If it is meant to be a coherent analysis of the anti-Semitism moral panic in the Labour Party from one of Corbyn’s closest lieutenants, then it is not difficult to see why Corbyn despite being responsible for a paradigm shift on the left overall, was nevertheless hoisted by his own petard in the form of his trying to placate the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) and the Board of Deputies (BoD), and their tame jackals on Labour’s right, many of whom would be more at home in the Lib Dems or Tories.

Both JLM and the BoD claim to be the representative voice of Jews within Labour and the wider community, a demonstrably false claim both in psephological and political terms, as they are in fact Zionist first and foremost, with their Judaism stuck on as a respectable religious and cultural cover for their racist political beliefs - a political reality that has either been wilfully ignored, or not understood by numerous leaders of the Labour Party - and, apparently, Karie Murphy

Murphy’s intellectually vacuous tract is notable for the repeated use of the word "anti-semite", used even now one assumes in an attempt to court favour with the very people that were responsible (to borrow a phrase from one of the jackals), for stabbing Corbyn in the front and the back, and, presumably with half an eye on the imminent EHRC report. It is a futile tribalistic attempt by one faction of a riven party to get their retaliation in first, a pointless exercise given that a copy of the EHRC report has for some months been in the hands of a cheerleader for the Zionist lobby, and the Member for Tel Aviv East who now controls the party.

Just as Neville Chamberlain found that you cannot appease Nazis, neither, as the history of Zionism clearly demonstrates, can you placate the adherents of Zionism - you would probably have greater success in counting the total number of stones on Brighton beach.

Simply lumping together all those effectively witch-hunted by the Compliance / Governance & Legal unit as "anti-semites" as Murphy does, completely misses the point about the raison d’etre of the anti-semitism furore, which was to shut down debate about Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinians, a concern voiced by the majority of those accused of "anti-Semitism".

Karie Murphy has nothing to say about this, but instead takes a swipe at the Panorama hatchet job by John Ware and his JLM confederates, who were subsequently handsomely paid from Labour coffers for their treachery by Corbyn’s Zionist successor. The point made that they actively sabotaged the compliance process under McNicholl may be true, but all Jenny Formby and Corbyn continued to do was expedite the witch-hunt more efficiently without even implementing most of the Chakrabati recommendations.

The degree of political illiteracy, lack of insight and down right obtuseness in clinging to a long discredited analysis is staggering, but the saddest thing of all, is that this comes from the left of the party which by definition should be able to distinguish between racist endeavours, their adherents, and those in the vanguard of the fight against them, but no, Kate Murphy identifies her comrades as enemies and in the process fails also to identify the real racists including the minority worthy of the attention of the GLU.

In the wider context of the Labour Party this "analysis" does much (the rank racism on display in the leaked GLU report aside) to actually explain the ludicrous situation of a supposedly socialist party lacking any insight into its own institutional racism. How else is it possible to account for an analysis of a supposed tsunami of anti-semitism in the party, without one reference to the fact that both black and Jewish members were victimised by the party’s compliance function at the behest of white Zionist racists. Perhaps the most notable example of this was Ruth Smeeth’s pantomime performance at the Chakrabhati Report presentation which the party accepted as proof that Marc Wadsworth, an individual with an illustrious career fighting racism, and not a scintilla of evidence to suggest anti-semitic racism, was surprise, surprise, after all a racist!!

Sadly, much of all this will be lost on the majority of Labour voters who post Brexit will return to the fold some having satiated their xenephobic instincts, and the whole sorry fantasy of Labour masquerading as a vaguely left wing, vaguely socialist and never racist party, will be perpetuated, complete with the ideological nonsense of having a Zionist organisation in the form of JLM as an affiliate.

In that sort of context Karie Murphy rather than providing answers, becomes part of the problem. If as a representative of the Labour left her considered but sclerotic assessment of what was in fact weaponisation of anti-Semitism for political ends, amounts to saying that she and her colleages did their level best to promote it, then Labour is finished as the party it was set up to be by Kier Hardy and the unions, and the sooner an alternative is established the better.

