More Fake Anti-Semitism – The Latest Victim is Labour’s Pete Willsman

Like and share this post:

UPDATE

Momentum’s Caudillo and Owner, Jon Lansman, has removed Pete Willsman from Momentum’s JC9 slate. It is claimed that this was done by Momentum’s undemocratic ruling body, the National Coordination Group, but it is unlikely that this group has met.

This is an act of treachery of the first order as it is therefore allowing Luke Akehurst or a member of the anti-Corbyn Right to gain a place on the NEC.  One can only hope that enough people have already voted and enough people will ignore Momentum’s dictator that Pete will retain his seat.  Either way it is an act of scabbing by Lansman.

Barnett’s far-Right Tory Councillor Brian Gordon Proposes Banning Organisations Supporting a Boycott of Israel – Naturally!

Hardly a day goes by without another sacrificial lamb being offered up to the Zionist lobby in the Labour Party. Today it was Pete Willsman, a veteran socialist. Peter had made an angry speech at Labour’s National Executive Committee asking members where was this anti-Semitism that everyone speaks about, a reasonable question, and this was enough for that Israel’s main operative in the Labour Party, Luciana Berger, Chair of the racist Jewish Labour Movement to demand his expulsion.

And sure enough, Jon Lansman and his friends in Momentum, always speaking anonymously of course, immediately dissociated themselves from Pete and threatened to take him off the left slate (though that may be too late unless they want to let a right-winger get elected). The Guardian reported that ‘Momentum activists also suggested Willsman should be removed from their leftwing slate’, which would effectively destroy his chances of being voted back on to the NEC.

Naturally Owen Jones, who has every quality of a dog except loyalty, was first off the starting block:

‘“I’ll proudly vote for the other eight excellent Labour left candidates. I won’t vote for someone who undermines the struggle against the disgusting disease of anti-Semitism.”

The idea that anti-Semitism is a ‘disease’ is itself a racist concept. It implies that anti-Jewish racism isn’t caused by the society we live in but is a racial pathology.  It is on a par with the rest of this vacuum head’s outpourings.

Having listened to what Pete said there is nothing in it that is remotely anti-Semitic. He said ‘some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump.’  What is anti-Semitic about that?  What he should have said is that the arch-witchhunters in the right-wing Board of Deputies, including its former President Jonathan Arkush welcomed the election of Trump.  Marie van der Zyle, the current President, who is to the right of Arkush, was amongst those defending Arkush.

The Jewish Chronicle reported that on the Board of Deputies website Arkush said that “I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory.” I can’t remember the detestable Luciana, or the Blessed Margaret Hodge or Liar Smeeth protesting. After all they were chasing ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party. Arkush continued:

“After a divisive campaign, I hope that Mr Trump will move to build bridges and ensure that America’s standing as a beacon of progress, tolerance and free-thinking remains strong.”  

Trump came to power after the most anti-Semitic Presidential election campaign in history where anti-semitic messages and dog whistles became the norm.  But none of this upset our Zionists for whom the only anti-Semitism that counts is opposition to Zionism.

And of course not only the President of the Board of Deputies but the Leader of the Israeli Labour Party, which is the sister party of the Jewish Labour Movement also welcomed the election of Trump.  Isaac Herzog issued a statement “Warm congratulations to the president of the most powerful nation in the world: Donald J Trump!” Israeli Labour Party leader Isaac Herzog, wrote on his Facebook.’Herzog to Trump: Your win shows elites are thing of past.

So Pete Willsman was absolutely correct. Berger and the rest of Labour’s racist Zionist MPs have nothing to say about Apartheid Israel because their whole purpose is a defence of the US’s racist Rottweiler in the Middle East.

Lest anyone forget the real target of the false antisemitism campaign is Corbyn himself – those who promote it like Owen Jones are helping the campaign to get rid of Corbyn

Willsman also said that ‘we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence of severe and widespread anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party.  Of course they have none but and here’s the trick.  In asking for evidence, indeed even referring to the fact that there is none, Pete Willsman is guilty of, wait for it, ‘anti-Semitism’.  Because anti-Semitism is anything that displeases Berger, Smeeth and Hodge who are all ‘victims’ by their own reckoning. These privileged daughters of Zionism, who spend their waking time defending Israel, don’t hesitate to accuse anyone who doubts the existence of anti-Semitism of being anti-Semitic. Willsman compounded his offence by asking ‘How many people in this room have seen anti-Semitism?’  Apparently two did!  But surely Pete must know that saying that the Emperor has no clothes is in itself an act of Lèse majesté?

