Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lowered himself to baiting his critics – trying to lure them into apparent displays of anti-Semitism – by paraphrasing Nazi tyrant Adolf Hitler in a comment on Twitter.
He stated, in a sabre-rattling speech aimed at Iran: “The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.”
The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.
As you can see from the response by Evolve Politics, Hitler said something almost identical in 1923: “The whole of nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal victory of the strong over the weak.”
The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism forbids people from stating the fact that Hitler said something almost identical in 1923:
“The whole of nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal victory of the strong over the weak” – Hitler, 1923 Munich Speech https://t.co/EdZvPmPdp7
It is true that one of the examples of anti-Semitism listed with the IHRA working definition is “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”.
For some, that would be enough. We know several right-wing Labour MPs who would scream “anti-Semitism” if anybody compared Netanyahu with Hitler.
However – and this is a biggie:
The working definition of anti-Semitism itself states that examples such as that listed above are “non-legally binding”, only “to guide IHRA in its work”, and are indications of what “might” be manifestations, “taking into account the overall context”.
So – as Martin Odoni clarifies in this Critique Archives article, “the notorious ‘examples’ in the IHRA definition… are not meant to be seen as cast-iron proof of anti-Semitic attitudes. They are merely meant to be seen as clues for ‘where to look’, as it were. Where these behaviours are seen, the person or people demonstrating them might be anti-Semitic in their intentions, and so it is advisable to investigate.”
So the IHRA accepts that drawing comparisons between contemporary Israeli policy and that of the Nazis may not be inherently anti-Semitic – and one occasion in which it most certainly would not is if the Israeli prime minister paraphrased the words of Hitler.
Furthermore, such behaviour encourages unfavourable analysis of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians – not direct comparisons with the Nazis’ persecution of European Jews, although it is clear that, as Hitler believed the Jews to be weak, Netanyahu applies the same description to Palestinians.
So, in context, there is nothing anti-Semitic about this tweet by Craig Murray, no matter how much the pro-Israeli-government lobby rages about it.
A genuine statement of fascist ideology from the apartheid state which categorises its own citizens and their rights and even internal movement by ethnicity, and inflicts constant terror on the "weak" Palestinians it displaced into large fenced and blockaded enclosures. https://t.co/xne1zqteQ6
This one, by John Clarke, is a valid expression of opinion:
Anyone who wonders why people criticise Israel should read THIS from the Israeli Prime Minister. He is referring to the murder of Palestinian women & children, the erasing of the very word Palestine & assuming “racial superiority” for his “race”. Not Good! https://t.co/zjkUn2b86G
Marcus Chown’s comment can’t be touched because not only is he absolutely right, but he actually places Netanyahu’s remarks in their correct context:
FFS. This could be Hitler talking about the master race. This is the kind of thinking that led to eugenics. Given the suffering of the Jews under the Nazis, the PM of Israel is the last person on Earth I would expect to be saying things like this. https://t.co/4AYBNINSC2
We are told – constantly – that the Nazi persecution of the Jews is, indeed, hateful to the Jews.
But the leader of what he himself has described as the “nation-state of the Jewish people” has not only embraced the rhetoric that informed that persecution – he uses it to justify doing what is hateful to his own neighbours in Palestine.
And, to their eternal shame, our mainstream news media are spineless, supine and silent.
Jeremy Corbyn: He would be spectacularly ill-advised to accept the advice of liars like the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, and the Community Security Trust.
We’ve been here before.
Remember when Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth lied about receiving thousands of abusive social media messages in a single day?
She claimed in a BBC interview on September 2, 2016, that she had received 25,000 pieces of anti-Semitic abuse since the incident in which she had (falsely) accused Marc Wadsworth of anti-Semitism in June that year – 20,000 in a 12-hour period.
But research by the Community Security Trust showed that over a 12 month period (from October 2015 to October 2016), there were 2.7 million tweets concerning Jews, of which only 15,575 (0.6%) were considered to be antisemitic.