With the election of Keir Starmer as Labour leader, and his early, some might say overly obeisant overtures to the Board of Deputies (BoD), the Jewish Labour Movement, (JLM), the Community Security Trust (CST) and the Jewish Leadership Council, (all bodies affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation), the issue of the influence of Zionism in the Labour Party comes into sharper focus, and it is arguable that there is a need for more informed critique and commentary about Zionism generally on the Left, notwithstanding the Herculean efforts of gifted, writers like Tony Greenstein and Asa Winstanley.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/apology-to-jewish-community-is-my-value-statement-new-labour-leader-keir-starmer-says-1.498793

When one surveys much of the chatter on Left supporting Facebook forums in particular, it is clear that there are two main problems — semantic accuracy and political understanding. The two are interlinked, because the latter is contingent on the first. It is relatively easy to deal with injudicious language through diligent administration and education, and while political understanding is more complex, it’s essentially amenable to the same solutions.

First, because the semantic terrain of any debate is important, (it is in fact the battleground on which the whole anti-semitism furore in Labour is being fought), it may be helpful to just make some observations on discourse around posts on Left supporting Facebook forums as they relate to things like the kind of organisations referred to above, the concept of anti-semitism, and the whole Israel/ Palestine debate,

As a general principal it is argued that it is not desirable to make generalised comments about the Jewish community, such as for example “it’s a Jewish Labour Party now” or, “Starmer’s wife is a Jew isn’t she?”, or “I’ve had enough of Jews complaining about the Labour Party”. It’s further argued, that use of the term “jew” can be semantically problematic because of the historical cultural baggage that comes with it, meaning that it can have pejorative undertones, if not on occasion, overtly racist ones. It is suggested therefore that phrases like “is jewish“ “identifies as jewish” or “is part of the jewish community” are preferable, less stark, and more respectful.

The corollary to that point is that the Jewish like other communities is diverse, so comments which embrace the whole of that community without distinction in critical commentary, is both inaccurate and anti-semitic, because they target the ethno-cultural identity per se, and not the political position of Zionism which is where the whole issue of “anti-semitism” in the Labour Party properly lies — it’s a distinction many Labour politicians fail to make, or choose to ignore.

At this point it is incumbent on me to make the usual disclaimer that no one is arguing there is no anti-semitism in the Labour party, just not to the degree those who have weaponised it for purely political ends (right wing Zionists) would have us believe.

Semantic issues aside however, it is argued that there are problems around political discourse because of a failure to understand the political nuances around Zionism, very often leading to allegations of anti-semitism, although it has to be acknowledged that irrespective of how careful one is in discussing Zionism as an issue within Labour, that will, ab initio, in some quarters, always be regarded as anti-semitic.

The first point to make about Zionism is that it is a political doctrine not an ethnic identity or a religion, and whilst the majority of its adherents are Jewish, some are not. So for example you have racists like Yaxley Lennon and David Duke former Klu Klux Klan leader, who admire Zionism in practice in Israel, seeing its victimisation and racial segregation of Palestinians as “efficient” from a white supremacist perspective. Given this, it is worth noting that we have recently witnessed the quite bizarre spectacle of Labour leadership candidates proclaiming themselves as “Zionists”- interestingly, this did not actually include Keir Starmer, although in this writers opinion, he may as well have.

In purely political terms Zionists in the UK are a distinct group within the Jewish community who identify as such. and uncritically support Israel in the form of bodies like the Jewish Labour Movement and The Board of Deputies, who as has already been pointed out are affiliated the World Zionist Organisation.. Zionists however do not constitute a majority within the Jewish community, being outnumbered by, for example, the Haredi community who are mostly opposed to the State of Israel and Zionism.

Nevertheless the Board of Deputies likes to style itself as the voice of the British Jewish community in much the same way as JLM claims that it represents the voice of Jewish members or the Labour Party. Both claims are without foundation, the BoD in simple demographic terms, and in the case of JLM the mere existence of Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) gives the lie to their claim. All that can be said is that they represent a particular political strand of Zionism, a Conservative one in the case of the BoD. For further information about Zionism readers should refer to the writings of Theodor Herzl (1860–1904) widely regarded as the father of Zionism and in fact interred on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem. The Wikipedia entry on him is as good a place to start as any

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl.