Meanwhile a genuine 24 carat racist, Councillor Brian Gordon of Barnet Council has also got into the act.  He is proposing a motion to the Council which would ban premises to any organisation that supporters a Boycott of Israel.  As we have been saying all along, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is a threat to free speech and the right to dissent.

At least Brian Gordon is consistent.  A member of Herut he was a member of the far-Right Tory Monday Club which proposed the repatriation of British Blacks. When he lost a seat to Labour many years ago he bemoaned the fact that the racist vote was split between the Conservatives and the National Front and suggested that in the future the nationalist parties should combine.

However no can deny that this far-Right loon has a sense of humour.  When Purim came around he dressed up as Nelson Mandela, to the extent of blacking himself up in the tradition of the Black and White Minstrel show that many of us grew up with.  A good article Gordon Bennet, he’s your councillor? by the late Charley Pottins describes this racist clown.

I also seem to remember that after this election defeat, which must have been in the 1970’s, Gordon was caught at election night in a huddle with the NF candidate.

So it is really no surprise that Brian Gordon is proposing a motion effectively outlawing organisations that support Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The motion cites the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as a justification. The IHRA as people will know is a definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ that conflates anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

This is of course  entirely understandable. Gordon, who was a supporter of Apartheid in South Africa and an opponent of a Boycott of that country when White Supremacy ruled is hardly likely to support a Boycott of Israel given that it is a state of Jewish supremacy.   See What’s the matter with Barnet?

Press Release – 23rd July 2018 The IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism is about defending Israel not defending Jews

Like and share this post:

The debate over the IHRA in the media, especially the BBC, has been deliberately skewed towards supporters of Israel and Zionism. It has totally obliterated the views of Jews who are not Zionists or those in the Palestine solidarity movement.  The British press has behaved no differently to how the Chinese press would treat a controversial topic.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the IHRA is the old Working Definition of Anti-Semitism that the Fundamental Rights Agency junked in 2013.

Nowhere is the threat the IHRA poses to freedom of speech mentioned.  Even the IHRA’s author, Kenneth Stern, accepted that the IHRA was “never meant to provide a framework for eviscerating free speech or academic freedom, let alone labeling anyone an antisemite.” Yet that is what is happening.

Hugh Tomlinson QC described it as having “a potential chilling effect on public bodies”.  Professor David Feldman of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism described it as ‘bewilderingly perplexing’. Sir Stephen Sedley, the Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge wrote that the IHRA ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite.’

The IHRA is over 500 words. The OED defines it as ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’ Why the difference? Because that is how long it takes to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as calling Israel as racist yet how else do you describe a state where segregation is the norm in education, employment and housing? Where just one month ago hundreds of Israeli Jews demonstrated against the sale of a house in the Jewish city of Afula to Arabs?

Only last week the Knesset passed the Jewish Nation State Bill which has been widely criticised in Israel’s sole liberal daily Ha’aretz as an apartheid law which will make Israel a state of Jews not its own citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish.

Critics of the Labour Party don’t even hide what their real agenda is.  Stephen Pollard, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, was quite frank:

‘instead of adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies, Labour has excised the parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic.’

Even Pollard accepts that the IHRA has nothing to do with hate of Jews and everything to do with criticising a State which discriminates against non-Jews.

Yes the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been adopted by 31 governments.  They include the anti-Semitic governments of Poland and Viktor Orban’s Hungary, both of which are ardent supporters of Netanyahu.  Need one say more?

  1. For further information contact:

Tony Greenstein           01273 660313/07843350343

Why the Steering Committee are proposing that Socialist Fight [SF] should be excluded from Labour Against the Witch-hunt

Like and share this post:

UPDATE (January 7 2018): The overwhelming majority of attendees at our January 6 meeting voted for the steering committee’s motion to exclude Socialist Fight. 

Statement from Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein

At the last meeting of LAW, the Steering Committee [SC] motion excluding SF from the campaign was narrowly defeated.  Also defeated was a motion from SF and a third motion by John Bridge.  Subsequently the SC decided to renew its call for the exclusion of SF.

