity of Corbyn and McDonnell themselves, what we are experiencing today would not be happening. It would be ancient history. I have seen time after time, particularly in the context of the churches, what doesn’t work, and what does. The Israelists are not as powerful as they may seem. They only seem powerful when their targets are VOLUNTEERS. Left to just howl at the moon they soon get tired and move on to what they think may be greener pastures.

At first I put it down to the  inexperience of Lansman and others around Corbyn. After all not everyone has had the benefit of hanging on their every word for ten years plus. But as time went on, as experience was gained but there was no sign of any learning taking place, as Lansman dragged Corbyn from one humiliation to the next, the inexperience theory  became increasingly untenable and eventually had to be abandoned.

So my next theory was that it was all about money. The threatening by Jewish donors and stuff a la the Milliband days. But I was never very sold on it, It was just that, at the time, I couldn’t think of anything more feasible. Eventually,  the penny dropped. For Lansman ( and for Jamie Schneider, don’t underestimate his influence) it was ideological. Lansman is an ideological Israelist. This explains his behaviour over the past few weeks. He is an ideological socialist too, but this is secondary to his Israelism. He will try as far as he can to keep these ideologies compatible with each other. So he broke his back over the LP code thing. However,  whenever there is what he perceives to be insurmountable dissonance between the ideologies he will go with Israelism. The truth of this he is currently clearly demonstrating.

In late March 2016, I was horrified to find a longish article written by him published in the Jewish Chronicle. It’s appearance clearly indicated that he hadn’t quite grasped what he was dealing with. He didn’t quite get how the Chronicle’s wildly zenophobic and rabidly racist editor operates. The article was a lukewarm defence of the two ” Oxford names “. Less a defence more an apologia. Sure enough it was all a set up. Pollard set Lansman up as a pin for Mark Gardner to knock over a week later, in the most dismissive and contemptuous terms imaginable. Sadly, Lansman learnt NOTHING from the experience. On the contrary it was the beginning of the ongoing Lansman/Pollard love in. Lansman was assigned the role of ” delivering the left”. A role he has played with barely concealed  enthusiasm.

Lansman got into his stride immediately. He soon after told us that antisemitism in the LP is much more extensive than the pitiful number of alleged cases would suggest. He told us that he was working closely and constructively with Labour Friends of Israel and the  Jewish Labour Movement. He excitedly announced that they were willing to build bridges, even with Corbyn. On their terms of course.

He removed all comments from a Left Futures post declaring them to be antisemitic. LF, now defunct, was at that time the house journal of Momentum. I did not get to see these comments but judging from the overall tone of the post, it is likely that the crime was the use of the expression ” Zio” which was now antisemitic but which hadn’t been antisemitic six months earlier.

He hurriedly deleted a comment on the next post.

Robert Green

June 21, 2016 at 3:15 pm

You should be more worried that you participated in a New Labour/Zionist witch hunt of Palestinian supporters in the Labour Party which has left activists and elected representatives vulnerable to murderous fascist assaults.

He welcomed the eight point plan to deal with antisemitism in the party, describing it as ” very good“. This was a “ plan ” published by Richard Angell, chair of the hard right Progress group, that included rule changes, Re-Education programmes ( presumably at regional Gulags) and vetting processes, to be put before the 2016 conference. This, although published by Angell, was spoon fed to him by the notorious perjurer, would be union buster, money launderer,  serial embezzler, and one man crime wave, the then chair of  the Jewish Labour Movement, Jeremy Nemark.  Angell testily denied this yet at the same time affirmed that he would happily put his name to “anything written by Jeremy.”

A major problem that Lansman encountered was that local Momentum branches were having trouble sticking to Pollard’s script.

Haringey Momentum decided they would have a meeting on Friday 27th May to talk about  the Labour Party problem with Jews thing. They invited Jackie Walker who had been  suspended from the Party on the say so of the Israelist Ultras, and Annie Cohen, a member of the extremely loose association that call themselves Jewdas. This didn’t go down well with the Ultras who proceeded to have one  of their famously well rehearsed melt downs.

