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 effectively  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 it  said that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. It is a strawman constructed to maintain a focus on the policies of the Israeli government, and to forbid any mention of the fact that the policies of the present Israeli government have been the policies of every Israeli government since the founding of the God forsaken entity. These policies can be simply stated as, ” as much land as possible, as few Arabs as possible”.

So Bibi is represented as some kind of deviation from a mythical norm.  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 not empirical statements .They are matters of opinion. These opinions are ones that we may not hold and express without the threat of potentially serious consequences, because they are delegitimising variants of ” no right to exist” statement. They are therefore antisemitic. Anyone disputing this will have the IHRA definition thing thrust into their face.

 Declaring them 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 assertion 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 waffle.

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 particular abomination.

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.


Sponsored Post Learn from the experts: Create a successful blog with our brand new courseThe Blog is excited to announce our newest offering: a course just for beginning bloggers where you’ll learn everything you need to know about blogging from the most trusted experts in the industry. We have helped millions of blogs get up and running, we know what works, and we want you to to know everything we know. This course provides all the fundamental skills and inspiration you need to get your blog started, an interactive community forum, and content updated annually.

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):

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.

“… 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.

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


 The timing of it is regrettable and unfortunate”


“ I am not happy about it.”

Come Thursday Haringey had CANCELLED the meeting.


 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.









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 why the LP ( or anyone else ) should not trust the ” mainstream ” Jewish orgs.


The right wing antihuman rights lawyer Adam Wagner is proving himself to be a bit of a weathervane in a hurricane. He is currently positionally himself as defender in chief of the mythical ” Jewish Community” in its tussles with the big bad Labour Party. This is because he now judges that this is the way the wind is blowing and where the glory is. However, it has not always been the case that this was his judgment. Witness his 2013 diatribe against the Israelist orgs.

The background was an employment tribunal case in which a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser accused his union, the Universities and Colleges Union of racial discrimination. Fraser v  Universities and Colleges Union. Forever to be affectionately known as the FUCU case.

The ” mainstream” Iraelist orgs had been getting increasingly fed up at the union’s conference passing resolutions that were less than eulogistic about the State of Israel. They were deemed to have gone too far when a resolution was passed refusing to adopt something called the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism, which the batshit IHRA thing is a resurrection of.

They decided to stamp on this once and for all, and selected Fraser to front a discrimination case ( all expenses paid). This was an invocation of what AIPAC calls the nuclear option. Never again would anyone deny that antiZionism was antisemitisim. Not if they knew what was good for them. 

Virtually the whole of the heavy duty Israelist lobby was involved in what the Tribunal came to call “ an impermissable attempt to achieve a political objective by litigation “, an attempt that showed “ scant regard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”.

Prominent among the conspirators  was the Community Security Trust and the whole thing was coordinated by  Jeremy Newmark, the notorious perjurer, money launderer, serial embezzler, fare dodger and one man crime wave. Newmark was at that time the Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council and is the man that invented the Jewish Labour Movement. He is also a big buddy of Clive Lewis and Jon Lansman.

The joint BoD / JLC front org, Fair Play Campaign, according to Fraser’s testimony, bunged David Hirsh 50k to finance his help in facilitating the scam. Hirsh, of course, is famous for the notion that it is possible to have a world rampant with racism but nonetheless does not contain a single racist.

Be clear. This was an attempt by the mainstream Israelist orgs to bust A TRADE UNION with a double whammy of false accusations of antisemitism and crippling  legal costs. The legal charge was led by Mishcom de Reya who we are currently hearing a lot more about.

But anyway, over to Adam who told it much more  eloquently, than I ever could.


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 a 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 points out that legal judgments get appealed. Not this one. The ultra Zionist Jonathan Goldberg QC laughed off any such suggestion.  He similarly derisively dismissed the idea that an attachment to Israel was a protected characteristic. ” You might as well say that supporting Tottenham Hotspur is a protected characteristic because a lot of Jews do.”

Inevitably this was all explained away by declaring the Tribunal was antisemitic. “Antisemitic Bastards ” declared Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust.

Costs are not usually awarded in Tribunal cases and not unless the complaint is deemed to be frivolous and mendacious. The union clearly felt this to be the case and applied for costs in the region of £ 600,000 !!! Fraser’s lawyers demanded that the trial judge recuse himself from the costs hearing and he did so. But when it became clear that the replacement judge was very much of the the same mind as the original one they settled.