  1. The reason that the SC is moving a resolution calling for the exclusion of SF is because the campaign cannot develop as long as SF, which advocates anti-Semitic politics, is allowed to remain. It really is that simple.  None of the 3 people whom the Right are intending to expel next – Tony Greenstein [TG], Jackie Walker [JW] or Marc Wadsworth [MW] – want anything to do with SF.  Nor will any Jewish anti-Zionist group will have anything to do with LAW if SF remain a part of it.
  2. The Right is waging a witchhunt which is primarily based around the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. We are falsely being accused of anti-Semitism because we are anti-Zionists. It makes no sense whatsoever for us to therefore include a political group in LAW which is anti-Semitic. This is playing into the hands of the Zionists and undermines the position of those who are facing expulsion.
  3. The only question to be decided is whether SF is anti-Semitic. By that we don’t mean that Gerry Downing [GD] or Ian Donovan [ID] are personally anti-Semitic but whether their politics are anti-Semitic.
  4. ID writes that ‘Today, he [Greenstein] and his bed mate Jack Conrad are in a bloc with the same Iain McNichol who is framing him up for anti-Semitism. This is class treachery at its most pathetic.’  If ID really believes that TG and presumably JW and MW, all of whom agree about SF, are in a bloc with Iain McNicol, what the hell is he doing in LAW in the first place?
  5. Yes we have moderated their lengthy contributions on the FB page, not because we wished to censor them but because the group is there to fight the witchhunt.

Why Socialist Fight is espousing anti-Semitic politics

  1. It is a standard tactic of Zionism to accuse anti-Zionists of anti-Semitism. In 99% of cases this is false but occasionally they are right. Making a connection between the number of Jewish billionaires in the United States or who is Jewish amongst the richest sections of society and imperialist support for Israel is anti-Semitic.
  2. Anti-Zionists have taken great care to make the distinction between Zionism and being Jewish crystal clear. SF make no such distinction. US support for Israel and Zionism has nothing to do with the ethnic composition of the US ruling class and everything to do with their own perceived interests. There is no evidence of a clash between Jewish and non-Jewish members of the ruling class over this.
  3. ID states that ‘It is factually demonstrable that there exists a Jewish component within the ruling classes of Western countries… and that this part of the ruling class is overwhelmingly loyal to Israel. This does not determine the bare existence of a Western alliance with Israel.
  4. What it does, however, is play an important role in transforming what would otherwise be a ‘normal’ relationship… into a servile relationship
  5. The idea that the United States is ‘servile’ to Israel is anti-Semitic. What lies behind this is the notion of an all-powerful Jewish conspiracy.
  6. ID is the main theoretician of SF and he is a critical supporter of Gilad Atzmon. Atzmon is deeply anti-Semitic. He believes that the Jews control the world and that it is irrelevant if the Protocols of Zion are a forgery because they are true anyway.  He doubts whether Auschwitz was an extermination camp.  In his essay ‘On anti-Semitism’ he wrote ‘we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.’  See A Guide to the Sayings of Gilad Atzmon, for more examples of Atzmon’s anti-Semitism.  
  7. In March 2012 twenty leading Palestinians including Ali Abunimah, Joseph Massad and Omar Barghouti penned a call to exclude Atzmon from the Palestine solidarity movement Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon yet in Third-Camp Stalinoids bring Witchhunt into ‘Labour Against the Witchhunt’ ID describes Atzmon as an ‘Israeli dissident’ and denies that he is anti-Semitic.
  8. ID in Defend Marxism and Labour Movement democracy against capitulators to Zionism describes the campaign of Jews Against Zionism and J-Big to get the SWP to cut their links with Atzmon, as an attempt ‘to witchhunt the Socialist Workers Party’. ID subscribes to many of Atzmon’s pet themes, especially his hatred of Jewish anti-Zionist groups whom he says subscribe to notions of ‘Jewish moral superiority’.
  9. ID accuses, without an iota of evidence, Jewish anti-Zionist groups of operating as a 5th column inside Palestine solidarity groups, whose ‘opposition to Israeli crimes is suspected to be anti-Semitic unless validated by a special Jewish endorsement.’ Indeed ID goes further. ‘These groups are indirectly a transmission belt for Zionist influence into the left, despite their subjective intentions as anti-Zionists.’ ID accepts Atzmon’s racist lie that it is impossible to be a Jewish anti-Zionist because to be a Jew politically is to be a Zionist!
  10. Jewish anti-Zionist groups are welcomed by Palestinians because they give the lie to the argument that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. Jewish groups play the same role in respect to Palestine that White Anti-Apartheid groups played in South Africa. Our role as Jews is one of solidarity.  Donovan’s calumnies come from the pen of Atzmon.
  11. ID’s whole language is becoming anti-Semitic. He talks of ‘the indulgence of Jewish sensibilities’.  There is no collective Jew except in the minds of Zionism and anti-Semites.  The whole concept of Jews having become an ‘oppressor people’ is also anti-Semitic as well as anti-Marxist.
  12. Finally there is the appeal to liberalism, by asking how an anti-witch hunt group can exclude SF. In the same way that we exclude the Zionist AWL.  We are a campaign not a party.  If SF’s presence hinders our work, as it does, then we have the right to tell them to go their own way.

