What are the political loyalties of the groups attacking Labour’s new anti-Semitism guidelines?

(Incidentally, this is the only definition of anti-Semitism anybody needs.)

I would like to see the Labour Party membership cards of every member of the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews who have criticised Labour’s new guidelines on how the party should deal with complaints of anti-Semitism.

If some of them aren’t members of Labour, then which political party do they support? I think that is a very important detail that is being missed out in all the coverage of them.

Neither the BoD nor the JLC are Labour-affiliated organisations. They have been allowed input as groups representing Jewish interests, but they do not represent all Jews, nor even all British Jews – and where are the howls of outrage from Jewdas?

The Jewish Labour Movement is affiliated to the Labour Party, of course – but its currency is now so tarnished that many believe that affiliation should be revoked.

Let’s look at the criticisms:

It seems even though the new guidelines adopt the hideously flawed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, the JLC, BoD and JLM don’t think it goes far enough to include the full list of behaviours listed as anti-Semitic by this legally-questionable document. They single out:

  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

And they are lying.

I cannot find any other explanation for such a gross inaccuracy. These behaviours do not appear in the list of seven examples given in Labour’s guidelines because they are explored in detail, later in the document. This detail is needed to avoid ambiguity.

It seems to This Writer that the reason for the animosity from the JLC, BoD and JLM can be found in the comment by JLC chair Jonathan Goldstein and BoD president Marie van der Zyl, who said anti-Semitism was “for Jews to determine”.

This ties in with the so-called ‘Macpherson Principle’, according to which an incident is anti-Semitic if it is perceived to be so by the victim – a principle that is wide open to abuse of the worst possible kind by cynical political manipulators.

To me, it seems the JLC and BoD have indicated an intention to shoehorn their political enemies into definitions of anti-Semitism that they are happy to make up as they go along – which is, of course, what we have seen throughout the course of the Labour anti-Semitism debate.

A good example would be the rather desperate attempt to describe me as a Holocaust denier – about which I hope to be able to report more later in the week.

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court

It is for this reason that anti-Semitic intent must be clearly visible in any complaint. If the complainant has to resort to saying that they felt an argument in a social media post (for example) was anti-Semitic without any evidence to back it up, then they have no complaint. If they have to alter quotations by the alleged offender (as happened in my case), then they have no complaint – but the focus of their aggression clearly does.

That’s why Labour now needs to examine every complaint of anti-Semitism against its members, going back over the last two years since the Naz Shah incident.

I’m sure some of the people who were thrown out of the party did not deserve to go, and were victims – like me – of malice.

That’s why I say those who made these false accusations should now face investigation, so we can ascertain why they lied and what they hoped to gain from it.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


3 thoughts on “What are the political loyalties of the groups attacking Labour’s new anti-Semitism guidelines?

  1. John D. Ingleson

    It’s about time this zionist bullying was impartially and objectively investigated by Labour instead of piling fresh bulls**t on top of old.

Comments are closed.