Things get complicated however because Zionism is also a cultural identity in the Jewish community in the sense that many identify as broadly Zionist in terms of supporting Jewish self-determination by establishing a Jewish homeland, which is what the unvarnished definition of Zionism is as a political doctrine. So for example that is why Jewish Voice for Labour can declare that it is not an anti-zionist organisation, whilst at the same time supporting the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/28/jewish-voice-for-labour-is-not-an-anti-zionist-group

Similarly a 2015 survey “The Attitudes of British Jews Towards Israel” (Miller, Harris & Schindler, London University) found that 59% identified as Zionists in this sense, whilst 90% supported Israel’s right to exists as a Jewish state. The fact of “cultural Zionism” is why debate around anti-semitism gets so confusing. It is a confusion that has been seized upon by adherents to political Zionism, to promote the moral panic about anti-semitism within the Labour Party. Matters are not helped by Labour politicians failing to make a distinction between a political aspiration and a racist doctrine in practice, and, in the case of Jon Lansman, a JLM supporter, disingenuously and rather lazily suggesting we abandon the use of what is otherwise a useful political label.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-jon-lansman-labour-antisemitism-zionism-momentum-a7011261.html

The distinction between the historical intellectual origins of Zionism and its manifestation in Israel, the only Zionist state in the world, and so by definition the definitive example of Zionism in practice, is an important one, because it highlights some uncomfortable truths, which is why what might be termed “hard right Zionists” unapologetically defend Israeli human rights violations in the teeth of numerous anti-zionist critics including the UN, UNESCO, and Amnesty International amongst others.

Such hard right Zionists like to conflate anti-zionism with anti-semitism arguing that anti-zionism is a form of “delegitimisation” or opposition to Jewish self determination. This is straight out of the “Hasbara” playbook, and an intellectual canard, because one can of course support the concept of jewish self determination whilst being implacably opposed to the way that it is realised in the modern State of Israel – the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

To the extent that the Labour Party under Keir Starmer (as opposed to Jeremy Corbyn) can be said to be anything to do with Socialism, latter day Zionism is entirely incompatible with it, and an awfully long way from the quasi socialist kibbutzim that preceded and helped establish the State of Israel, along it has to be said with ethnic cleansing and land grabs, Similarly any notion that the Israeli Labour Party is anything to do with Socialism is disabused by the most cursory look at the various pronouncements by its leaders, whether that is about co-operating with the Arab joint list in the Knesset or the opposing the settlement programme For a more informed view of just how incompatible Socialism is with Zionism from a historical perspective, readers should refer to Tony Greenstein’s excellent essay “You can no more be a Socialist Zionist than you can be a meat-eating vegan”

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/06/socialist-zionist-eating/

Given all the above it is utterly ludicrous that the leader of the Labour Party is cravenly submissive to a Conservative supporting Zionist organisation such as the BoD, and an ideological nonsense, that the Labour Party should have JLM, a Zionist organisation, affiliated to the it. It means of course that the Labour Party is not a Socialist party, and for those who aspire to make it so, it means that Labour does indeed have a “Zionist problem”.

Finally, coming back to the semantics, it is argued that political debate around Zionism within the Labour Party, is important in the sense that the political doctrine of Zionism needs to be separated out from Jewish ethnic, religious, and cultural identity, because whilst these may sometimes be important in political discourse, political position and perspective always is.

This is an attempt (because I think someone needs to do it),
to pull together a great deal of rather fragmented and confusing information that has appeared across various forums regarding the elections for the two National Executive Committee (NEC - Labour's ultimate ruling body) Constituency Labour Party (CLP) seats which have become vacant due to their previous incumbents, Claudia Webbe and Nav Mishra being elected as MPs in the 2019 election. I am assuming an audience that may not be entirely conversant with all the usual acronyms or politics across Labour.