The Jewish Chronicle went into its usual routine. Jackie Walker’s alleged ” crimes” were once again cynically misrepresented and Annie was described as a member of ” the anti Israel organisation Jewdas.”  The Jewdas guys and gals would probably describe themselves more as a ” get Israel the fuck out of my  Jewish life ” association. Annie is a charming, bright and funny young woman. That the Israelists couldn’t stomach the thought of her presence is a good indication of the sickness they are infected with.

Dave Rich, the designated twitterato of the highly dubious organisation known as The Community Trust, which is, quite frankly, as bent as a wad of 9 shekel notes, whined that Jackie’s presence was inappropriate since she was suspended by the Party. Rich had no issue with the then suspended Naz Shah’s presence at a meeting organised by the Leeds Representative Council, because Naz has been fully tamed and was there as a supplicant, to grovel and apologise. Being suspended by the Party was not here an issue.

However,  the timing of the meeting was made into the real big deal. Didn’t they know that Friday eve was the beginning of the Jewish Shabbat and observant Jews would not be able to attend ? Seriously, that is what they said. I mean, the number of strictly observant Jews that would have wanted to attend this meeting but ” couldn’t” because of the religious imperative would be, well, I am guessing, zero.

Haringey fiddling the start time, to make attending and respecting the religious observance possible, wasn’t good enough. It wouldn’t have been. Because the crying and whining was entirely a red herring.

The Jewish Chronicle summoned Lansman and told him to sort it. Lansman hastily assured Pollard that…..

 I wasn’t involved in the planning of the meeting and didn’t know about it until yesterday

then…..

 The timing of it is regrettable and unfortunate”

and…..

“ I am not happy about it.”

Come Thursday Haringey had CANCELLED the meeting.

Lansman………

 I am relieved that Haringey decided to POSTPHONE the meeting.”

Then it was announced that the Meeting would in fact take place but now under the auspices of  MomentumThanet, Jackie Walker’s own branch. Before it could take place Jackie had been pressured into stating  that the meeting was not, in fact, an enterprise of Momentum.

What Lansman  learned from this is that he couldn’t have Momentum branches running around on frolics of their own, and upsetting the Israelists that he was having a “constructive dialogue” with. So he identified a compliant branch, Lewisham,  and had them organise a meeting on the subject and selected himself and his protege Rhea Wolfson as speakers. This got  around the charge of having stifled debate and yet kept Lansman firmly  in control of who speaks where and when, and in control of what is said.

Interestingly the pre event publicity blurb contained a photo of a group of people one of whom was holding a placard declaring HITLER WAS RIGHT. WELL DONE ISRAEL. We are not told who this person is but are  clearly meant to assume that this is a leftie  Labour Party Member. The purpose is to establish the point that the Labour Party DOES indeed have a problem with Jews. Lansman establishes this as the starting assumption of the meeting. None of this Jackie Walker nonsense for Jon.

Then there is the murky Ken Livingstone/ Rhea Wolfson business.

Now I am not here  to defend Ken Livingstone over his remarks. They were typical Ken. Were they racist ? Obviously not, but you will have bought or rejected the notion that Ken is antisemitic long before now. The consensus of thoughtful, informed opinion seems to be that there is a grain of truth in what he said but not much more than that. Nonetheless, in his inimitable style, Ken stands resolutely by his comments.

There are a couple of interesting issues here.

Firstly, Ken’s membership was suspended for something that, prior to the very recent invention of the idea that the Labour Party has an antisemitism problem, would have provoked nothing apart from a few eye rolls and a bit of gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects. That is, the sincere expression of a doubtfully accurate historical claim now brings the Party into disrepute, while senior Party figures sitting on the policy council of the Muslim baiting/hating HJS and people perjuring themselves in an attempt to falsely brand a Trade Union as antisemitic, is all just fine.

Secondly, there is the reaction of Jon Lansman. It will be recalled that Lansman’s  mission is to “deliver the left” to an acceptance of the idea the Party has an antisemitism problem, and a consequent acceptance of the ” remedies” of the Tory dominated ” mainstream Jewish organisations” and their army of sans culottes internet trolls.

