Category Archives: Uncategorized

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” ?

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”. That’s as maybe. We will set aside the question of whether this “lost 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 received the benefit of some political re-education.

Perhaps nothing is more indicative of where Lansman’s heart is than his twitter exchange with 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  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.

Now it would be a mistake to think that Lansman’s Israelism is recently arrived at. When this whole 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 indulged in 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, 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, and serial embezzler, 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, 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 apolagise. 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 concensus 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 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 finds 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 will find his contribution highly satisfactory.










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


Dear Israelists

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

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

Where we find em we will be done with em

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

To wit

OXFORD DICTIONARY: antisemitism – hostility to or prejudice against Jews


Jobs a good un

Thank you and good night

J Corbyn esqu


THE IHRA thing . the hijack


Not the least depressing thing about the IHRA ” definition” business is the presentation of it as the considered work of the IHRA. Obviously this gives it great emotional impact. If you don’t accept the definition  of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance you are a mere one step away from being a Holocaust denier/ reviser, and a very short step at that.

Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner……

Beyond popularity, it was also defined by those who we really ought to trust on this matter, the IHRA, which learned from the consequences of antisemitism. To deviate from a definition with such weight requires serious consideration and an equally serious counter proposition.”

Now you might wonder why an organisation dedicated to promoting Holocaust  Remembrance is involving itself in such political shenanigans. What has it to do with Holocaust rememberance? The reality of course is that it is not the work of the IHRA at all, but a copy and paste of Kenneth Stern’s work. As such it has to be called out as a cynical, shameless political exploitation of the Holocaust.

How did we get from the well meaning work of Kenneth Stern and Andrew Baker, to a situation in which having doubts about a  definition  amounts to an existential threat to UK Jews and to the bizarre proclamation by the eccentric, ultra racist editor of the Jewish Chronicle that ” They have declared war on the Chief Rabbi” ?

This cannot be understood without first understanding the role of the highly duplicitous Community Security Trust ( CST ). CST is the brain child of the  time served mega fraudster, Gerald Ronson. It, and its ” partner organisations“, the BoD, and the JLC, constitute the three pillars of the UK Israelist lobby and the self appointed alleged  “leadership” of the ” Jewish Community”.

While Stern and Baker were engaged in their well meaning work, darker forces were gathering and sticking their noses in. Prominent among them was Michael Whine, the CEO of CST. The same Whine that told a Limmud fringe that ” we shouldn’t hate Muslims, but it is understandable that people do.” ( h/t Gabriel Webber )

Whine immediately saw the value of the ” definition” as a weapon with which to cow people and institutions into restricting talk about Israel to what was ” acceptable“.

Now the ” definition” found its way onto the the EUMC site as a discussion document. It wasn’t and never has been ” adopted” (  as we shall see ).  At the top of the CST home page there was a menu. Included in the menu was ” ANTISEMITISM”. The drop down from there included ” DEFINITIONS”. Upon clicking on the definitions option I got a big surprise. It did not take me to Mark Gardner’s favoured dictionary. It took me to the “EUMC Working Definition”

We were introduced to the ” definition ” by  a series of rolling categorical blatant lies.

The EUMC, in collaboration with key NGO’s drafted a single comprehensive definition for use in the field. It employs plain language to enable the definition to be easily accessible to a wide range of law enforcement, justice and government officials, as well as to NGO’S and experts who assist in the monitoring process.”

” This definition was adopted by the EUMC, and disseminated to its national monitors”.

” In collaboration with……….representatives of the newly formed Tolerance and Non Discrimination section of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.” 

The purpose of all this duplicity was, of course to make it extremely difficult for anyone to talk about The State of Israel in less than eulogistic terms without also having to defend themselves against charges of antisemitism. This enterprise had significant success.

However, in 2013 disaster struck.

The EUMC’s name had changed, in 2007, to the Fundamental Rights Agency. Late in 2013, the now named FRA, decided to clear some unused junk from the garage. Among the junk it removed from its web site was the so called working definition of antisemitism.

It is impossible to over state the impact of this. For years Israelist ultras have used reference to this ” definition” as a stick with which to beat anyone who over stepped THEIR mark vis a vis Israel. The sense of loss was akin to bereavement.They were apoplectic and a crescendo of pleas and threats rained down on the FRA. The Simon Weisenthal Center bemoaned ” the loss of a valuable weapon”.