There is an awful lot of "churn" going on in the battle for the NEC CLP seats, with two up for grabs, one plain CLP representative, and a Black Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME) seat. In true Labour Party style a lot of what is going on is opaque but for all the world it rather looks like the Left is self destructing. Here is the New Statesman’s take for what it’s worth.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour-leadership-race/2020/02/internal-election-labour-left-really-worrying-about

The background to much of this is that the traditional mechanism whereby the Left slate is elected, namely the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA) has broken down. The CLGA comprises various Labour organisations such as Momentum, the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD), Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) and Labour Representation Committee (LRC) amongst others. The breakdown of the CGLA comes perhaps as no surprise but arguably is down to Jon Lansman and Momentum. There is certainly historical antipathy between Jon Lansman and Pete Willsman of CLPD, but Lansman as a cheerleader for the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) has well documented issues with JVL having said that, “…..neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said to be part of the Jewish community.’

During the last round of NEC elections in 2018 (for National Constitutional Committee seats) Lansman objected to the joint slate choice of Stephen Marks, a member of JVL, and that has now emerged as a likely factor in events that are currently unfolding in this round of NEC elections

Last night (Thursday February 6, 2020) news emerged, since widely confirmed, that Jo Bird and Mo Azlam had both been suspended by Labour. They were the favoured candidates on the Left - Jo Bird a Jewish member of JVL and backed by them, and both backed by Labour Left Alliance (LLA), which was specifically set up last year in recognition of the fact that Momentum was not fulfilling its early promise as a vehicle for progressing Socialism or democracy within the Labour party. Both Jo and Mo are fighting their suspension (which technically makes them ineligible to stand as candidates), and asking supporters to continue voting for them.

We don’t now what the grounds for suspension are (Jo Bird was briefly suspended last year after being accused of “anti-Semitism" but reinstated on appeal), but presumably follows a formal complaint, and coincides with Momentum’s release of it’s chosen candidates Leigh Drennan and Lauren Townsend. The suspicion has to be however that this has Lansman’s mucky paws all over it, and is an attempt to knobble the election, so that he has more voting proxies on the NEC to advance his ambitions, including his covert JLM friendly agenda. LabourList article here;
https://www.google.com/amp/s/labourlist.org/2020/02/momentum-reveals-slate-for-local-party-reps-in-nec-by-elections/%3famp

Meanwhile the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) whilst endorsing Lauren Townsend has substituted Leigh Drennan with Cecile Wright on the basis that it thinks it inappropriate to replace two BAME NEC incumbents (Webbe and Mishra) with two white candidates. Cecile Wright is Vice Chair of Momentum and on the Executive Committee of CPLD. Skwawkbox article here;

://skwawkbox.org/2020/02/07/clpd-we-cant-back-2-white-candidates-to-replace-2-bame-backs-townsend-and-wright-for-nec/

Over at the LRC quite unbelievably, it would appear that their President, John McDonnell instead of supporting LRC CLP and BAME NEC candidate choices of Deborah Hobson and Hassan Ahmed is instead supporting Lansman’s Momentum slate, which is odd given the circumstances in which that slate has emerged, and many may well agree with Jackie Walkers take on it here;

It gets more bizzare however because in another part of the Labour universe it transpires that Liam Byrne (an arch Blairite of course), has won the race for the Mayor of West Midlands, his campaign backed by…… John McDonnell. The LabourList article on this is worth reading because it also gives a good update on the leadership race which rather depressingly sees Starmer increase his lead.
https://labourlist.org/2020/02/liam-byrne-wins-labours-west-midlands-metro-mayor-selection-race/

The upshot of this buggers muddle is the very distinct possibility that a fragmented Left and split vote will ensure victory for Labour First/Progress candidates Johanna Baxter, Gurinder Singh Jordan and Carol Sewell. The icing on the cake for the Right will be a Starmer (and whoever). victory in the leadership elections meaning the Left lose both any influence in the Leaders Office and it’s majority on the NEC.

It has been argued that we shouldn’t indulge in conspiracy theories about the London Bridge attack, and as a general principle that’s sound advice, because, it detracts from more important things like campaigning and getting the political message across. It is also the case that most of us, including me in fairness, do not fully understand the Byzantine labryinths that are the various links between the state in the form of the cabinet, the Privy Council, and the security services, and so ruminating on cause, effect and motivation can seem amateurish and pointless.