The maximum peaks the CST team found were around 200 antisemitic tweets a day, and that was for the whole UK.
But the CST is one of the Jewish organisations that have written to Jeremy Corbyn, claiming “unfathomably vast” abuse has been received by Jews on social media this summer, due to the row over anti-Semitism stirred up by – among others – the CST.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the CST – and others – have created a fake row, with faked accusations of anti-Semitism.
And if real anti-Semitism is rearing its ugly head now, it is only because these organisations have encouraged the perpetrators to believe that they will be safely hidden among the fakes.
It is therefore disingenuous for Board of Deputies chief executive Gillian Merron to say the Jewish community has “no interest in an ongoing dispute with any major political party about the nature of racism against us”, but that her group has to defend the interests of Jewish people.
Her group has deliberately harmed those interests by stirring up this row.
The JLC and CST followed the well-established pattern of conflating Zionism, Judaism and the state of Israel (they are not the same things), claiming that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party must accept that most British Jews had close ties with traditional Zionism – support for a Jewish homeland – and Israel.
There is no evidence to suggest that this is true.
And this statement is a flat-out lie: “The current obsessive hatred of Israel and Zionism means that no Jew can be an equal member of the Labour party, because even if they pass an initial loyalty/morality test, they still always remain under suspicion, lest they display ‘Zionist’ or ‘pro-Israel’ tendencies,” the letter said. “This is the current experience of Jews in Labour circles. It is an antisemitic environment.”
The claim of hatred towards Israel is not true. Nor is the claim of hatred towards Zionism.
It is possible that people may hate the policies of the current Israeli government, including its interpretation of Zionism which happens to demand the slaughter of thousands of Palestinian civilians for no good reason at all.
There is no evidence to suggest that Jewish Labour Party members who have not already exhibited loyalty to the Israeli government and its version of Zionism (like certain MPs we know) are likely to.
And let’s be honest, if they don’t demonstrate any such loyalty in their words or actions, there’s no reason to believe they have it – so the claim that Jewish members would always remain under suspicion is a lie (or should be).
So all the organisations writing to Labour are lying. What did you expect? None of them are affiliated to the Labour Party and there is plenty of evidence that some of their members have other political loyalties.
It follows, therefore, that their advice to Labour about ways of fixing the issue is useless – worse than useless, in fact. It will only create more opportunities for the kind of mischief that they have already been making.
So, what advice should Labour, and Jeremy Corbyn take?
Check all the facts. Don’t accept any claims on face value. Draw your conclusions from verifiable information – not the unevidenced claims of liars.
And act appropriately, on the conclusions you draw.
Leading Jewish organisations have called on Jeremy Corbyn to end the “impasse” over tackling antisemitism in the Labour party, calling the abuse received by Jews on social media during the row this summer “unfathomably vast”.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) and the Community Security Trust (CST) wrote separate letters to Labour’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, accusing the leadership of failing to deal adequately with concerns.
Frank Field: He knew his days in Labour were numbered so he left.
Does Frank Field really think we are all that stupid?
He did not leave Labour because of the way the party is dealing with anti-Semitism.
He resigned the whip because his constituency Labour Party in Birkenhead overwhelmingly supported a vote of “no confidence” in him as their MP and called for the withdrawal of the party whip, after he propped up the Conservative government by supporting it in a crucial Brexit vote.
And he had the sheer barefaced cheek to accuse his fellow Birkenhead party members of taking part in “a culture of intolerance, nastiness and intimidation”!
His claim that this fake culture “is being driven, in part, by members who in previous years would never have been able to claim Labour Party membership”, coupled with the other assertion, should be justification for members of his CLP to take legal action against Mr Field.
The claim by Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson – that Mr Field’s resignation is a “wake-up call” for the party – a “serious loss” that “reflects the deep divisions in the party and the sense of drift engulfing us” is bilge of the smelliest water.