The FRA responded as follows.

We are not aware of any official definition of antisemitism.”

”  We have never viewed the document as a valid definition of antisemitism.”

” The document has been pulled along with other NON OFFICIAL documents.”..

” The agency does not need to develop its own definition of antisemitism” in order to research these issues.”

“The agency has no mandate to develop its own definitions”.

When it was pointed out that The Agency had, in 2008 published a document that contains definitions of homophobia and transphobia, The Agency replied…

The Agency has defined neither, but has used international standardsof certain definitions, terms and concepts.

In other words, in those cases they had simply restated THE concepts.

So there you were and there you had it. Or so you would have thought. However, to have thought that would have been to grossly underestimate the duplicity of CST and other organisations it works closely in conjunction with.

I, and probably others, confronted CST on this issue. There was of course no direct response. Except that changes were made to the web site. One would have hoped that the CST would have held its hands up, declared it a fair cop, and quit with the batshit. But no. The changes were even more duplicitous than the original.

If you now chose the definitions option you found an intro to  “The Working Definition “. Notice they have gotten bolder. No longer the EUMC working definition but THE working Definition.

However, once again we were given the same drivel as before, about how it was created and disseminated in order to blah blah blah…This was to create the impression that  we were about to be exposed to an official document of the European Union. Then if you clicked the working definition  hot link you found yourself on the web site of something calling itself The European Forum on Antisemitism. There you would have found a copy and paste of what they called the EUMCWD, which was then padded out with even more constraints on how you may talk about Israel without being dismissed as antisemitic.

What is the European Forum on Antisemitism ? Well nothing really. You may as well consult the publications of my local ferret fanciers club. The easy way to grasp it is to think of a bunch of self appointed John Mann type characters getting together and giving themselves a fancy name. If you look at their logo it even is designed to kinda look a bit like the EU logo. Stars and stuff. A creation designed to keep alive the spirit of the much loved and lamented EUMCWD.

The EFOA wheeze was all too transparent and despite the best efforts of CST it didn’t fly.  LFI made a desultory show of getting behind it. For example the execrable Joan Ryan went around for a while saying stuff like ” That’s antisemitic see the EFOA definition”. But it soon fizzled out.

For a good while the definitions game was in decline. The Israelists had to get along without it. Except for a few die hards like the nut job Jonathan Hoffman who were still going around demanding ” compliance” with the ” EUMC Working Definition”.

However, the Israelist orgs never reconciled themselves to the loss of the EUMCWD.

Then in 2016 new life was breathed into it. Someone had the brilliant idea that it was all in the name. What if we could work the Holocaust in there somewhere ? You can’t keep a good Humpty Dumpty down. An American delegate to the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance convention, Mark Weizman, and a Romanian delegate ( the convention was in Bucharest ) persuaded  IHMA  to adopt its own definition. This was a copy and paste of Stern’s two sentence definition. Then the two heisters put together a press statement into which they inserted Sterns “examples.” Suddenly it was game on again.

To cut a very long story short the Tories of the CST set out to get the ” definition” adopted by the Tory government, confident that they had the connections and the leverage to do so. This confidence was not misplaced. Subsequently Theresa May announced that the government had ” adopted” the definition.

There are two particularly interesting things about May’s statement.

Where would you expect May to make this declaration ? In parliament ? Via some official government organ ? She in fact made the announcement at a Conservative Friends of Israel dinner !!! It is impossible to imagine a clearer confirmation that this entire business is not about antisemitism at all, but is all about The State of Israel.

In October 2016 the allegedly “powerful” Parliamentary Committee On Home Affairs published a report on ” antisemitism”  in the UK, in which it broadly accepted the IHRO definition. It did, however, recommend a caveat …..

“It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.”

This they said, was in order to protect free speech.

The government rejected this as ” unnecessary”.

Now governments, generally, take the line of least resistance in these circumstances. There was not, after all, a compelling national interest here. Not a British national interest at any rate ( unless you count our hard won civil liberties). So why was the caveats rejected ? It is not rocket science. The CST vetoed it. The very last thing CST and their ” partner organisations” want is Israel being held to the same standards as liberal democracies.

The Home Affairs Select Committee is obviously not as powerful as we are led to believe.  Certainly not as powerful as Gerald Ronson.