Obviously Fraser wasn’t good for 600K  so the whip round must have been a merry one.

Mr R Fraser -v- University & College Union

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.




Sadiq Khan, A Man For All Seasons

” I’ve said it loudly, I have said it clearly, and I’ll say it again. I’m not going to get involved in the leadership contest.”

Why did Khan change his mind on this?

Because Gerald Ronson told him to.

Thus  Khan has revealed his shameless, self serving duplicity for all to see.

The reality is that Khan has only one concern, and that is Sadiq Khan.

In October last Geoffrey Alderman devoted his then regular weekly Jewish Chronicle column to Khan. It was entitled  ” Khan: A friend and a boycotter”

Alderman started by saying that he is Party apolitical, and has never advocated voting FOR a particular person or organisation. He has, however, sometimes  advocated voting AGAINST someone or some organisation and that is what he proposes to do on this occasion. The person he had in mind was none other than Sadiq, and the context was the coming Mayoral election.

Jews shouldn’t vote for Khan because……

In January 2009, Kahn was listed as a speaker at an event in Tooting (hosted by Wandsworth Stop The War Coalition, of which Jeremy Corbyn was a co-founder) that had as its purpose the denunciation of Israeli policy towards Gaza.”

The following month ,” according to a local Tooting newspaper, Khan was a speaker at another demonstration, a march and rally called in support of Palestinian suffering in Gaza. A spokesman for Wandsworth STWC, interviewed by the same local newspaper about the same event, announced that the objects of the campaign were “to lift the economic blockade by Israel, open check points to allow aid, and revoke export arms licenses to Israel. We’re also boycotting Israeli goods.

Worst of all ( apparently ) ” speakers are reported to have included that well-known friend of the Jews the Reverend Stephen Sizer.”

The Jewish Chronicle itself later continued the theme.

Sadiq Khan regularly lobbied for sanctions against Israel when his party was in government, despite using his London mayoral campaign to claim he had consistently opposed such moves.”

” A message sent from his then Parliamentary office manager to a meeting of the Stop the War Coalition in Wandsworth revealed the efforts the Tooting MP had made to challenge Israel.”

The letter, sent around the time of Israel’s Cast Lead operation in Gaza, explained that Mr Khan had “regularly” been in contact with then Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Middle East Minister Bill Rammell, as well as Foreign Office officials.”

” The office manager added: He also wrote to David Miliband… asking that sanctions be brought against Israel.”

” The message to the hard-left group ( SWC ) added: “Sadiq’s commitment to the situation in Palestine is longstanding and will, I can assure you, continue into the future.”

A fortnight ago Sadiq was a principal speaker at the launch of the Labour Friends of Palestine group, which has been set up to help to ensure the Palestinian voice is represented amongst MPs and the Labour party.”

You would think it was a long hard road from principal speaker at a Labour Friends of Palestine launch to guest of honour at CST  dinners, wearing a kippah and drinking a toast to The State of Israel. I  would too. But for Sadiq, it seems , it was easy peasy lemon squeasy.

A spokesman for the post Mayoral candidate Sadiq tells us “ Sadiq’s position on boycotts, sanctions, and divestment of Israel could not be more clear: he completely opposes them.”

So here we have Sadiq being clear again.

Alderman finishes his JC  piece by telling us that it is possible for Khan to turn over a new leaf and….

“As he does so he should reflect on the fact that at the 2012 mayoral contest one polling organisation quizzed a sample of London voters generally over a wide range of issues, including “the poor relationship between Ken Livingstone and the Jewish community.” Of those respondents who declared themselves first-preference Boris Johnson supporters some 40 per cent specifically identified Livingstone’s attitude to Jews as either a “very important” or a “quite important” factor in propelling them to vote for his Conservative opponent.”

Then the final chilling threat…

 Worth thinking about, Mr Khan, isn’t it?”

As it happens Mr Khan was ahead of Geoffers on this one.  He had either worked it out for himself or, more likely, as a result of being the recipient of some ” quiet words “, and some friendly advice pertaining to where his best interests are located.

He had told the Jewish News that they could be assured that he wouldn’t be another Ken Livingstone. This in an article that effectively declared Livingstone to be a racist and which assured us that he would have zero tolerance. Zero tolerance in this context means they could rely on him to keep discourse about Israel in London within bounds that they would find acceptable, and that the police would be made to understand this too.

