There is a fatal flaw in the Jewish Labour Movement’s ‘no confidence’ vote on Corbyn

Jeremy Newmark, who revived a moribund Jewish Labour Movement as a supporter of the aggressively-Zionist Israeli government, sitting between disgraced Israeli embassy conspirator Shai Masot and Israeli ambassador Mark Regev at a private meeting during Labour’s 2016 conference. Newmark is seen in undercover Al Jazeera footage giving the ambassador “intelligence.” For further information see this article.

Has nobody pointed out to the leaders of the Jewish Labour Movement that its planned vote of “no confidence” in Jeremy Corbyn will hold little weight, coming as it does from an organisation that is grossly misnamed.

Members of the wider public may not realise it, but to join the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), one doesn’t have to be a member of the Labour Party. Indeed, one doesn’t even have to be Jewish!

So the threat, published in The Independent among others –

The Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) is braced to vote on the unprecedented motion at its annual general meeting, which claims the party is “institutionally antisemitic” and Mr Corbyn’s leadership, combined with his past actions and associations shows “a complete disregard for the Jewish community in Britain”.

– holds little weight as the organisation does not represent the Jewish community in Britain, or even the Jewish Labour community.

(It is also worth pointing out to Lizzy Buchan, author of the Independent piece, that the JLM is not “Labour’s only Jewish group” and it is wrong to deny Jewish Voice for Labour, the Jewish Socialists’ Group, and even Jewdas their place within the Labour movement. Are they the “wrong kind of Jews” who keep getting mentioned?)

And, of course, with only around 2,000 members (including those who aren’t Jewish or members/supporters of the Labour Party), it would be grossly irresponsible to let the JLM influence a political organisation of more than half a million people.

The claim in the motion, that “blame for both the crisis of antisemitism within the Labour party and the party’s failure to deal with it therefore ultimately rests with Jeremy Corbyn” is nonsense.

It seems clear to anybody who bothers to do their research that the row was manufactured by supporters of the Israeli government who fear that Jeremy Corbyn, as Prime Minister, would halt UK support for that government’s aggressively-Zionist project to eradicate Palestine and the Palestinian people.

It is likely that Mr Corbyn would demand efforts to support the peaceful co-existence of both Israel and Palestine.

So it would be more accurate to argue that it is Mr Corbyn’s effort to halt the persecution of a particular religious, ethnic or racial group that the Jewish Labour Movement is opposing.

As I have mentioned in the past, it is a racist organisation that even discriminates against socialist Jews.

The remainder of the motion – that “Jeremy Corbyn is therefore unfit to be prime minister and that a Labour government led by him would not be in the interest of British Jews” is also, therefore, nonsense.

What the JLM means is that a Labour government led by Mr Corbyn would not be in the interests of the current Israeli government – nothing more than that.

The Independent article quotes a Labour spokesperson as saying, “One antisemite in our party is one too many… We are determined to tackle antisemitism and root it out of our party.”

A good place to do so would be the Jewish Labour Movement itself.

After the JLM voted to remain affiliated to Labour, I said this was so its leaders could orchestrate a walkout at a time that would cause maximum inconvenience to Mr Corbyn.

It would be better if Labour acknowledged the JLM’s role in falsely accusing Mr Corbyn and the party in general, launched an investigation into its attempts to bring the party into disrepute with false allegation, and suspended it in its entirety until such an investigation is complete and the culprits expelled.

Sadly, both Mr Corbyn and the party in general have capitulated so completely to the false narrative of “institutional anti-Semitism” that a change to a more appropriate response may be used against them.

But while Labour may have painted itself into a corner, the party can still get out – by taking decisive action.

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

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:


No Comments

  1. SteveH March 26, 2019 at 9:18 pm - Reply

    Why Jackie Walker has withdrawn from LP disciplinary hearing
    “After almost three years of racist abuse and serious threats; of almost three years of being demonised, and now being ambushed by a batch of last minute changes, I was astounded that the Labour Party refused to allow me a few short moments to personally address the disciplinary panel to speak in my own defence. What is so dangerous about my voice that it is not allowed to be heard?”
    All I have ever asked for is for equal treatment, due process and natural justice; it seems that this is too much to ask of the Labour Party.”

    • Mike Sivier March 27, 2019 at 12:12 am - Reply

      Article to follow shortly.

Leave A Comment