Have the mass media forgotten that this is a man who demanded that his own party disregard its disciplinary procedures and abandon action against Margaret Hodge and Ian Austin – for no very good reason – after they accused party leader Jeremy Corbyn of anti-Semitism… for no very good reason?
To me, this smacks of Mr Watson trying to make good on his threat to plunge the party into “a vortex of eternal shame and embarrassment”.
But it won’t work. We all know he’s talking through his hat.
Mr Field cannot remain a member of the Labour Party. He must resign his membership within 14 days or be expelled. He will not be allowed to remain a party member and represent Birkenhead as an independent Labour MP. He is out – for good.
And the possibility of other Labour MPs splitting off and sitting as independents, or even forming a new party? Negligible.
Without the party’s endorsement, they are nobodies. If they resign the party whip, they know they are guaranteeing the loss of their Parliamentary seats at the next general election – which may not be that far away.
Birkenhead CLP is now free to choose a new candidate for election next time – one whose values concur with those of the party in general. And yes, that includes opposition to anti-Semitism.
Mr Field will sink back into the obscurity he deserves.
Remember: He saved the Conservative government – a racist administration which has caused huge harm with the Windrush scandal, with its blatant Islamophobia, with its support for Saudi Arabia’s war against civilians in Yemen, and with its support for the apartheid regime in Israel.
The Labour Party does not need MPs who prop up racist governments.
Jeremy Corbyn has been warned that the resignation of the veteran MP Frank Field from the Labour whip, over antisemitism and what Field called a culture of nastiness in the party, must be treated as a wake-up call.
In a blistering letter to Labour’s chief whip, Nick Brown, Field wrote: “It saddens me to say that we are increasingly seen as a racist party” and added that antisemitism alone would have been enough to prompt his resignation.
The MP for Birkenhead, who recently faced a vote of no confidence from his local party over his support for Brexit, highlighted what he called a “culture of nastiness, bullying and intimidation”, saying this was at best ignored and at worst tacitly tolerated.
Lord Sacks: Look into his own behaviour and beliefs and his attack on Jeremy Corbyn loses all credibility.
It must be an amazing thing to see the world through the prism of Jonathan Sacks’s mind.
I would not recommend it, though; it does not seem pleasant at all.
Take a look at the way this former Chief Rabbi has perverted the words of Jeremy Corbyn, regarding that incident with the Zionists in 2013. Mr Corbyn, you will recall, had said a group of Zionists had listened to a speech by Palestinian representative Manuel Hassassian at Parliament, then complained about it by deliberately misrepresenting his words. He said they did not understand English irony – a clear reference to the fact that people whose first language was English had distorted the very clear meaning of a person for whom it was not the mother tongue. It was an entirely reasonable response.
And Lord Sacks said it was the most offensive statement by a senior UK politician since Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech!
But it gets worse. He also said Mr Corbyn had “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map” and labelled the Labour leader as an anti-Semite.
He has provided absolutely no evidence to justify these claims. None at all.
Let’s look at what he said about Mr Corbyn’s 2013 comment: “It was divisive, hateful and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.” No, it does not.
If any part of the incident was hateful, it was the way the Zionists mentioned by Mr Corbyn had tried to twist Mr Hassassian’s words in order to score a political point. If anyone was being divisive, it was the same group of Zionists, for the same reason.
The claim that Mr Corbyn depicted an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien falls for two reasons. Firstly, he was referring to a specific group of individuals – not every single Zionist who ever existed. Second, he was not depicting anyone as essentially alien by saying they did not understand English irony – thousands upon thousands of schoolchildren have grappled with the concept over the years and many adults still don’t understand it. He was simply pointing out the inherent irony in somebody who should understand English perfectly well, deliberately misrepresenting the very clear words of somebody whose grasp may justifiably be less strong.
I have laboured that point a little, but it needed to be made perfectly clear. Lord Sacks’s words were not true.