Lansman  declared that Jeremy Newmark is “ very upset” . ( like who, apart from Lansman cared about the one man crime wave Newmark’s emotional state). Then Lansman  goes on to tell us that Ken is yesterdays man and “should retire from any kind of public life” . There is a clear communality of interest here between Lansman, the racist Jewish Labour Movement and the hard right of the LP. This explains why there was an initial Lansman inspired delay in dealing with Ken’s case. The pressing issue for this communality of interest is ” Keep Livingstone off the NEC“. If there is to be an acceptance  of the Israelist  remedies  the attitude of the NEC  is crucial, and its attitude is a function of its make up at a particular time.

Of course this is not the only time Lansman has been distressed by Newmark being upset. After Jackie Walker had been stitched up by Adam Langleben at an officially sanctioned JLM led ” antisemitism training” session at the 2016 conference Lansman’s response was depressingly predictable. No condemnatory outrage that JLM had violated the Party’s trust by secretly recording participants. But rather…..

“I spoke to Jeremy Newmark this morning. He is very upset. I have been working closely with Jeremy. “

The ” Centre Left ” slate for the NEC elections contained six names, reflecting the fact that six members were to be directly elected by the membership. Ken’s was one of those names and he would have been a shoe in. Ken was suspended on April 28th. He must, at all costs remain suspended on June 24th when nominations closed.

Of course, Ken would have to be replaced on the centre/left slate. Lansman and Newmark had that covered. Step forward Rhea Wolfson.

Rhea was simply perfect for the purpose. Her Corbynista credentials seem , on the face of it, to be impeccable. She is also an ex chair of the Zionist Youth Council. The ZYC is a constituent of the Jewish Leadership Council. The JLC is rabidly Tory and operates as an extension of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Its recently departed chair, Mick Davis, bought a knighthood off David Cameron for £1.4 million and enjoyed a spell as Party Chairman. A noisy recipient of JLC  welfare handouts is, of course,Adam Langleben.

Rhea, is also a vociferous member of the racist Jewish Labour Movement and so we had the bizarre situation of there being a communality of interest so strong that she found herself being nominated by JLM  and being the Momentum choice for the left slate !!! Rhea proudly announced that she ” had the confidence of both sides.

Needless to say Rhea has played her part well. It was her emotional outburst at an NEC meeting that ensured the referral of Jackie Walker and Marc Wadsworth to the NCC.

And so it has gone on.

And so it goes on.

Lansman now found  himself lobbying for the IHRA thing and jointly headlining with Margaret Hodge at the JLM annual conference on September 2nd. You can be sure they found his contribution highly satisfactory.

Lansman has made several interventions in the ongoing Jewish Labour Movement and Jewish Voice For Labour issue. JVL are a left wing group of Labour Party Jews. Len McCluskey affiliated Unite with them. McCluskey correctly characterised the JLM/ JVL issue as ” a left wing / right wing thing”. JLM are firmly on the hard right of the Labour Party. It is said that 94% of their members voted for Owen Smith in the last leadership election. They are firmly in the camp of Akehurst, Austin, Phillips, Streeting etc etc ect. Mny, probably most , are not Jewish, and many more are not members of the Labour Party. We are reminded of the Holy Roman Empire. Neither Jewish, nor Labour, nor a movement.

Lansman’s answer to the fair question, which side are you on boy is unequivocal. It is a no brainer. His attitude to JVL is a simple one. The problem with them is that they exist. On the other hand JLM , the emanation of the  Israeli Labor Party in the British Labour Party are the true representatives of Jewish LP supporters. It is here that the correct attitude to Israel is located. This despite there being barely 2000 of them, many of whom are not Jewish.

This has practical and serious consequences for the socialist project.

Recently there were six grass roots places for the LP National Constitutional Committee up for election.The NCC is the body responsible for disciplinary matters in the party. It is they that will kick you out if you are seen to have an unacceptable attitude to The State of Israel. It is usual for the left wing Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, of which Momentum is a part, to draw up a left wing slate to contest NEC elections.

When it was clear that a certain Stephen Marks was headed towards inclusion on the slate Lansman objected. It was soon clear that his objection was going to be ignored. Lansman therefore led Momentum away in a big sulk.

Lansman then announced that Momentum would produce its own slate in direct competition with that of the CLPD. This they duly did. Needless to say Marks wasn’t on it.

