mummy’s gonna buy you a mocking bird

It is just hilarious watching Adam Langleben, who has played a leading role in whipping up the phony antisemitism frenzy, crying like a baby, when he thinks it cost him his council seat.

Adam looks like butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth but is no ingenue. He is on the, executive committee of the racist JLM, is employed by the wholly unelected, unaccountable and unacceptable ( Jonathathan Arkush ) JLC, effectively a front organisation for the Israeli Embassy. It was, of course Adam that secretly recorded Jackie Walker at a JLM ” training” session that was supposed to be a safe space.

Sadly there was a time when Adam was ok. A voice of reason. All that changed when he became a professional hasbarafioso.

Anyway here is Adam at a happier time in a happier place, the Israeli Knesset.


The last chance for corbyn to grow a pair


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.


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.


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

Jeremy Newmark a One Man Crime Wave

The most hilarious aspect of the Newmark business is all the feigned surprise. It has long been obvious to anyone with ears to hear and a willingness to see, that Newmark is as bent as a wad of £9 notes,  a one man crime wave. Newmark should not be anywhere near the Labour Party, let alone the most powerful man in it and a parliamentary candidate. Newmark’s history has been widely known but the Labour Party have found it politic to ignore it.

Only when his attempt to cheat a Tel Aviv taxi driver became public, and then a leak of the JLC audit, dropped into Pollard’s lap did the denial become untenable. Pollard, after having his dream of leader writing for The Times shattered and being exiled to the North London equivalent of The Bridlington Free Press, has never given up the faint hope of journalistic fame. The prospect of his first ever scoop was irresistable. Fuck community solidarity.

The Labour Party has been fully aware of Newmark’s history of union busting and his part in creating the myth of the Labour Party having a particular problem with antisemitism. But under the malign influence of Jon Lansman, it persistently indulged him. The unwritten part of the Labour Party constitution, a kind of basic law is that Newmark must not be upset lest it fuels the antisemitism myth further.

Newmark and his character, or lack thereof, first came to light via his role in the FUCU  Tribunal case. This was a concerted attempt by the Israel Lobby to bust a Trade Union by crippling it with massive legal expenses and having it branded as institutionally antisemitic. Newmark played a major role in  organising this. It was a complete disaster. The Tribunal found against the Lobby on every ground and called it an impermissable attempt to establish political points by litigious means. In a lengthy scathing judgment the Tribunal described the action as one that should never have been brought.

In the course of the judgment Newmark was described as being…



a liar

and of having a worrying disregard for plurality and diversity.

Jonathan Goldberg, the ultra Zionist QC described the enterprise as an “epic folly”.

Ordinarily costs are not awarded in Tribunal cases unless actions are deemed to be mendacious and wholly without merit. Since this action clearly was mendacious the Union sought to recover its costs of around £600,000. The Lobby bleated about the trial judge being unfit to hear the application given his scathing attitude to the complainants case. So the judge recused himself. Only when it was obvious that the replacement judge was of much the same mind as the original one did the Lobby fold.

Ronnie Fraser was in no position to cough up this kind of money so the Lobby Grandees passed the hat round. While we don’t know exactly who came up with the money, you can safely bet that among them would be much the same grandees that coughed up to paper over the holes in the JLC  accounts that Newmark’s embezzlements created.

Newmark has long fulfilled the role of the Lobby’s money launderer. It is the practice of the ” respectable ” organisations among those that make up the lobby to create or engage shell organisations to say and do things that the establishment organisations prefer not to be seen saying and doing. So Fair Play Campaign was set up by Newark as a joint JLC / Board of Deputies enterprise. FPC was set up for one purpose and one purpose only. That purpose was to bung money to David Hirsh ( 50k in all ), to help fund his role in the assault on the Universities and Colleges Union.

Newmark set up and arranged the funding for Israel Solidarity Campaign.

The purpose was to fund the abomination called Israction Day, thankfully now dead on its feet. The issue was that at the time the ” respectable” orgs didn’t want to be seen directly shovelling money to the nut jobs of Sussex Friends of Israel and North West Friends of Israel. Newmark sorted that out by setting up ISC and channeling the money through there. Newmark would have been perfectly comfortable doing this of course since both of these ” grass rooter ” orgs  have more than their fair share of criminal minds not unlike his.