“When he implies that, however long they have lived here, Jews are not fully British, he is using the language of classic prewar European antisemitism.” It’s a good thing he wasn’t doing that, then.
Again, Lord Sacks raises a couple of points. First, Mr Corbyn was talking about Zionists, not Jews. The two are not the same and should never be conflated. As a rabbi, Lord Sacks knows that, and the fact that he did it anyway raises gravely serious questions about his motives. Secondly, Mr Corbyn said nothing about the bona fides of the Zionists’ nationality. He said they did not understand English irony, and that does not and cannot equate to implying that they are not British.
“When challenged with such facts, the evidence for which is before our eyes, first he denies, then he equivocates, then he obfuscates.” No, no, no and no.
First, the evidence of Lord Sacks’s claims is not before our eyes. The evidence supports Mr Corbyn every step of the way. Secondly, Mr Corbyn did not deny the facts – he stated them. Thirdly, he has not equivocated – it means using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself and if you need an example, watch Theresa May’s disastrous attempt to avoid telling Michael Crick whether she thought Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Mr Corbyn was entirely straightforward in his response to the allegations against him. In a statement, he said he spoke to “defend the Palestinian ambassador in the face of what I thought were deliberate misrepresentations” from people “for whom English was a first language, when it isn’t for the ambassador”. He said: “I described those pro-Israel activists as Zionists, in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people – and that is made clear in the rest of my speech that day. I am now more careful with how I might use the term ‘Zionist’ because a once self-identifying political term has been increasingly hijacked by anti-Semites as code for Jews.” No equivocation there! Obfuscation is the act of making something obscure, unclear or unintelligible and, again, it does not apply as a description of Mr Corbyn’s words.
“This is low, dishonest and dangerous.” Lord Sacks’s words are low, dishonest and dangerous.
“He has legitimised the public expression of hate.” There is no evidence to support this claim.
“Where he leads, others will follow.” This is meaningless. Lord Sacks may be trying to imply that Mr Corbyn is inciting others into hatred of Jews, but without evidence of him actually doing this, all he is saying is that people will follow the leader of the Labour Party. It is accurate to that extent, but no further – and that does not help Lord Sacks’s argument.
“We know our history better than Mr Corbyn.” But do they know Palestinian history better than Mr Hassassian? Mr Corbyn was not speaking in his own defence when he made his remarks, so Lord Sacks is trying to twist the facts here.
“We have learned that the hate that begins with Jews never ends with Jews. Mr Corbyn’s embrace of hate defiles our politics and demeans the country we love.” The first sentence is so wide open to interpretation that it is essentially meaningless in the current context. The second is emotive nonsense. Mr Corbyn has not embraced hate – but a very good argument could be made that Lord Sacks has.
So Lord Sacks has deliberately twisted Mr Corbyn’s words; conflated Zionism and Judaism for no reason; and made unevidenced, false allegations.
These are typical examples of the tactics used by the anti-Corbyn element that has been trying to have Jeremy Corbyn removed under false pretences since 2016. Isn’t that when Shai Masot put up £1 million of Israeli government money for that very purpose?
Fortunately, the Labour Party is having none of this nonsense.
A spokeswoman said: “This comparison with the race-baiting Enoch Powell is absurd and offensive. Jeremy Corbyn described a particular group of pro-Israel activists as Zionists, in the accurate political sense – not as a synonym or code for Jewish people. Jeremy Corbyn is determined to tackle antisemitism both within the Labour party and in wider society, and the Labour party is committed to rebuilding trust with the Jewish community.”