In a sense Khan has been smarter than Corbyn and his advisers on this. He at least seems to have understood that these people cannot be appeased, that it was a zero sum game. Corbyn should have not given this problem with Jews in the Labour Party bullshit any hint of house room whatsoever, and let them huff and puff and blow themselves out. Instead he fed them little bits hoping they would be satisfied not seeming to understand that what he was giving them was danegeld. And so we are in the totally insane situation we are in today.

Khan judged his political requirements were such that his best option was to hand them everything all at once.  Basically he has said just tell me what to say and do. And of course, they are not shy about doing just that. So he trumpets the Labour Party problem with Jews stuff. He declares it to be a badge of shame.  He declares that the NEC  should get training on antisemitism. No prizes for guessing who he thinks should do this training. He goes to CST dinners. He has taken to wearing a Kippah. He drinks toasts to The State of Israel. To the best of my knowledge he does not drink toasts to any other country.

Basically he has adopted the entire shebang.

On October 8th Khan explained to the Jewish Chronicle why he ” changed his mind about boycotts”

So Khan now has three stories running in parallel.

He supports boycotts.

He has always consistently opposed boycotts.

He did support boycotts but has now changed his mind.

The Jewish Chronicle just has to be the most scurrilous, racist rag published in this country. And this is a good example of their style. Its racist editor, Pollard, doesn’t quit even when he has won. Khan is theirs. He can’t bend over any further. But still it goes on.

Reading this article almost made me feel sorry for him. I said almost. He ducks and weaves and squirms. But the gist is he came to realise that he could no longer support boycotts on evidential grounds. The evidence is that boycotts do not help the cause of ” peace “. Pax Israeliana that is.

Khan is closely supervised by the Community Security Trust.( CST ). The CST plays a highly specialised role in the Israeli Hasbara effort in this country. Levels of antisemitism in the UK are hopelessly too low for the purposes of the political agenda. The CST’s role is to raise PERCEPTIONS of it as high as possible. It does this very effectively.  It is an enterprise of that galactico of fraudsters, Gerald Ronson. Khan now describes Ronson as a “ good friend“.

It would be interesting to know how much Ronson gave to fund Khan’s mayoral campaign.

We do know that the Zio nut job, Michael Foster, was a significant contributor.








The Jewish way of giving ?

Food poverty in this country is on a scale that no nation with pretensions of being civilised should tolerate.

More than 8 million people in Britain live in households that struggle to put enough food on the table, with over half regularly going a whole day without eating, according to estimates of hunger in the UK.

One in 10 adults suffered moderate levels of food insecurity in 2014, placing the UK in the bottom half of European countries on hunger measures, below Hungary, Estonia, Slovakia and Malta.

In this situation food banks are a lifeline, literally, for a large and inexorably increasing number of people. While they are a welcome emergency reaction, the reliance on them seems to have become an acceptable norm.

This time of year, typified by displays of ostentatious plenty, is particularly hard for the hungry and homeless to bear and particularly painful for the rest of us to observe. Fortunately it is somewhat matched by a big spike in direct charitabe aid.

The response of the London Muslim community this year has been stupendous. Led by the East London Mosque, Muslim Aid and  together with their Christian neighbours and allies, the community has collected a jaw dropping ten tonnes of food to be donated to the charity, Crisis. Ten tonnes and still counting.

Shaykh Abdul Qayum said the drive was inspired by their faith. ”  It is a religious duty for Muslims to try to help others, irrespective of a person’s faith or background.”

Rev Ben Bradley said it was a great example of faiths working together.

Bernadette Hegarty of St Pauls, Bow Common Church helps Muslim Aid volunteers

All of this is simple selflessness. No self aggrandisement, no political points

What has the Jewish community been up to all the while ?

Well it depends where you look. If you look at the community’s self appointed, self styled ” leaders”, and their nut job ” grass roots” allies,  the contrast, unfortunately, could not be starker.

They  looked at the the hunger all around them and thought ” there must be something in this for Israel.” It was but a short step from here to ISRACTION DAY !!!!!!!!!

Israction day is not just the worst pun in the history of the world, it is now, apparently, the Jewish way of giving.

The idea was dreamed up by Simon Cobbs. Then it was enthusiastically  taken up by other  grass rooters and then formally adopted by the  ” leadership” establishment.