Having said all that however, there does seem to be a very suggestive pattern. One cannot help noticing that once again in the middle of an election campaign, there is a terrorist attack, in which context it is worth revisiting an article from the Financial Times of June 8 2017 ("Terror attacks shaped UK election but failed to lift May, experts say"). Written shortly after the 2017 General Election, in the middle of which there were two terrorist attacks, it makes the following point;

"The prevailing consensus is that terror attacks tend to favour the incumbent, and especially Conservatives. While campaigning was suspended, Mrs May appeared on television not as a party leader seeking re-election, but as a prime minister, ordering more troops on to the streets and talking gravely about keeping the country safe from assailants."

On the basis that terrorist attacks do provide political gain for the party in power therefore, one is left wondering whether both the most recent London Bridge attack, and the 2017 attacks (London Bridge again and Manchester Arena), are in fact acts of ommission rather than commission, by the security services, in the sense that the perpetrators must have been under surveillance, not least the most recent individual, a former jailed terrorist out on parole.

The reason this idea merits consideration is because of the public pronouncements of both Stella Rimmington the former Head of MI5, and Richard Dearlove, former Head of MI6, both of whom have been highly critical of Labour and Jeremy Corbyn with respect to his views on the causes and solutions to terrorism.

In an article in the Telegraph, (the Conservative house magazine) of November 13 2017, Rimmington took a swipe at Corbyn’s advisors saying that they were "on MI5 lists", whilst more recently Dearlove in an article as recent as November 24 2019, again in the Telegraph, asserts that Corbyn would be a threat to national security and pose "a present danger to our country".

Rimmington retired in 1996 and Dearlove in 2004, but they probably still enjoy ‘emeritus’ links with their current replacements, who may well consult them from time to time - being head of a country’s national security organisation is perhaps not a job you ever really fully retire from, so their views quite possibly carry some authority within the agencies they used to run.

There is otherwise no reason to suppose that the mindset displayed by Rimmington and Dearlove is not ongoing within both MI5 and MI6 which for the most part have been under the administration of Conservative governments since both retired. In fact as the Times rather sententiously reported in September 2018

“ Corbyn has been summoned for a personal briefing by the head of MI5 on the terrorist threat to Britain amid questions about his approach to national security.”

That brings us back to the point about whether the terrorist attacks were effectively commissioned due to deliberate but controlled neglect by the intelligence services, for the purpose of political gain. On the basis of the pronouncements of their former heads it is arguable that such a hypothesis is not entiry improbable.

It seems clear overall that the paradigm shift which is the Corbyn approach to dealing with terrorism clearly set out in his May 12 2017 Chatham House speech, and which can be summarised by the Roosevelt foreign policy aphorism of “speak softly but carry a big stick”, or ‘try not to get involved in injudicious jingoistic conflicts abroad, always establish dialogue, and make sure your military and security servvices are well resourced’, is not one shared by "the Establishment" which includes the security services. So a security incident in the middle of an election campaign is convenient in terms of undermining that narrative.

One assumes there will be a routine "internal enquiry" as to how an incident which represents a failure of the surveillance role of the security services came about, but we won’t know it’s outcome, and there will be no possibility of interrogating the perpetrator on this occasion, who was strangely shot after being restrained.

Should a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn, be elected on December 12 in the teeth of the ire and invective of the Establishment, including figures like Rimmington and Dearlove, I for one would love to be a fly on the wall when the Labour Home Secretary has their first meetings with the respective heads of MI5 and MI6. but that, is an eventuality they may be trying very hard to avoid.

Like many on Labour supporting forums I re-post the output of a number of pages - my favourites are, Led by Donkeys, the Skawkbox, and Wear Red, which unfortunately at the moment seems to be promoting Left Bible - I’ll come back to them.

There are also a couple of other pages including the Pileus which has always posted quite thought provoking memes and commentary. It was with some surprise then, that I came across the following post from that page which confirms it’s move over to the dark side.

To anyone who knows anything about the false anti-semitism moral panic promoted by the likes of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) and Socialists Against Anti-Semitism (SAAS), since Jeremy Corbyn became leader, and who otherwise has half an eye on Israeli politics, this facile post is supremely ironic.

Both JLM and SAAS are Zionist organisations, in the sense of being unapologetic supporters of Israel . They are what might be described as “foaming at the mouth and falling over backwards Zionists” as opposed to saner members of the Jewish community who support the concept of Israel but not at the expense of murdering Palestinians, exemplified by organisations such as Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewdas and Jewish Voice for Labour.