And the luminaries of the social media were quick to seize on the former Chief Rabbi’s words – and rejected both them and him:
.@JewishChron and @BoardofDeputies Now Rabbi Jonathan Sacks They all grossly libel Jeremy Corbyn I am ashamed of being a British Jew They do not speak for me or for decent people
They picked up on his claim to know history better than Mr Corbyn, and turned it on him:
By likening Corbyn to Enoch Powell, they forget history. 23 April, 1977. Jeremy Corbyn, then Haringey Councillor, organised a counter demo in defence of London's Jewish Community & others, against the National Front -1,000 of whom marched through Wood Green. Corbyn is anti-racist pic.twitter.com/l1EpzsapZE
They found evidence to show that he was being disingenuous in comparing Mr Corbyn with Enoch Powell; he himself sees nothing wrong with Israel’s new “nation state of the Jewish people” law that established that country as a racist, apartheid state – so he himself supports racism:
Sacks on Israel’s new nation-state law: “I’m not an expert on this. My brother is, I’m not, he’s a lawyer in Jerusalem, he tells me that there’s absolutely nothing apartheid about this, it’s just correcting a lacuna".
Remarkable this gentleman would compare Corbyn to Powell.
And then there are the actions of Lord Sacks himself.
Sacks led a far-right march through Palestinian communities where protestors shouted "Death to Arabs". The intention was to drive Palestinians out of East Jerusalem. To the @guardian, this merely shows Sacks has "robust views". Now can you see how our media treats Palestinians? pic.twitter.com/CsXYSsXgzJ
Supporters of Lord Sacks tried to bite back, but all they did was confirm the points being made against him. The following tweets, involving Aaron Bastani’s suggestion that the rabbis who signed a letter condemning Mr Corbyn several weeks ago should have been researched, make this clear.
Mr Bastani attracted criticism for making the suggestion, and for pointing out that Lord Sacks recently supported a book that is said to have praised Enoch Powell and promoted racist ideas. In response, he demonstrated the falsehood of the argument put forward by Lord Sacks’s supporters, who were saying that his revelation of the former Chief Rabbi’s support for far-right and racist ideas meant that he – Mr Bastani – must be a racist.
Doesn’t compute, does it?
First thing leader of the opposition’s office should have done was examine record of 68 Rabbis signing letter. With most it is going to be a question of agreeing to disagree. Others like Sachs, will be right wing ultra-nationalists. Labour shouldn’t concede to such voices. https://t.co/jbsYVw4H2C
My pointing out Sack’s involvement with far-right elements within Israeli politics, as well as his saying a book by Douglas Murray was one of the best of 2017 (in it Murray praises Enoch Powell and promotes racist ideas) makes me a…racist.
This tells you everything you need to know about the Conservative government’s attitude to people who need the state’s help.
It could not care less.
All that matters is image. If there is a threat to the government’s image as an organisation that behaves with all due propriety, then the DWP leaps into action to reverse an adverse decision.
Concern for the health and well-being of claimants is of no consequence at all.
The conclusion is clear:
If you fall foul of a DWP decision, take your story to the press and pile on the pressure. The bureaucrats will buckle.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted that it decided to review the sanctions imposed on a man who missed his Universal Credit meeting because of seizures was prompted by the media attention his story received.
Luke O’Donnell, who has epilepsy, was penalised after missing a work-related appointment for Job Seeker’s Allowance because he could not prove his seizures had prevented him from attending.
The story was widely shared and less than two weeks later, the Universal Credit department at the DWP informed him his sanctions would be reversed, saying “not enough consideration was placed on Mr O’Donnell’s health following three days of epileptic episodes”.
Even though his case was resolved and benefits fully reinstated, Mr O’Donnell wrote to Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey in June because he wanted acknowledgement that she was aware of the effects Universal Credit was having on claimants.
It was also confirmed that the move to review Mr O’Donnell’s case was triggered by the press coverage.
The Charity Commission is investigating the Campaign against Antisemitism (CAA) – an organisation that has been accused of being pro-Israel ‘shock troops’ ‘posing as a charity’ with regard to its petition against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
As well as being a likely breach of charities’ obligation to refrain from party-political activity – the petition demands Labour MPs remove Corbyn or form a new party – the petition has been called defamatory and accused of inciting number of death threats. The CAA has condemned the death-threat comments, but did not remove them and has not taken down the petition.