Lansman claimed that Marks inclusion made the slate too ” London centric”. The real reason was that Marks was a member of JVL and this would upset the ” the Jewish Community” ( yes that again) who would ” find it unacceptable“. That is , for Lansman, JLM Pollard and the Tories of the Israelist organisations are to have a veto on left wing slates in LP internal elections.

Let us be clear here. Lansman was willing to undermine left wing influence within the NEC by splitting the left wing vote to appease the Israelist lobby whose prejudices on certain matters he shares.

Once again his ideolical Israelism was to trump his socialism.

Fortunately the uproar was such that Lansman soon realised he had over reached and he came slinking back to the CLPD with his tail between his legs and there was a unified slate once again.

Needless to say the whole slate, including Marks was elected. Lansman just had to accept the inevitable flack from the hard right.

Anyone in any doubt about where Lansman’s heart is need only reflect on the case of David Rosenhead. David tweeted a link  to an account of his family’s treatment at the hands of Pollard’s Jewish Chronicle It included……

“Back in 2011 the Jewish Chronicle ran a piece on me, which also included mention of my parents and their politics, and my childhood and education, none of which had any bearing whatsoever on the story. One of the consequences of them running this piece is that my parents and I were profiled by far right racists and fascists. Some fascists got hold of my parents’ address, and some details about all of us were shared on extreme far right forums like Stormfront. I received death threats, while my parents had to find ways to secure their home. In all cases these threats were explicitly linked to us being identified as Jewish, by far-right antisemites. At the time my parents and I wrote to the editor, Stephen Pollard, and requested, given these grave antisemitic threats, that the article be removed from the Jewish Chronicle website (it had already gone out in a print edition.) He refused and the article remained online.

“So excuse me when I can’t quite believe my ears, when you protest there is an ‘existential threat’ to Jews. The one time in my life I was profiled and violently threatened by known antisemites because I was Jewish, you refused to help. It turns out safety should only be guaranteed to the ‘right’ sort of Jews, and only when it serves your political agenda”

Lansman responded with comradely support right? Well not quite. He said…….

I have every sympathy with you & your family on this David, but now is a time when @UKLabour has to rebuild a relationship with the mainstream Jewish community to prevent the breakdown of trust from empowering real antisemites around the UK from spreading their hate with impunity. “

In other words he tells David to stop whining. We need to regain the trust of the hard right racist Pollard, and he ( David ) just has to take one for the team.

FURTHER READING

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/06/lansman-corbyns-restrict/

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jon-lansman-believes-jvl-s-very-existence-inflames-tensions-between-labour-and-jews-1.471144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At last Jeremy Corbyn tells the Israelists how it is and puts an end to it all

 

Dear Israelists

The Labour Party has a membership around the size of  a big city, say Greater Manchester

There are some anti semites in there and we dont want em

Where we find em we will be done with em

To facilitate this we have adopted the most widely accepted definition of antisemitism

To wit

OXFORD DICTIONARY: antisemitism – hostility to or prejudice against Jews

And we don’t need any help from the Tories of the Israelist orgs

NOW FUCK OFF 

Jobs a good un

Thank you and good night

J Corbyn esqu

 

The real racism problem in the LP

Given recent declarations of how seriously the Labour Party takes racism within it’s ranks we presumably can look forward to a  weed out of party members associated with the Muslim baiting Henry Jackson Society. Here we are not talking about a handful of fringe idiots but MP’s, members of the shadow cabinet and former ministers.

HJS is a rabid Zionist organisation whose raison d’etre is to demonise the Muslim population in this country. It was named by the respected anti fascist organisation, Hope Not Hate, as one of the organisations primarily responsible for ” dragging anti Muslim hate into the mainstream.” It’s founding signatories include Stephen Pollard, the racist editor of the Jewish Chronicle, who is fond of declaring that ” Douglas Murray is right as ever “ and who seems to be of the view that there are good antisemites and bad antisemites. The good antisemites include far right European politicians that have an acceptable attitude to The State of Israel.

The Henry Jackson Society is firmly in the grip of its Director Alan Mendoza, and Associate Director, Murray.

Mendoza is of the view that the increasing European Muslim population is to blame for Europe’s “anti-Israel feelings”, and that the voices of Muslims “are heard well above the average Europeans”.

As for Murray, where to start.