SAAS are deeply secretive about who their admin are and who runs them, but we know JLM is affiliated to the World Zionist Movement, and both are hand in glove with Jon Lansman’s Momentum. The three organisations have in fact co-operated in a campaign against David Icke of all people, thus publicising his lunatic ramblings to a much wider audience than might otherwise have remained blissfully ignorant of them - so not the sharpest tools in the box. For a more discursive account of the collaboration between this Zionist lunatic equivalent of the three riders of the apocalypse, see Carla Roberts account in her excellent article in Labour Party Marxists here http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/zionists-in-the-labour-party-unite-against-david-icke/

The irony of the Pileus post of JLM’s attack on Jacob Rees Mogg stems from the comment on it by SAAS which quite disingenuously refers to Victor Orban. In doing so SAAS highlights a central contradiction of their unhinged variety of Zionism, namely that it is itself anti-semitic. This may well explain why SAAS talks about Orban as a “reactionary” as opposed to the much more appropriate and straightforward label of “anti-semitic" In Hungarian national elections in February this year Orban instigated a poster campaign specifically targeting George Soros the subject of Rees-Mogg’s comment.

The picture shows one of these posters which says “Don’t let Soros have the last laugh", and on which someone has scrawled the words “dirty Jew" on Soros forehead.

One might ask why SAAS, never slow to label anyone as anti-semitic, should be so coy in their choice of words. The answer may lie in the fact that in July 2018 Victor Orban was welcomed with open arms to Tel Aviv for a three day visit by non other than Benjamin Netanyahu, the racist leader of the apartheid state that is Israel - an inconvenient fact for the fruit-loops that run JLM and SAAS, in that it clearly illustrates that their perversion of Judaism has little to do with Socialism, let alone the fight against, as opposed to the weaponisation of, anti-semitism.

Coming back to the Pileus, it was a bit of a surprise to see them approvingly posting this disingenuous nonsense, and I posted a comment pointing out in not so many words the contradiction and hypocrisy at the heart of the JLM/SAAS brand of Zionism as explained above.

I left it there, but was then somewhat surprised to find the following in my Messenger in box.

It seems that young Schlomo (who sports an Israeli flag and Hebrew script on his Facebook page), just could not help himself, but thought I might rise to the bait of his juvenile taunt. Not a bit of it, because the information provided has been passed on, and has been instrumental in rooting him and his latter day McCarthyite playmates out from various pages where they have been hiding, and of course afforded me the opportunity to give the needy Schlomo the publicity he so clearly craves.

The Pileus has obviously succumbed to the virus that is the JLM, SAAS lunatic brand of Zionism, and although a suitable case for treatment, in reality is probably beyond it, although who knows perhaps young Schlomo might benefit from some therapeutic intervention. Whatever, clearly the Pileus will now be beyond the pale for most sensible Labour/Corbyn supporting pages.

Whilst on the subject of page health warnings, it may be apposite to highlight two notable exceptions to that rule, namely, We Support Jeremy Corbyn (WSJC) and the Left Bible. These two pages are linked administratively and both have a very dubious take on Israel. Former page members who have left WSJC, talk of gaslighting of members by admin, with debate on Israel/Palestine being closed down. Amongst its members WSJC has an individual called Daniel Sevitt (https://www.facebook.com/danielsevitt) who describes himself as an Israeli businessman from Tel Aviv - he is apparently according to former members often seen on the forum trolling those who seek to post adverse commentary on Israel - it is effectively a Hasbara operation within what purports to be a Jeremy Corbyn supporting page. Many have rejected such unpleasantness as anything to do with Labour Party values and have set up alternatives such as We Trust and Support Jeremy Corbyn and We Actually Support Jeremy Corbyn.

Regarding Left Bible, I used to be a member, but left after an admin who is also on WSJC challenged my assertion that BICOM, CAA, and JLM are Israeli proxies. Any page which does not grasp the very obvious links between these organisations and Israel’s wider political activities is at best stupid, although given the links to WSJC it’s probably complicity.