The missions being accomplished, FPC and ISC have been consigned to gathering dust on the shelf.

So there we have it. Liar, perjurer, money launderer, fare dodger, embezzler of the funds of at least one charity. ( Probably more, we will see what the calling in of the cops to JLM brings ).

The problem with Newmark is that he has an incurable criminal mind. He reminds me of someone I had dealings with many years ago. This bloke would rather make 50p crooked than a quid straight.

That this man has been able to run amok in the LP for so long almost beggars belief. He should be kicked out without further delay and the racist JLM’s affiliation to the LP ended at the same time.



So who did bust Newmark? Who did bring theJLC audit to the attention of the JC ?

Well its pretty obvious really. Here’s some clues.

Who had the necessary access ?

Who has the necessary grudges ? ( motive )

For whom was the timing right ?




Adam Wagner on Newmark et al and FUCU

Adam Wagner is a Jewish human rights lawyer.  Here is what he had to say about Newmark et al and the FUCU case…….

Sometimes we need an outsider’s perspective to bring into focus uncomfortable truths about ourselves. Just before the Passover festivities, the Employment Tribunal released a 45-page judgment full of Biblical fury which did just that.

The judgment was about a legal claim brought by a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser, against his teaching union. He claimed that the Union had harassed him in breach of equality laws due to its handling of the Israel-Palestine debate.

The full judgment can be read here (PDF). If you have any interest in Jewish communal politics and in particular how the Israel-Palestine debate is handled, I highly recommend you read it. Perhaps set aside half an hour over a well-earned post-Passover sandwich – it’s worth it, I promise.

I won’t try to summarise Employment Judge Snelson’s findings here, but I would like to draw out a few points. The main one is that the Claimant, represented by solicitor Anthony Julius, lost in a big way. This was a total, unqualified demolition job. As an outcome, it really was ten plagues bad.

The language of the judgment is harsh and at times sarcastic. As a lawyer, you can take it from me that it doesn’t get much worse than this. This was a “sorry saga”, the Tribunal “greatly regret that the case was ever brought”, at its heart the case was “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”. Perhaps worst of all, the claim showed a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”


Let’s just step back for a moment. Just because a judge rules on something doesn’t mean they are right. Judgments get appealed and overturned. Reading this one, and not having been in court for the weeks of evidence, there are at least two possibilities. First, that the Tribunal has taken an irrational or perverse dislike to the claimant, his lawyers and some of his witnesses – that is a real possibility, given how scathing the judgment is. The second is, however, is that the Tribunal has got it broadly right, having listened to the extensive evidence and nonetheless dismissed the case out of hand.

As I said, I wasn’t there – this is an evidence heavy case so you really have to have sat through it to reach a proper conclusion. But assuming for the purpose of this article that the Tribunal did get it right, there is a lot here to be worried about.


Let’s take just a single paragraph, number 148. Here the Judge is summarising his conclusions on the claimant’s witnesses who included British Jewish luminaries such as the author Howard Jacobson. Some gave “careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence”. Others however, “seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them.” Again, ouch.

Particular criticism was reserved for Jeremy Newmark, the Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, a committee of community grandees:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress… Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross- examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him. The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

Wow. Here are some words you never want to hear in litigation: “untrue”, “false”, “preposterous”, “extraordinarily arrogant”, “disturbing”. To recap, this is the Chief Executive of an organisation which is arguably now the main ambassador of the Jewish Community to the wider British community. This may all be unfair and perverse, but if it is not then we should be worried about the implications.

Then came the MPs. Not just any MPs, but Denis MacShane and John Mann, both well known to the Jewish community; Mr MacShane chaired the The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, Mann authored the Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Again, it’s bad:

We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to anti- Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

As I said, wow. These are MPs who have been lionised by the Jewish community, and in particular the Jewish Chronicle (perhaps not incidentally, Anthony Julius chairs the JC board, a point highlighted by the Judge). ”And on the topic of that Parliamentary Committee”

157… The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question.

The sarcasm drips off that final sentence, doesn’t it? Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that contrary to the claimant’s arguments, the Union’s meetings were “well-ordered and balanced” and that almost the entire case was “manifestly unmeritorious”. Most importantly, the Tribunal rejected out of hand the argument that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment” can amount to a protected characteristic.