Marko Attila Hoare was a senior figure in HJS, before leaving a year after Murray arrived, saying that Murray’s views had become the politics of the whole organisation. The whole organisation, as stated above, includes a goodly few senior Labour Party figures. Hoare goes on to explain that his opposition to Murray’s anti Muslim expressions had driven him out of the organisation.

This is an echo of James Brandon’s explanation of why he left Murray’s previous organisation, Centre for Social Cohesion.

It is extremely tedious  detailing  Murray’s racist rantings, not least because  to do it justice would be a life time’s work. So just a taster….

Murray feels that ” things have to be made harder for Muslims all round.“

Murray complains that in 23 of London’s 33 boroughs, ” white Britons are in a minority.”

Murray regards the presence of Muslims as ” White Britons abolishing themselves and silently accepting the loss of their country.”

Murray regards the presence of Muslims in Europe as an “infestation.“

Murray is Britain’s very own Donald Trump ( albeit not running for office ) and thinks all immigration into Europe ” must be stopped”

Murray thinks that “ tolerating Islam is suicide.“

Murray travelled to Athens with Mad Mel Philips in an attempt to persuade the authorities there not to allow the building of a mosque in that city.

Murray professes an ” understanding ”  of the English Defence League, and is of the opinion that the emergence of the  EDL is what one would expect to happen ” when the centre fails to hold.”  Needless to say the EDL are fans of Murray too.

Another interesting mutual admiration society is Murray and Robert Spencer. Murray regards Spencer as a friend and  a ” very brilliant scholar and writer“. Spencer, of course, is editor of Jihad Watch and someone with such extreme anti Muslim views even our present Home Secretary saw fit to deny him, along with Pamela Geller, entry into this country.

The following senior Labour figures sit on the HJS policy council. Presumably  their membership won’t survive the proposed rule changes very long.

 

Margaret Becket

 

Hazel Blears

 

Ben Bradshaw

 

Chris Bryant

 

Dai Havard

Alf Dubs

Jim Mrphy

NB This is as of 2016. HJS no longer publishes the members of its policy council for reasons we can only guess at o:)

 

The last chance for corbyn to grow a pair

THE JEWISH LEADERSHIP COUNCIL IS UNELECTED UNACCOUNTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE “

Jonathan Arkush

Jeremy Corbyn’s performance in the  face of the campaign by the unholy alliance of the Israel lobby and the hard right of the PLP, to create and establish the myth that the LP has a particular problem with antisemitism, has not been good.  He rolled over at the first wiff of grapeshot and has been prostrate before them ever since. A bit of steadfastness at outset would have killed the whole thing off before it had even got properly started. Instead he has allowed himself to be led by Lansman from one excrutiating humiliation to the next.

Admittedly he has been under malign influences notably those  of the arch Israelists Lansman and Jamie Schneider and the unbearable narcissist and selective anti-racist, Owen Jones. That is even before we get to the naive influence of McDonnell who speaks of ” taking the advice of our friends at the  Board of Deputies.”  If John thinks that the Board luminaries are his friends it can only be concluded that thinking is not his strong point.

Corbyn stood silently by while innumerable people have been purged and persecuted.The victims that were persecuted were largely people in Corbyn’s service. They were targeted mainly  because they were identified as being likely to vote Corbyn in his second leadership election, and/ or they were identified by Newmark/Lansman as having an unwelcome attitude to The State of Israel. All kinds of laughable pretexts for those witch hunted were  invented but nobody could deny what was happening and keep a straight face.

He has stabbed long time political allies, such as Christine Shawcroft, in the back.

His complicity in the abuse of Del Singh’s family is borderline unforgiveable. Borderline because it is not too late for him to fix it had he a mind to.

Corbyn’s supine letter to Arkush in the wake of the mural thing seemed to me at the time to be the final capitulation and that he was a hopeless case. However, the Jewdas seder business and Arkush’s typically OTT response has given him a get out of jail card, a last chance to demonstrate some backbone.

It will be recalled that he had offered to meet with  Arkush and Goldstein ” at the earliest opportunity” . This offer was rejected by the self styled “leadership of the Jewish community” which further declared there could be no meeting until Corbyn had taken certain actions that would demonstrate his commitment to doing their bidding.