Interestingly, the cancellation of an Israel apartheid event at the University of Central Lancashire, on the grounds that it contravened the IHRO definition and therefore unlawful, referred to by Stern as McCarthyite, has also been referred to by Mark Weizman. Weizman tells us that that is just what the role of the definition is.

This assault on the above mentioned civil liberties, in the service of a foreign power, must be resisted at all costs. Liberal socialists must be in the van of this resistance, not in the van of the facilitation of the assault. Stand up Jon Lansman John McDonnell Owen Jones to name a few.

There is one country, and one country only, that we may not speak freely about.




THE IHRA thing. The beginning


Now here is the thing. The same ” intent ” requirement that appears in bits of the LP  code is the very underpinning of the WHOLE of the IHRA so called IHRA “definition”. ( hereinafter called the IHRA thing )

Kenneth Stern has been the bogey man of pro Palestinians for over a decade. Reviled as the McCarthyite that supplied Israelists with the invidious weapon that sought to establish that there was one country, and one country only, that we may not speak freely about

It seems that Stern has been getting a bum rap, and I for one am feeling a bit sheepish about it. He is in fact a scholar of the utmost integrity and as passionate a defender of free speech as you could hope to find. Further, he is horrified at the bastardisation of his work, the attempt to turn a research aid into a code that is used to target people.

The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill free speech on a College campus ( or anywhere else ). In fact, at a conference in 2010 about the impact of the definition , I highlighted this misuse, and the damage it could do.”

Stern is the executive director of the Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation,which “works to increase understanding of hatred and antisemitism, and how to combat them, with a particular emphasis on college campuses.”. 

From 1989 to 2014 he was on the staff of the American Jewish Committee where he was its antisemitism expert with particular responsibilites for college campuses. He is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to his Zionism.

In the early 2000’s the EUMC became interested in having a definition of antisemitism that could be used across borders for research purposes.  That is, to enable its researchers in the various member countries to work within the same loose framework. It was to Stern that they turned. “ I ( Stern ) did the drafting and Rabbi Andrew Baker did the political negotiating.

Several things are abundantly clear from Stern’s testimony to the congressional Committee on the Judiciary in late 2017.

The definition is the first two sentences.

The so called examples are suggestions as to places where antisemitism MIGHT be lurking, places that might be of interest to researchers.

The thing, says Stern, is useful for data collection purposes only. As a  code for  facilitating the targeting and indicting of individuals and organisations is concerned, it is both USELESS and DANGEROUS ( not least for Jews ).

Stern in 2010……..” ( The Definition ) was never meant to provide a framework for eviscerating free speech or academic freedom, let alone labeling anyone an antisemite”

Yet labelling people antisemites is the sole purpose of the Israelist’s demand for the IHRA thing ” in full “.  This demand is a category mistake. The” definition” is not that kind of thing.

The thing speaks of COULD, MIGHT, CONTEXT. It never tells us what IS antisemitic, which it would need to do if it was to be any use as a code. These words, might, could, context, must mean something and Stern is clear about what. It all, in the end, comes down to intent, which he distinguishes from motive. An actor might be motivated by a hatred of Jews, but needn’t be. We can conclude we are in the presence  of an antisemitic incident when a Jew or Jews is TARGETED BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH. For example a burglar might target a Jewish home because he has got it into his head that all Jews are rich. He might hate Jews but he may not. Targeting, of any kind, is a necessary and sufficient condition. Similarly a burglar might target a working class black man’s home because he thinks the police response may be less vigorous than if the victim was a middle class Anglo Saxon.

For Stern antisemitism is the targeting of Jews because they are Jews. It really is that simple. And this , of course, is perfectly consistent with THE concept, well understood by the 1.5 billion speakers of the language. The meaning is determined by the sum force of the uses of the expression. This is how natural language works. It is not established by the stipulation of a few bums on chairs around a table.

THE OXFORD DICTIONARY: antisemitism: hostility to, or prejudice against, Jews.

Now Israelists, led by the conmen of CST,  KNOW that the thing, properly understood, is useless. So the game is this. In advocating for the ” definition”  they make a big thing of the might, could, context bits, as evidence that the thing does not inhibit free speech, and to allay fears. Then could, might, context, slides off into ” likely to be“. That twin pillar of the Israelist gutter press, The Jewish Chronicle, is particularly adept at this move. THEN when they are targeting people  they talk as though the thing is a hard definition.

That is antisemitic, see the IHRA definition “

Saying that breaches the IHRA definition.”

And so on.