Lessons not learned

Where does this leave us? It is tempting to see this “sorry saga” as no more than an unfortunate and hubristic litigation fail, or an “act of epic folly” as the Jewish Chronicle’s ‘Ask the QC’ QC Jonathan Goldberg commented. But I think there are wider lessons here which we would ignore at our peril.

Anyone who follows Jewish communal politics and reads the JC will recognise many in the cast of characters as well as the arguments. Anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian campaigners are regularly branded as anti-Semites. Despite the good work of organisations like Yachad, this is still a regular and well-supported narrative at the centre of much of the Jewish communal response to criticism of Israel. But that approach – which really amounts to communal comfort food – has clearly failed. And yet it is still wheeled out: watch, for example, this stirring but flawed recent speech by the Chief Rabbi to AIPAC, an American pro-Israel lobby. They hate us, so they would say that. Etc.

Of course, some criticism of Israel is linked to or motivated by anti-Semitism, but isn’t it time to stop using vast resources to paint legitimate debate as racial hatred? As well as failing miserably as an pro-Israel argument, this approach also risks fatally undermining work against real anti-Semitism. Aren’t we just a little bit ashamed for major communal leaders and organisations to have backed a claim showing a “disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”?

In a prediction of Michael Fish quality, the JC originally said of the case that unless UCU repented its “clear antisemitic behaviour we could be set for this decade’s version of the Irving trial – a specific case which acts to crystallise broader themes and issues”

It certainly did crystallise broader themes and issues. But not the ones the cheerleaders hoped for. As said above, it is possible that this Tribunal reached a perverse decision. No doubt some will say so once the recriminations begin to fly. I imagine some will even accuse the Judge of anti-Semitism. But assuming for a moment that he was right, we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars. More importantly, the ‘anti-Zionism equals racism’ argument is plainly bankrupt and has no purchase in wider society. We should move on to something which might actually work. And that is the lesson of this sorry Passover saga.


Adam (@adamwagner1) is a barrister specialising in human rights & medical law. He is founding editor of UK Human Rights Blog….”

Clive Lewis didn’t get proper guidance.

Some wierd stuff has come out of the mouths of politicians recently accused of sexual harassment. Stuff that would be funny were it not so tragic. But probably the funniest is Clive Lewis’ defence. That is he blames it all on not having had proper guidance.

Well that can be easily fixed.

Right Clive. I am going to try to talk to you in language you are most likely to understand.

This cut out represents wimmins. You know those strange creatures that you seem unable to have a grown up relationship with.

In this area here we have appendages technically known as mammary glands, which you, being a colloquial kinda guy,  doubtless routinely refer to as tits. This bit is really simple. Unless you have an established erotic relationship with the wimmins concerned, tits are absolutely non tocare grazie.

Ok now it gets complicated.

I have spun the effigy around and approximately half way down you will notice the area we commonly call the bum. You will also notice this dotted line which functions as a kind of plimsoll line in reverse.  You can see that it is located a good deal higher than the bum. It delineates how low your hands may stray when you are giving a wimmins a friendly, comradely hug.

Now I know that this is a lot to take in all at once, but don’t worry. These guidelines are to be published in video form, and will be available for viewing on you tube as from next week.

Anyway the next LP  conference is 10 months away and I have every confidence you will have grasped it all by then.





Then along came Jeremy Corbyn…………

A politician with a difference we were told. And at first he behaved for all the world as if he WAS different. Or at least made all the right noises. A man unfettered by the extremes of self serving personal interest and ambition that we are used to seeing in those that would  “serve” us. A man we could trust. At last what was supposed to be a socialist party had a socialist leader with the added bonus that it was plain to see that here we had an honest man.

Well we bought it and on a massive scale. Even a died in the wool cynic like me was moved to join a political party for the first time in his life.

When evidence began to emerge that all of this might be a fiction we put aside our discomfort and went into denial.

We put aside our troubled feelings as Corbyn failed to display any real comradely support in the face of  the McNicol/ Newmark purges. The victims were persecuted in Corbyn’s service. They were targeted by the  thousands because they were identified as being likely to vote Corbyn in his second leadership election, and/ or they were identified by Newmark 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.