Finally, it may just be worth looking at what Jacob Rees-Mogg said to attract the opprobrium of JLM, SAAS and other individuals and organisations, which one might take rather more seriously. His comments are reported by the Jewish News as follows;

Speaking at the despatch box on Thursday, Rees-Mogg responded to the MP Valerie Vaz’s remark hedge fund manager Crispin Odey “made £220m overnight as Sterling slumped after the 2016 referendum result.”

“One of the major funders allegedly of the Remain campaign, the Remoaner funder-in-chief, is one George Soros, who made a billion pounds when Sterling crashed out of the exchange rate mechanism, which is five times as much as Mr Odey has made,” said Rees-Mogg.

Whilst I would be the last person to defend Rees-Mogg, is there not some knights move thinking here? How do you get from pointing out that a financier funded a campaign, to alleging that the remark is anti-semitic, unless of course you are applying the Louise Ellman test of anti-semitism based on an assumption of what a person might be thinking, which is of course well into the kind of witch hunt territory that SAAS, JLM and the like revel in, and would indeed have been the effect of JLM’s proposed amendment to the Labour rule book in 2017, thankfully seen off by JVL. It is the equivalent of saying to a policeman who arrests the driver drunk in charge, that he is anti-semitic because the driver is Jewish. Having said that, there is not a little poetic justice in seeing the Tories who have often used the anti-semitism canard against Labour now on the receiving end of similar nonsense.

And so to bed.

I found myself watching thinking how close to a civil war we could be, whilst entertaining fantasies of the army marching into the chamber and just carting the Conservative benches off in their entirety to detention on a remote island in the Hebrides with a large complement of psychologists.

Civil wars have started quite easily because of chance remarks or actions as the spark. Simon Schama in his history of our only Civil War notes that it was started by the mundane act of a woman throwing a stool down the aisle of St Giles cathedral Edinburgh, and more recently the Romanian Civil War of 1989 started in Timișoara as a response by the Hungarian minority to an attempt by the government to evict a Hungarian Reformed church pastor.

So basically we have a clinically definable sociopath, and pathological liar, as a prime minister, controlled by an even more devious and calculating psycopath in his advisor - Cummings. They are stoking fear and confusion to put the opposition off balance but the reality is that they are trussed up like chickens with little wiggle room, and have in any case been put on the "naughty step", like the truculent entitled little boys they are, by their grandma in the Supreme Court. They will doubtless try and create more mischief as the deadline in the Benn bill gets nearer. Johnson cannot get round the Benn bill unless he comes back from the EU conference in October with a credible deal - it’s either that or the ditch for him. All we have to do is hold our nerve, sit tight, and wait, and not get sucked into the hysteria Johnson is trying to whip up. Parliament as a whole clearly have his measure.

In due course the current unpleasantness has to resolve itself with an extension to article 50, an election, with hopefully a Labour victory, and a confirmatory vote. The interesting thing about a confirmatory vote is the vehemence with which it is opposed by ardent leavers, on the basis that the 2016 referendum was the only vote needed, but of course this entirely overlooks the very clear evidence of fraudulent funding and voter manipulation by the Leave campaign which has recently come to light (Cummings again), never mind the fact that as we are three years on, the democratic thing to do is just to check people are of the same mind.

What is not at all clear in all this, whether we ultimately leave or remain is how long it is going to take to heal the rifts and divisions that have been opened up by Brexit itself, and exacerbated by the bunch of rabidly nationalist far right gangsters-in-suits that now have their hands on the levers of power.

The principal reason for my conclusion therefore is that in retrospect, the Brexit debate was uninformed at best and simply racist at worst.

I really don’t like a lot of the distasteful individuals advocating Brexit online and in the media generally, they all seem to be permanently angry and aggresive, whilst exhibiting racist undertones in their dialogue. I am saddened by the fact that what is essentially an isolationist doctrine has unleashed a deeply xenophobic atmosphere in the UK with all sorts of unpleasant neanderthal knuckle draggers crawling out from under their stones, and apparently thinking Brexit allows them to give vent to their bigoted, uneducated ill informed prejudices. A vote based on that sort of mindset is not an informed, valid, or safe one in my view.