The news of Corbyn’s attendance at the Jewdas seder completely wrong footed Arkush, who is not very good at thinking on his feet and is apt to let his emotional fragility get the better of him in circumstances such as these. The complaint was that Corbyn had met with the wrong kind of Jews. This was an uncomfortable position because Corbyn had offered to meet with the right kind of Jews ( them) and had been turned down. Arkush dealt with the problem by having a tantrum on national television during which he declared Jewdas to be purveyors and fuellers of antisemitism, which caused the Israelist establishment itself no end of embarrassment. He then backtracked and decided he would meet Corbyn after all. The pre conditions were dropped in favour of the acceptance of an agenda. That is, each precondition became an agenda item.

Arkush does a lot of back tracking. Notably when he bottled out of his CDM complaint against Stephen Sizer and when he found himself eyeball to eyeball with Mick Davis, the then chair of the JLC. Arkush is a congenital bluffer and turns out be a bit of a snowflake when his bluff is called. He really is easy to deal with. Why anyone is intimidated by him is a great mystery.

The issue du jour is which Jews Corbyn should meet with, if any.  The line is that he should only talk to the ” representatives of the mainstream Jewish community “. The problem is that these alleged representatives don’t exist. For Arkush it means himself since he is the President of the BoD which, he claims, is the only democratically elected representative Jewish organisation. This status of the BoD is trotted out endlessly and swallowed whole and unquestioningly by the British establishment including the media.

Corbyn seems to have done quite well at yesterdays meeting but time will tell. In the meantime it might be worth taking a look at the organisations and people that claim to be the only voices of British Jews. Just who do they represent and how united are they ?

The BoD is essentially synagogue based. Each synagogue may send Deputies to the Bod, the number is dependent on how many members it claims. It is true that a majority of Jewish families are affiliated to a synagogue.  Some out of religious conviction and preference and a lot because membership is an important facilitator of rites of passage. Many are excluded by the eye watering cost of membership.

So the first identifiable group that the BoD does not represent are the poorest sectors of the Jewish population.

The second is the fastest growing sector of the Jewish population, the ultra Orthodox, whose synagogues do not send deputies.

There are just over 400 synagogues in the UK. It is likely that the number that send Deputies does not exceed 150. We can’t be sure of the exact number because the BoD is highly secretive about these things. But a look at the general make up of the Bod leads inexorably to the conclusion that 150 is a top figure.

Now these Deputies are supposed to be elected representatives. In reality if you wanted to count the number of Deputies that found their way to the BoD  via a contested election you would need more than one pair of  hands but less than four. The overwhelming majority of Shuls that send Deputies, are, in this context, rotten boroughs. It is a matter of finding a volunteer. The volunteers are invariably right wing activists. We even have the absurd situation that one of the BoD’s vice Presidents lives in London and is a deputy for a Shul in Wales !!! So the congregation of this Welsh Shul are deemed to be represented.

The BoD is a bastion of the conservative and right wing United Synagogue. So much so that when Laura Marks, a member of a Reform synagogue , ran for President in 2015 she felt a need to add an affiliation to a US shul to her membership of a Reform Shul.  She was right. Only US deputies get elected President as the US deputies vote in a religious block on matters pertaining to their privileges. It didn’t do Marks any good. The President of the US declared that her action would be divisive and could result in the US  distancing itself from the BoD. This was a potent threat. The BoD would be no more.

Obviously the penchant for bullying and black mail by the US  grandees is for internal as well as external use. Israelist so called democracy is not a pretty sight.

You might also find yourself becoming a Deputy if you are a member of the right kind of organisation that has in excess of 500 members and has had during the two years preceding application. Well 500 members is a high bar and its purpose is to make sure the organisation is firmly ” mainstream”.  The Board is terrified of plurality and diversity.  It doesn’t mind a few racist off the scale right wing  nutters like Jonathan Hoffman because they are sound on Israel. Indeed it accomodates more than a few.The defensive wall is shored up by the requirement that an organisation must secure the votes of two thirds of Deputies. It would be an interesting plenary if Jewdas really did apply for affiliation. Geoffrey Cohen versus Jerry Lewis would be fun.