As we have seen, the definition is not the kind of thing someone can be in violation of.

The ultimate weakness of this game  in legal or quasi legal contexts , e.g a political party rule book, is that the IHRA thing is not the law. But the US First Amendment and the UK Human Rights Act, which guarantee free expression, are the law.

What all this means is that the LP were correct to introduce the notion of intent and the Israelists are ill placed to whinge and whine when the whole of the document they  are advocating for is firmly grounded in the same notion

Stern quotes a colleague….”When you make it about Jews, you lose”. He meant that any attempt to combat antisemitism should not be cast as special protection for Jews. Stern spends most of his time fighting to prevent the thing being adopted in adversarial contexts, particularly by colleges and legislative bodies. And, of course, a disciplinary ” tribunal”  of a political party, is a quasi legal adversrial context.

He keeps half an eye on the UK.

And they will be right. The EUMC “ WORKING DEFINITION” was recently adopted in the UK and applied to campus. An “Israeli Apartheid “ week event was cancelled as violating the definition. A holocaust survivor was obliged to change the title of a campus talk, and the University mandated it to be recorded, after an Israeli diplomat complained that it violated the definition. Perhaps most egregious of all, an off campus group , citing the definition, called upon the University to conduct an enquiry of a professor for antisemitism, based on an article she had written many years before. The University conducted the enquiry. And while it found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy like.”

A final word from Stern here.

The Holocaust was certainly driven by hateful ideas about Jews and others. But perhaps the rabbi should have considered that it was also made possible by the silencing of dissent, and official pronouncements of what thoughts were disapproved”

So what now for the LP. A tough one. Three years of appeasing the unappeasable and regular payments of Danegeld may not be recoverable. I don’t know. Howard Jacobson and Ruth Deech are explicit in telling us what the end Game is.

This won’t be over until we have fixed talk about Israel.”

What is certain is that the Party is going to be inundated with a tsunami of complaints, overwhelmingly mendacious, that it will have to deal with. Its resources and energy will be sapped and dissipated on a mammoth scale. Well done Lansman and McDonnell.

Anyone in any way concerned about this issue really should read Stern’s testimony to the CCJ in full. If you can’t be bothered to, well, you can’t be bothered.






The real racism problem in the LP

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

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

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

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

As for Murray, where to start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murray thinks that “ tolerating Islam is suicide.“

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

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

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

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


Margaret Becket


Hazel Blears


Ben Bradshaw


Chris Bryant


Dai Havard

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


Chakrabarti, the JLM, and Training

The Director of the Jewish Labour Movement delivers training.

Education is a fine thing, that is pretty much a universally accepted sentiment. Who could argue against it.The problems arise when we turn to the question of who is to do the educating. Stalin thought education a great idea too.

Many in the Labour Party are telling us that the answer to the ( phony) antisemitism ” crisis” in the party is antisemitism education. Invariably those telling us this count themselves among those that understand. They don’t need any training, of course, its me and you that does.

When the nightmare that was Iain McNichol ended and he was replaced by Jennie Formby, it was widely felt that things were going to get much better and the wholly corrupt ” disciplinary process” would be replaced by an open process that respected the basic principles of natural justice.

Unfortunately  Jennie has been making noises that throw this assumption into some doubt, and that should cause us to feel very uneasy.

The Jewish Labour Movement tell us that they have been assured by Jennie that they will remain ” central to antisemitism training in the Party“. This could be untrue of course, they do make stuff up. I wouldn’t trust JLM any further than I could throw Eric Pickles.

At the same time Jennie assures us that the Chakrabarti report is to be implemented in full.

These two things cannot be true together. Chakrabarti had quite a bit to say about education and training. She makes the point that the Labour Movement has a rich tradition of teaching and learning that was firmly rooted in the Trade Unions.

She says

On reflection, and having gauged the range of feelings within the Party, it is not my view that narrow anti-racism training programmes are what is required. There is a grave danger that such an approach would seem patronising or otherwise insulting rather than truly empowering and enriching for those taking part. Instead, the Party’s values, mission and history could be firmly embedded in more comprehensive activism and leadership education designed to equip members for the organisational, electoral and representative challenges ahead.Now is a time to reassess broad-based education and training within the Labour Movement.”