Now it was understandable Corbyn couldn’t make a fuss during his election campaign. He would have been represented as making excuses in advance of an election defeat. But after his resounding victory there was no longer such a restraint. Yet his back stabbing silence continued. An honest and grateful man would have demanded the re instatement of his supporters in the loudest possible terms and would have continued with these demands until they were met. It should be the first thing on Corbyn’s mind when he wakes up every morning and would be if he was the man that received wisdom holds that he is. His cynical casting aside of these people now he doesn’t have any further use for them tells us that Corbyn can back stab with the very best.

Disposable supporters are not the only ones that have felt the pressure of Corbyn’s knife between their shoulder blades. For many years Corbyn postured as a friend of the Palestinian people, and an uncompromising advocate of their rights. It seems that this was a sham. Doubtless he feels no further need for this particular charade.

He seems to have calculated that his interests lie in the direction of courting the racist anti socialists in the Party that are implacable enemies of Palestinian people

As I have said we have been in denial. We have loved the Corbyn we thought we had  too much to give up on it. We no longer have that option. His abuse of the family of Del Singh, who had been a personal friend of Corbyn makes that impossible.

In order to get a proper sense of the full horror of this abuse, it is necessary, to get a fix on the Jewish Labour Movement and its leader Jeremy Newmark, who was once famously described as “ a brown shirt for Israel.”

The JLM had been a dormant affiliate of the Party for decades. Then in 2016, as part of the Israel lobby’s invocation of the AIPAC inspired nuclear option against the Labour Party, it was resuscitated and Newmark “ elected” as its leader.

It describes the Israeli Labor Party, which spawned the Israeli colonialist expansion in the ME, as it’s sister party. It is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation, that pours billions into the support and expansion of Israeli colonies in the West Bank. It is signed up to the Jerusalem Declaration, which is a call to settle Eretz Israel. It is affiliated to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain, notorious for its links to the far right, notably the EDL and Britain First. Links maintained by it’s erstwhile Vice Chair, Jonathan Hoffman. It is the emanation of The State of Israel in the Labour Party.

Newmark is an ex CEO  of the JLC. However, he has long had a wider role functioning as a kind of quartermaster for the lobby. It was he who organised the funds for the abomination that is Israction day. It was he who organised the funding for the disastrous assault on the Universities and College Union and doubtless who organised the £600,000 to pay the costs award the union obtained.

Let us be clear. This was a highly organised attempt by the lobby to bust a trade union. The aim was to get the union branded anti-Semitic. This and an astronomical legal costs liability would have been a double whammy that killed the union off.

Newmark gave lengthy evidence in the case and was branded by the Tribunal as an arrogant, preposterous liar, with a worrying disregard for pluraliy and diversity. That is Newmark lied his butt off in a court of law in an attempt to bust a trade union. It is this man that Corbyn and Lansman prostrates thmselves before at every opportunity.

Del Singh was a friend of Corbyn. He was a tireless worker for human rights and a highly active aid worker. He was a passionate campaigner on behalf of the Palestinian people to a degree that got him permanently banned from Israel and the territories in 2006. In 2014 he was murdered by the Taliban in Kabul.

At this years LP conference a smirking Corbyn presented the JLM with the Del Singh Memorial Award, citing it as being for outstanding campaigning. Somebody seems to have forgotten to tell someone that it should be awarded for campaigning for the LP not for campaigning for the state of Israel.

The family were hurt and horrified at the using of Del’s name in the context of an award to an organisation that “ opposes much of what Del Stood for “  . The JLM, the statement says have ” tirelessly defended the human rights abuses of the Israeli occupation that Del spoke so passionately against.”

They are demanding an apology and the revocation of the award.

The ironies are multiple. Not least that if Del had lived the JLM  would be branding him as anti-Semitic and Newmark, backed up by Lansman, would have arranged for McNicol to expel him from the Party.

There are those who feel the family will get the apology and revocation they deserve. History is not on the side of this optimism. The hasbarafia do not readily take a step backwards. Newmark has chillingly announced that he plans to “ meet with the family in due course. “ This is code for they are going to be leant on very heavily and subjected to the usual cocktail of threats and blackmail. Lansman will be backing Newmark as per and Corbyn will look on in his usual craven silence.