And of course the applicant organisation must sign up to the Board’s aims and objectives foremost of which is ” the advancement of Israel’s security well being and standing”  You don’t have to be concerned about the well being of any other country, not even that of the UK. Obviously if you are anti-Zionist, a non Zionist or not much concerned about Israel, but more concerned about the condition of Jews in the UK, you are excluded. The Board does not represent you.

Be clear. In practice this means the Board positively FORBIDS itself ANY criticism of Israel and would impose the same restriction on the rest of us if it could. Maybe it can. Its erstwhile treasurer, Laurence Brass, had enough of this and was consequently hounded out of office. Brass ruefully observed, ” The perception that the Board is an extension of  the Israeli Embassy is not helpful.”

Deputy places are also reserved for appointed reps of special interest groups including places reserved for Israelis !!!! Yes, you have to be an Israeli to fill one of those places.

The idea that the BoD is some kind of democratic elected body representing all the Jews in Britain is ludicrous.

ARKUSH GETS ONE THING RIGHT

The JLC is unelected, unaccountable and unacceptable

Jonathan Arkush

The Jewish Leadership Council represents nobody but itself. It came to be when a bunch of very rich Jewish grandees decided that the Board was no longer fit for purpose. That its bureaucratic lumberings hampered the task of creating an Israel friendly Britain. What was needed was a well funded and highly connected organisation that was much faster on its feet. These oligarchs then simply declared themselves ” Jewish Leaders”. What we have seen since then is an unseemly turf war

The JLC has slowly but surely elbowed the Board out of its traditional roles, in particular out of its role of the organisation that has the ears of, and access to, the high and mighty. It is all about money and monied connections. The JLC  grandees are mega rich and the Board is perennially flying by the seat of its financial arse. The grandees are not shy about exploiting this situation.

During the Board Presidency of Vivian Wineman, there was much talk of the BoD and JLC merging. That is, of the JLC  taking over the Board. During this time the JLC  kindly kept the Board afloat financially. All this merger talk came to an abrupt end when Wineman moved on and Arkush took over.

Arkush hates the JLC . In particular he hates its previous CEO  Jeremy Newmark on account of his dalliance with the LP. Arkush of course, being a rabid hard right Tory.

Even more does he hate Mick Davis, the recently departed Chair of the JLC and now chair of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Arkush had a long standing ambition to be President of the Board and regarded the end of Wineman’s second term as his big opportunity. Imagine his pain as he watched Wineman’s retreat in the face of the JLC encroachment. He stood to get to be President of nothing. Someone as emotionally erratic and with so little impulse control had to erupt at some point. And he did.

The tipping point came in 2012. The JLC had established for itself an annual audience with David Cameron, the then Prime Minister. The purpose was to give Cameron his instructions for the coming year and to make sure Cameron fully understood what was required of him. The JLC  were in the habit of taking reps from a few affiliated orgs along for the ride including a rep from the Board. By this time the BoD was an affiliate of the JLC. Arkush, of course thought it should be the other way round. He has never accepted that the BoD walks and money talks. So the Board were to be there AT THE INVITATION OF THE JLC. Subsequently, it might be recalled, Davis bought a knighthood off Cameron for £ 1.4 million on the spurious grounds that he had chaired some committee or other for 12 months.

But anyway Arkush had an almighty wobbler at a Board plenary, denounced the JLC  as “unelected, unaccountable and unacceptable”.  He went on to accuse the JLC  of corruption in that they bribed organisations to affiliate. It was the Leeds and Manchester rep councils he had in mind.

Well the roof fell in on him. The nutter fringe cheered him but the saner, wiser among them understood the implications. Those that didn’t immediately grasp them were quickly reminded by Davis. He warned of ” consequences” , declared Arkush’s position to be ” untenable”  and  said JLC members “may feel that they can no longer provide ongoing financial support for the Board while being subjected to this sort of attack by the senior vice-president of the institution”.

Jerry Lewis demanded that Arkush resign. Laurence Brass suggested he take a break from communal politics.

The outcome was a series of the most grovelling apologies imaginable, including a letter circulated to all deputies in which he said that his remarks were ” inappropriate ” and had been made when he was ” unwell”. He was in particular “sorry to have made references to any financial matters. I withdraw those remarks in their entirety. There was no suggestion of impropriety.”