The idea is that it would be a wonderful piece of Hasbara if Israel fed a few desperados for a couple of days. It works like this. You buy up Israeli foodstuffs, mostly in Manchester, but a few little bits elsewhere. You put together what  you have managed to buy, add in what Simon Cobbs and Anthony Dennison have managed to shop lift, and you give it to some food bank or other. The point being that the hungry  would come to see that if it wasn’t for Israel and its fans they wouldn’t be eating. Also, following an intense orgy of self promotion, the rest of us would come to see this too.

I immediately spotted a structural weakness in this idea but to my amazement the grass rooters were one step ahead of me on this point. The problem was that hunting down Israeli stuff in supermarkets would be hard work and many grass rooters would not be up to the job. A lot of people could starve to death while earnest young Zionists  scurried around  desperately trying to find some Israeli camomile tea.This was deftly dealt with by expanding the options to kosher food, So not only do the hungry not get to eat until they have taken on board the political point, they don’t get to eat without going along with Jewish religious  observances. Pass the sick bag Alice.

All of this prompted one horrified  observer to ask….

Is this now the Jewish way of giving ?”


The impetus came from two scurrilous” grass root” orgs. Sussex Friends of Israel and North West Friends of Israel.

SFI consists of a couple of Jews, a fake Jew, and a  few Christian Zionists with glazed over eyes. Its mouthpieces are Simon Cobbs and Fiona Sharpe. Simon is a pretend Jew and a notorious fraudster, who has had the pleasure of being the guest of her Majesty in  Exeter Slammer, in consequence of the said frauds. Fiona’s  main claim to fame is for bearing false witness and perjuring herself in a court case involving a pro Palestinian demonstrator.

You can read all about SFI here.

NWFOI are a much more substantial organisation, but scarcely  more edifying. They are mostly famous for their close association with the Muslim hating/baiting English Defence League. They usually are spoken for by their Chair, Anthony Dennison, another fraudster and struck off solicitor.

You can read all about NWFOI

Not everyone in the Jewish Community is enamoured with this Jewish way of giving of course. Gabriel Webber says………

But what makes IsrACTIONday a disaster is this: it treats the poor as pawns. The project organisers are using the poor, placing them in intolerable political positions that have nothing to do with them and taking away their dignity and independence, all for their own political ends.

In Hebrew, the word for ‘poor’ and the word for ‘oppressed’ are the same. Maimonides made it a task of all righteous Jews to work towards ending this link. Those supporting IsrACTIONday are cementing it.

If they cared even a little about the poor, rather than about their own machinations with BDS, they would not be forcing food banks to expend time and social capital on dealing with this controversy. They would not be using the controversy to score points, and they would not be disingenuously accusing their Jewish critics – including me, no doubt – of being both anti-Israel and anti-charity. The organisers are the anti-charity ones, for faux charity is no charity at all.”

Richard Mather is the editor of the Jewism Media Agency. He says ….

I am a passionate Zionist but the reason I took exception to this campaign is because it is quite obviously a publicity stunt –  a cynical gesture designed to raise the profile of certain grassroots Israel advocacy groups.

If the Jewish community wants to help the homeless, then it should do so without fuss. Homelessness and food poverty are serious issues. But Sussex Friends of Israel and Northwest Friends of Israel have hijacked these problems for their own self-promoting ends.

And that’s the reason why the I didn’t cover the story.”

NWFOI tried to bully the Zionist human rights lawyer Adam Wagner into supporting  Israction day but were brushed off with, “ I couldn’t support anything that is to do with an organisation as reactionary as yours.”

The main Jewish organisations, the self styled, self appointed leaders, what we might call the Jewish hard right, are all for the wheeze of course. As are the twin pillars of the Jewish gutter Press, the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News. In fact the Board of Deputies and their much more powerful rivals, the Jewish Leadership Counci, both heavily fund SFI and NWFOI. The glitterati of these orgs and similar are falling over  themselves to make video cameos supporting the abomination.

Interestingly, your favourite socialist and mine, Jeremy Newmark, chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and erstwhile CEO of the JLC, confesses to having organised the funding  of Israction day itself.

For those of you with the stomach for it  here is the gut wrenching thing in full

The sheer sickness of it all is easily illustrated. Faced with two products. An Israeli one and another almost identical and at least as nutritious but half the price, they would buy the Israeli one. Despite this being only half as efficient in an opportunity cost sense in feeding the hungry.

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