And further

I recommend that the NEC set up a working group to assess education and training needs across the party with a view to working with trade union and higher education partners so as to offer practical and enriching values-lead programmes to members with varying needs and interests. In doing so, I recommend that the latest thinking in addressing unconscious bias be incorporated in this important work. The Party should consider the adoption of an over-arching Equal Opportunities Policy (with corresponding training for those in elected office and on the staff). There should also be a requirement that the equality and diversity impact of all staff recruitment and selection decisions be considered.”

And further

There should be specific training for all staff and members involved in the investigations and disciplinary process.”

Clearly what is envisaged is professionally constructed training, delivered by experienced and qualified persons and organisations. What is emphatically not envisaged is a couple of non experienced, unqualified, bigoted pip squeaks like Ella Rose and Adam Langleben, running around the country telling folks what they may and may not say about The State of Israel,  secretly recording participants and mining for material that might be used against them.

Langleben and Rose are JLM’S itinerant ” trainers” in chief. Rose was seconded to JLM by the Israeli Embassy and needs no further introduction, see video above. Langleben is famous for endlessly slagging off his own party while ” campaigning” in the May local elections and then crying like a baby when it cost him his council seat. He then subsequently had a mega hissy fit when he was refused entry to a meeting of an NEC  sub committee that he was not a member of and had not been invited to. This was, he implied, because he was Jewish.He is employed by the JLC, essentially an extension of the Israeli Embassy, and seems to spend most of his time trying to circumscribe talk about Israel in and around the Labour Party. This seems to be his JLC brief.

What Chakrabarti was emphatic about was that training should not be delivered by a particular faction. JLM is about as factional as it gets. It so firmly entrenched on the hard right of the party that 94% of its members voted for Owen Smith in the last leadership election and Richard Angell was able to say of the crook, would be union buster and money launderer, Jeremy Newark, ” I would happily put my name to anything Jeremy said.” And he did. In 2016 Angell published his eight point plan for party rule changes. This was dictated to him by Newmark, who was at this time the Chair of JLM, where he remained until they had to dump him and call in the cops.

JLM maintains close alliances with other hard right factions, and Corbyn is the cement. The other factions want to get rid of him but are having no success. JLM, on the other hand want to own him and are very close to doing so.

In any event allocating anti racism training role to the JLM  is akin to putting the fox in charge of hen house security.

Let’s take a closer look

Affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation that pumps hundreds of thousands of pounds every year into the Israeli colonising project.

Signed up to the Jerusalem Declaration whose  reason for being is the settlement of  “Eretz  Israel”

Affiliated to the Zionist Federation who brought us Mordechai Keder who advises that the best way to deter “ terrorists” is the rape of their mothers and sisters.

That is the self confessed emanation of the ultra racist Israeli Labor Party in the UK, and declares the ILP to be the sister party of the Labour Party, despite the two having absolutely nothing in common except the names are almost spelt the same.

The Party whose leader says……

“We will not sit in the same government as the Joint List I don’t see any [connection] between us.”

“ There is no need to remove settlements as part of a peace agreement”

“ The Arabs have to be afraid of us”

“The settlement [project] was and remains the beautiful and devoted face of Zionism,”

For us, the Jordan Valley was and will remain Israel’s eastern security buffer. And security requires settlement,”

“ The Jordan Valley will always be part of The State of Israel”

Whose last  leader declared his worst nightmare is that one day Israel will one day have an Arab Prime Minister and that “ we must not be seen as Arab lovers

Whose last but one leader declares “ to say the Labor Party is left wing is an historic wrong”

The way things are going we doubtless will see, following, the final capitulation at the July NEC meeting, JLM identified miscreants, being dispatched to their regional gulag for ” re-education” .


The IRR’s researches into Racism Awareness Training, widely adopted in the 1980s by many institutions and organisations, revealed that because of its emphasis on changing minds outside of any structural context, and it was usually delivered by black people ‘retraining’ whites, it played on guilt, made essentialist assumptions about inherent racisms and rarely led on to changed anti-racist behaviour.[7]

Any training, therefore, needs to be sensitively devised so as not to play on essentialist assumptions (i.e. that we are all victims or perpetrators by virtue of our race/ethnicity/religion). And such training should not set racism as a thing apart from other aspects of social justice and equality that the Labour Party as a whole stands for. In effect what is needed is a form of basic human rights training, which emphasises the universal values of fairness, non-discrimination, freedom of expression balanced by the rights of others, so that one people’s rights can’t be used to subvert other peoples’ rights.



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.