The Jewish News remarked that Arkush had ” lost all credibility.”

Of course subsequent events have shown us that his judgment that the JLC  is corrupt was well on target. When it became clear that  Newmark was ripping the JLC off big time Mick Davis embarked on a distasteful cover up. Newmark was allowed to resign on ” health grounds” and the grandees dipped into their pockets to plug the holes in the JLC  accounts that Newmark’s embezzlements had created. Under pressure from the Jewish Chronicle the JLC  announced an independent enquiry into its handling of the affair. Then we learned that permission had been obtained from the Charities Commission for the terms of reference to exclude the question of whether the JLC  should have called in the police. In other words there isn’t going to be a meaningful enquiry at all.

Why did the Charity Commission grant this extraordinary permission ? I doubt it had anything to do with the head of the Commission being William Shawcross, a rabid Israelist who spends more time in Israel than he does in the UK.

But anyway the business burned into Arkush’s soul a festering hatred he has not been able to rid himself of. The President of the BoD is automatically a JLC trustee and as a sop is offered the Chair . When Arkush succeeded Wineman he announced he would sit as a trustee but not accept the chair. At the same time he expressed the hope that the JLC would “ recognise the BoD’s pre eminent role as the representatives of Britain’s Jewish community.” 

If you think this is ancient history, six months ago Paul Edlin a long time deputy and unreconstructed Arkushista declared that Arkush’s 2012 comments ” remain true” . In the aftermath of Newmark getting busted, Arkush demanded that the JLC ” get its house in order.”

So who did bust Newmark ? Well we will never know. But there are pertinent facts we do know. Arkush doesn’t have an ethical bone in his body. Arkush, as a trustee, had access to the relevant audits. Arkush has the necessary grudges ( the people most damaged by the revelations are Newmark and Davis). Arkush is stepping down as a trustee so the timing is good.

Such is the the state of those that claim to be the leaders of the united Jewish community that Corbyn seeks to divide and rule.

WHO ELECTED MARK GARDNER

The delegation that lined up against Corbyn yesterday included Mark Gardner of the scam operation we know and love as the CST.  Who elected him to represent the ” Jewish Community” at a meeting with the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition ? Well nobody. He was appointed by the unelected, mega fraudster ,time served old lag, Tory and good friend of Sadiq khan, Gerald Ronson.

Well as I have said the meeting yesterday could have gone much worse. At least Corbyn has not yet committed himself to anything too stupid. But I am not persuaded that he can be trusted to continue to do the right thing.

It must be remembered that it is a zero sum game for the Israelists. Anything you give them is Danegeld. It is not about antisemitism, it is about Israel. They will never stop until they get the ultimate result. What might this be ? Howard Jacobson and Ruth Deech, lacking the political nous of the seasoned,professional Israelists, tell us.

Jacobson tells us that antisemitism won’t be fixed until Israel is fixed. He goes on to tell us that what he means is until talk about Israel is fixed. Ruth Deech in Hirsh’s whitewash video independently spills the same beans.  That is, the aim is to constrain talk about Israel in the LP within acceptable parameters. This won’t be  some rough and ready guidelines. The IHRA batshit is but an interim measure. The first step. The final destination is a full and  detailed CODIFICATION.

But we knew this already.

And what will it mean for the Labour Party? The acceptance of just one of the Israelist demands will be a statement that the Party is in the grip  of a bunch of hard right Tories. That it is unable to manage its own affairs. It will be hard to see how it then can manage the affairs of the country. If it is not unelectable then it should be.

This will be Corbyn’s legacy.

 

 

 

 

 

Sauce for the goose and all that….

“Collier has been a member of a 27,000-member Facebook group called ‘International Community’ since 4 August 2016. Antisemitic and Holocaust denial content is posted in that group regularly, alongside Islamophobic material (as well as entirely innocuous pieces). I found numerous examples of hate speech there, none of which appear to have been challenged by Collier during his time in the group.

Debra R Cohen added Collier to the group. As can be seen from the example below (the screengrab with images of Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić), she has expressed genocidally anti-Muslim views in the group.”

Steve Cooke

An offer to my Zionist friends that want to talk about antisemitism. I won't mention Israel if you don't. Deal ?