Now the Metropolitan Police have also confirmed that they are investigating the CAA and the petition under the Malicious Communications Act after receiving complaints about the nature of the petition.
In the same month the Israel Defence Force killed dozens of people and injured thousands more, it turns out the UK has increased its sales of arms to that country by more than £140 million.
Our exports of deadly weapons to the country that has terrorised, mutilated and killed weaponless people… nearly tripled.
Consider Saudi Arabia and its war on Yemen.
Arms sales to Saudi Arabia from the UK totalled around £1.1 billion in 2017, and Theresa May laid on a lavish welcome for Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman when he visited this country in March.
But Labour pointed out that these arms were being used to kill civilians in Yemen – and the government was even providing military personnel who were offering advice on targeting:
Corbyn urged the prime minister to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia over its intervention in Yemen, which has killed thousands of civilians and worsened a humanitarian catastrope, and take the crown prince to task on human rights.
Speaking after PMQs, Corbyn’s spokesman expanded on Labour’s position, saying arms sales and the involvement of British military personnel provided a level of complicity over the situation in Yemen.
“Britain has not only increased arms supplies to Saudi Arabia dramatically since the start of the war, not only supports the war, as Theresa May said in the chamber just now, but British military personnel advise the Saudi air force and military on targeting – and so there is a direct involvement in the conduct of the war,” he said.
“Which as we know has led to very large numbers of civilian casualties and very clear evidence of the targeting of schools and hospitals. Very large numbers of children have been killed.”
We know Theresa May is a racist – we have her “hostile environment” policy and the resulting Windrush scandal as evidence of that. And her government has not condemned the “Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people” law which confirms that country as an apartheid state. So her refusal to deny believing that a black man who opposed apartheid was a terrorist is understandable.
And before anyone tries to suggest that she can’t be a racist because of her relationship with the Arabs of Saudi Arabia, I offer just one word in explanation:
Chris Bryant: He’s starting to learn that careless tweeting can cost careers.
If this wasn’t so deliberately disingenuous it would be absolutely hilarious. It’s still funny, but tinged with the malevolence that accompanies all right-wing Labour MPs claims of anti-Semitism in others.
You may be aware of the slang term “gammon” – used to describe (according to the Wikipedia page on the subject) “older white men, especially those who are particularly patriotic or supported Brexit, who appear pink-faced when emotional. The term is a comparison of their skin colour to the pink of salted pork hind leg, i.e. gammon.”
The term came into common usage after 2012, although its use can be traced back to Charles Dickens’ Nicholas Nickleby, in 1838.
The Wikipedia page even carried a photograph of Labour MP Mike Gapes, listing him as “an example of prime gammon“, until it was edited off on August 27.
It attracted a tweet by “Damian from Brighton” to Mr Gapes, linking these two threads as follows: “Your departure from Labour is completely understandable. You are a supporter of an organisation associated with an apartheid state so it isn’t tenable for you to remain in the party.”
He added: “Could you confirm your leaving date? I will be holding a gammon supper to celebrate.”
Enter Chris Bryant, Labour MP for the Rhondda, who is not a supporter of LFI but seems to be a supporter of Mr Gapes:
If this person is a Labour member he should be thrown out for deliberately offensive anti-Semitism https://t.co/NS5BerzBzj
During this time, Evolve Politics (who brought my attention to this issue via the tweet at the top of this article) published a piece about the row, it’s well worth reading and contained a tweet from Mr Gapes:
I block antisemites. So It might be best if you crawl back into your antisemitic sewer, and then perhaps you might hold your breath while you are waiting for it to happen. Goodbye https://t.co/s8dMU8JUDS
August 27 was an interesting day for those of us wrapped up in the Labour Party – anti-Semitism storm-in-a-teacup.
We learned that certain Jewish Labour MPs have decided they will need bodyguards when they attend the party conference, due to a perceived increase in anti-Semitic feeling – a perception that some of them played a part in creating, by giving credence to false allegations of anti-Semitism.