Full text of the statement from Del Singh’s family can be read here.

It gets worse or to say the least it doesn’t get any better.

The strategy of Lansman and Chakrabarti at this years conference was to make one last big indulgence of the JLM  and the lobby in general and then ” we can move on”.  It is becoming increasingly obvious that Lansman has some kind of learning disability and has infected his new ally Chakrabarti with it.

Once you have entered into what Mark Braverman calls The Fatal Embrace with the lobby,  moving on is virtually impossible. Once you have supped with this particular devil you don’t easily walk out of it, anymore than anyone leaves the mafia.

The great last indulgence was the rule change. A change that not only makes saying and/or doing stuff that displeases the Israeli Embassy an expellable offence but which makes THINKING the wrong kind of stuff an expellable offence too.  You can be expelled for having the wrong thoughts. How your thoughts are to be policed, we are not told. Probably Jeremy Preposterous Arrogant Liar Newmark voicing his suspicions about your thoughts to McNicol, will be good enough.

This bullshit was signed off at a pre conference meeting between Newmark and Chakrabarti.

Witness Chakrabarti’s abject panic at Len McCluskey’s mood music comments. These threatened to ” upset” Newmark and thereby undermine the entire moving on strategy.

This strategy is of course, so naive it almost beggars belief. Within a few hours of conference ending JLM  were demanding the expulsion of Naomi Wimbourne – Idrissi who had made an unwelcome conference speech. They then immediately moved on to Moshe Machover who they labelled ” an immoral historian.”

This put McNicol in one hell of a fix. McNicol is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier but he is not entirely stupid. He immediately grasped two seemingly irreconcilable facts.

Firstly, Jeremy Preposterous Arrogant Liar Newmark had to be satisfied. Far from allowing the party to  ” move on” the Israelists, as they invariably do, pocketed the Danegeld without so much as a thank you. They had immediately demanded that the LP demonstrate its seriousness by instituting a further purge of socialists and others with the wrong attitude to Israel. That Newmark must not be ” upset” was an unwritten Party rule established by Lansman. They had not been really serious in the case of Idrissi, but were deadly serious in insisting that Moshe Machover had to go.

Secondly, McNicol knew this would be near impossible. The charge of ” antisemitism” would have to be ” investigated”. Moshe is 81 years old, a life long socialist, antiracist and a world famous professor of logic, philosophy and mathematics. Faced with his razor sharp mind, plus his legal advice, McNicols dim witted gopher ” investigators” would be torn to shreds and precedents would be set that would be a great protection for future McNicol/ Newmark targets.

What to do ?

Well someone, probably not a million miles from the CST,  had a brilliant idea. They came up with the wheeze of switching the charge of antisemitism to a charge of associating with organisations other than the Labour Party.

This is not the place to discuss the details they can best be found here…….

The great beauty of this wheeze is that the Party rules provide for ” auto exclusion ” when JLM level this particular charge. That is, the compliance unit simply write you a letter telling you that you are expelled. No investigation, no defence, no appeal. Thats it. You are out. In the month leading up to the 1916 leadership election 618 socialists and/or non Israelists were expelled in this way.

It is even cleverer than just this. Not only does Newmark get rid of Moshe, but now there is no ” investigation” of an antisemitism charge, with all it’s attendant dangers,  because Moshe is not now a member of the party !!!!!!!!!!

Where is Corbyn ?

Well he wasn’t quite as deadly silent as he was in the Del Singh case. He said ” we do not comment on disciplinary matters”.

That craven reaction is not good enough.  Corbyn has run out of slack on these issues. It is time for him to declare, uniquivocably, which side he is on.

Now lest I be misunderstood. I sincerely hope Corbyn gets to be Prime Minister, and afterwards gets promoted to God, should there be a vacancy.  But it is not certain. The bubble may implode and he may sink back into near obscurity. In this case he  will have to hurry past the ghosts of Del Singh, Moshe Machover , Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and the thousands of nameless los desaparecidos. Now he won’t have his principles and the comradeship of those that shared those principles to keep him warm. Certainly Lansman, Jones etc won’t be anywhere to be seen.

He is going to be a very lonely man.


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