Tony Greenstein and Jackie Walker

Please Contribute to the Legal Appeal to Help Iain McNicol understand the meaning of Natural Justice

Like and share this post:

The Right and the Zionists are determined to expel me and others from the Labour Party on trumped-up charges of ‘anti-Semitism’.  Natural Justice Goes Out the Door as Labour’s Expulsion Circus Rolls On.  Examples of their contempt for the most basic rights of the accused include the following:

i.  I am not allowed to know who my accusers are

ii. I am not allowed to know who the Panel judging me are

iii.  After being suspended for 20 months I am given 4 weeks to respond to a 189 page bundle including over 50 charges.  I was in hospital on November 2nd when I was informed of the decision to bring charges. Continue Reading “Please Contribute to the Legal Appeal to Help Iain McNicol understand the meaning of Natural Justice”

A Jewish Voices for Labour statement on the Tony Greenstein case

Like and share this post:

Antisemitism allegations against Tony Greenstein

Statement by Jewish Voice for Labour, 26 November 2017

Jewish Voice for Labour is committed both to challenging any antisemitic incidents or statements we encounter in the Labour Party or elsewhere, and to contesting unwarranted allegations of antisemitism.

We agree with Brian Klug who wrote in The Jewish Chronicle last year: “While antisemitism is monstrous – and, like all forms of racism, should be vigorously dealt with – false accusations of antisemitism are monstrous too.” To be labelled an antisemite is both painful and severely damaging to a person’s reputation and it is not an allegation to be made without clear prima facia evidence. False allegations also risk making correct allegations less credible and place Jews at greater risk.

We have reviewed the bulky dossier of material presented as evidence against Tony Greenstein by the Governance and Legal Unit of the Labour Party. To those of us who have known him for many years as a Jewish socialist and an implacable opponent of racism and antisemitism in any form, it is no surprise to find that the dossier does not offer any remotely persuasive substantiation of claims of antisemitism.

There is undoubtedly evidence of language which we would not want to be associated with. But as Shami Chakrabarti stated in her report, even offensive language on its own is only antisemitic if it is coupled with antisemitic intent. Such intent cannot be demonstrated in Tony Greenstein’s case because it is absent.

There are many critical comments we could make about this disciplinary process. We will limit ourselves to one, the issue of representation. Party members with sufficient financial resources are entitled to instruct a lawyer to represent them. Those who cannot afford one are only allowed to have a ‘silent friend’. This clearly discriminates against less affluent party members and in particular against less affluent and less articulate party members who are denied the support of a knowledgeable friend or colleague to speak on their behalf.

The party should either provide legal representation to all summoned to a disciplinary hearing or allow representation and advocacy from a non-legally qualified acquaintance.

FREE SPEECH ON ISRAEL – Concerns about the process of handling the complaint against Tony Greenstein

Like and share this post:
Free Speech on Israel
The following letter was sent from the Free Speech on Israel group to Iain McNicol. It makes extensive reference to the Chakrabarti Report which has now disappeared from the Labour Party’s web site.

The only reason for this is that its recommendations are an embarrassment to Iain McNicol, the Compliance Unit and Labour’s Witch-hunters.

In the interests of freedom of speech and accountability I have posted it here:

Dear Iain McNicol

Free Speech on Israel is a Jewish led group of mainly Labour Party members formed to contest restrictions on debate about Palestinian rights and Israeli Government actions and to contest antisemitic speech and actions as well as false allegations of antisemitism.

FSOI wishes to express its grave disquiet about the current operation of the Party’s disciplinary machinery and in particular in relation to the mishandling of the case against Tony Greenstein who has a long record of both challenging antisemitism and racism and campaigning for human rights. The dossier presented to Tony Greenstein contains many robust statements and vociferous criticism of Israel’s actions but nothing that can remotely be judged as being antisemitic or uttered with antisemitic intent.

Continue Reading “FREE SPEECH ON ISRAEL – Concerns about the process of handling the complaint against Tony Greenstein”

Background to our petition to Labour’s National Executive Committee

Like and share this post:

Stop the Expulsion of Tony Greenstein, Jackie Walker & Marc Wadsworth

‘most of the people who have been suspended from the Labour Party seem to be Jewish’ Alexei Sayle Sky TV interview

Please sign our petition.  The Right, led by Iain McNicol, Labour’s detested General Secretary, the Compliance Unit and Sam Matthews aided by Anne Black Chair of the Disputes Committee, are determined to restart the False Anti-Semitism Witch-hunt.