We also learned that unnamed malcontents were cloning Twitter accounts belonging to Labour Party supporters of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – creating new, fake accounts that look identical to the real things, intending to use them to post abuse they can then attribute to the real accounts and their owners.
It seems possible that this is intended to give credibility to the claims of the afore-mentioned Jewish Labour MPs, that they need bodyguards, setting up a nice – fake – controversy with which to hit Mr Corbyn during the conference. “Your supporters are threatening our lives. Step down!” That sort of thing.
And we learned that right-wing members of the Labour Party (although we cannot be sure they include the Jewish MPs already mentioned above) have complained bitterly about plans to penalise anybody making false, vexatious and/or malicious allegations about fellow party members.
Now, why would they do that, if it wasn’t to protect the Twitter cloners (among others, I’m sure)?
The plan seems to be to undermine Mr Corbyn with a landslide of fake accusations against his supporters, made by people who believe they will be immune from retribution, with protection from senior Labour figures.
Now, who could possibly come up with a plan like that? It’s too intelligent for the usual suspects in the Labour Party (the brains tend not to reside on the right wing of politics).
A new resolution has been submitted for inclusion on the agenda of Labour’s NEC meeting next week – that’s the committee that runs the party. It states:
– Notes that an unfortunate side-effect of the party’s renewed determination to root out antisemitism has been that, in a small number of cases, false accusations have been made about Labour party members, officers and elected representatives.
– Believes that maliciously-made accusations are damaging, hurtful and cannot be accepted in a democratic party.
– Resolves that:
(1) Labour must be tough on vexatious claims made about its members and must never accept such behaviour becoming the norm.
(2) To be taken seriously, formal complaints about alleged wrongdoing by party members must therefore be precise and based on facts and must take into account the context within which the alleged behaviour took place.
(3) Complaints that do not meet these standards may be considered vexatious, in which case they may result in disciplinary charges being pursued against the complainant.
Notice that, while the resolution mentions anti-Semitism for context, the proposal relates to all categories of complaint. It has a good chance of being passed, which is good news for everybody – except those who are trying to manufacture fake outrage in order to remove political opponents.
Amid all these, we learned that the mis-named Campaign Against Antisemitism, the fake ‘charity’ that pretends to fight anti-Semitism but in fact smears those who speak out against the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestine, has launched a petition on the Change.org website, calling for Jeremy Corbyn to be removed as leader of the Labour Party and claiming that this is due to numerous examples of anti-Semitism.
But the examples cited are lies and have been disproved, the petition is libellous, and both the Campaign Against Antisemitism and Change.org are vulnerable to prosecution under UK defamation law.
And it has provided an opportunity for signatories to make death threats against Mr Corbyn, exposing the double-standards of the fake charity behind the petition; it poses as an organisation protecting people from the threat of death because they are Jewish – but is perfectly happy to host death threats against Mr Corbyn, based on lies.
You see, organisations that register as charities must never engage in party political activity – and trying to remove the leader of a political party by means that include inciting others to harm or even murder him is an emphatic form of such involvement.
They must remain independent and politically neutral – yet the Campaign Against Antisemitism concentrates almost entirely on making allegations against members of the Labour Party.
And charities must not be used as an expression of a trustee’s own political views – yet it is clear that chairman Gideon Falter, whose pro-Zionism, pro-Israeli-government views are well-known, is using the CAA as a front for his own attempts to remove an opponent of the same government’s slaughter of Palestinians which is carried out in the name of Zionist ideology.
Talk about backfiring!
It seems both these plans have blown up in the faces of their instigators.
The bid to smear Corbyn-supporting Labour members seems set to flounder if the accusers know they will face harsh penalties once their subterfuge is exposed.
And the Campaign Against Antisemitism could lose its charitable status – and face legal action – over its libellous, politically-incendiary petition.
For those of us on the side of the angels, I’d call that a good day’s work.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.