Why is it false and faked?  Because you only have to look at who supports it.  

If the Labour Party were overrun by anti-Semitism does anyone seriously think that the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Tory tabloids would be concerned?  Why is it that the most racist newspapers in Britain are ‘concerned’ about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party?  How is it that the Daily Mail and the Express, which supported Hitler in the 1930’s, which campaigned against the admission of Jewish refugees from Nazism are now so concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’?  Why is it that those papers that vilify asylum seekers and refugees, which employ columnists like Katie Hopkins and Richard Littlejohn, are concerned about anti-Semitism? Continue Reading “Background to our petition to Labour’s National Executive Committee”

Moshe Machover gains international support over his expulsion

Like and share this post:
Celebrity international backing for academic expelled, then readmitted to Labour Party
Demand for full apology and inquiry
Statement delivered to Corbyn and Party Secretary McNicol
 
In an extraordinary development, an international array of talent has rallied to the support of a retired professor expelled from the British Labour Party. They join the growing ranks of Party members and trade unionists demanding an apology to Professor Moshé Machover for alleging that an article of his was antisemitic; and for an inquiry into the processes that resulted in his expulsion. As a result of UK protests Professor Machover’s expulsion has already been rescinded.
 
Professor Machover is an eminent mathematical logician, a noted Israeli dissident and advocate for the rights of Palestinians, based in London since 1968.
 

LEAD SIGNATORIES INCLUDE 3 FIELDS MEDALISTS . . .

(AKA “THE NOBEL FOR MATHS”)
 
Sir Michael Atiyah OM FRS (1966)  Former President, Royal Society & Master of Trinity College, Cambridge
David Mumford (1974)  Professor Emeritus, Mathematics, Brown University
Stephen Smale (Fields Medallist, 1966)  Professor Emeritus (Retired), Mathematics, Univ. of California
 
Other notable mathematicians, philosophers and scientists include Ahmed Abbes, Noam Chomsky, Chandler Davis, Freeman Dyson, Ivar Ekeland, David Epstein FRS, Emmanuel Farjoun, Catherine Goldstein, Mary Gray, Michael Harris, David Klein, Neal Koblitz, Malcolm Levitt FRS, Colette Moeglin, Richard Miller, Joseph Oesterlé, Hilary Rose, Steven Rose, Tim Shallice FRS and more!
 
. . . AMONG DOZENS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERS, LABOUR PARTY ACTIVISTS & ISRAELI ACADEMICS SUCH AS:
 
Tariq Ali (writer), Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC (University College London), Stephen Cragg QC (Barrister, London), John Dugard (former U.N. Special Rapporteur), Brian Eno (musician), Richard Falk (Professor Emeritus, International Law, Princeton), Ronnie Kasrils (ex-Minister, South Africa), Ken Loach(film-maker), Michael Mansfield QC (President of the Haldane Society), Ilan Pappé (Professor of History, Exeter), Shlomo Sand (Professor Emeritus, History, Tel Aviv University), Raji Sourani (Director, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights) and many more!
 
This unprecedented support and demand for redress indicates serious misjudgement by the Labour Party’s much criticised disciplinary apparatus. On behalf of the petition’s organizers, Professor Jonathan Rosenhead said, “Moshé Machover is a splendid and courageous anti-racist campaigner over decades. The crass attempt to brand him an antisemite, part of an unprincipled campaign to suppress criticism of Israel, has clearly backfired in a big way. The Labour Party needs a root-and-branch reform of how its Disputes Panel and Compliance Unit have been operating.”
 

This is What We Stand For

Like and share this post:

These are the Principles of Labour Against the Witchhunt as agreed at our inaugural meeting on October 17 2017:

i. No auto-exclusions or expulsions. Everyone has the right to a fair hearing.

ii. We agreed on a simple definition of anti-Semitism to counterpose to the Zionist and ruling class IHRA definition adopted by Theresa May. It is from Prof. Brian Klug’s ‘Shattered Glass’ Lecture at the Berlin Jewish Museum in 2014 on the anniversary of Kristallnact. It is a 21 word definition, not the 450 word IHRA definition whose sole purpose is to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

‘antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.’

iii. The Compliance Unit should be abolished. All disciplinary action against members should be undertaken by elected bodies not full time staff.