Similarly, in the same philosophical territory albeit less vitriolic, you have the denizens of the Brexit voting “left behind traditional Labour heartlands” in the north, who when asked, say that they have been Labour voters all their life but will either vote Brexit Party or Tory next time round. The truth of the matter is that such individuals have never really been “Labour” voters but simply floating Conservatives with a small “c", and they can have little understanding of what the Labour Party stands for, or, have the first inkling of the history which shaped it’s identity - think, Peterloo, the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the Match Girls. A political paradigm shift, returning Labour to the purposes for which it was set up, which is what the Corbyn McDonnel vision represents, cannot be realised if it is held hostage by bigotted fair weather supporters who see simplistic populists like Farage and Johnson as the answer to their prayers - in voting number terms the Labour Party should perhaps just take the hit and move on.

Such individuals have not got the nous to see that it is their own governments which have been responsible for their predicament. Successive UK governments of both main parties have singularly failed to look after such communities, and have fostered the pernicious narrative of "immigrants are taking our jobs" - remember Theresa May’s Home Office vans or Gordon Brown’s "British jobs for British workers"? In a market rigged to exploit, such governments have supinely acquiesed to an erosion of workers rights whilst for example singularly failing to enact the bog standard social policy infrastructure requirement of building enough affordable housing.

I grew up in Britain of the 1950s and 60s, where without a shadow of a doubt racism existed, but where tolerant consensus after World War Two (plus Labours landmark 1965 Race Relations Act), kept those sort of views in check, because during the period of “post war consensus” which existed until Thatcher destroyed it, everyone understood that those were precisely the kind of sentiments that had given rise to the fascism the country had sacrificed so many lives and almost all its resources to combat. It is often forgotten that one of the purposes of the founding of what used to be called the “Common Market” ( the European Coal & Steel Community when created in 1951) was to try and ensure Europe was never plunged into a conflagration like World War Two again, and in that respect there has always been a qualitative difference between the attitude to the EU on mainland Europe and the island of the United Kingdom. In many mainland European countries, it is quite common to see large billboards proclaiming, that a road or say a neighbourhood regeneration project has been funded by a European regional development fund. In the UK this is less common and perhaps in part explains why many Brexit voting communities subjected to swingeing “austerity” funding cuts by central government, voted to Leave whilst benefitting from substantive EU funding they had no knowledge of. A case in point would be Cornwall and Wales which both voted Leave fairly decisively while in receipt of substantive amounts from the EU Structural and Investment Fund - similar to that received by Romania and Bulgaria.

I have slightly more sympathy for the wholly intelligible and principled arguments of the intellectual Left that quite rightly identifies the EU as a neo-liberal cartel which notwithstanding some token legislation on workers rights, treats labour as an exploitable commodity, without any regard to the social consequences of doing so - the well publicised case of Polish workers crammed into insanitary housing to serve the needs of Sports Direct’s Shirebrook warehouse springs to mind. There is also the not to be forgotten spectre of the treatment of Greece!

Having said all that however, plain common sense would seem to dictate that when you see monstrous millionaire sociopathic simpletons like Trump and Johnson pushing for the UK to leave the EU, with Putin lurking in the background in sympathy, for his own nefarious reasons, it is probably best to go in the other direction.

However, all the foregoing aside, for me, there are two additional and important subsidiary reasons for Remain.

First there is the difficulty of getting trade deals, which take years to negotiate, never mind that 40 odd years of EU membership has denuded the UK of competent trade negotiators. Johnson’s risible Boys Own, Bigglesesque, “chocks away” fantasy of flying into a promising sunny blue beyond is arrant nonsense. In a world of of giant trading blocs, with equally large military resources, not least in the Far East, it is not Little England which is going to have leverage . So for example Theresa May’s much vaunted trip to Africa yielded the promise of a small return at an uncertain price, whilst God only knows what Liam Fox promised the Israelis in his discussions with them - a pact with the devil if ever there was one! Against that sort of background it is therefore probably inevitable that the UK flying solo would be inexorably sucked into the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) or a version of the same. The TTIP is an attempt to create a trading partnership between the EU and the USA. Sticking points in negotiations from the EUs perspective, the well publicised issue of chlorinated chicken aside, have centred on pharmaceutical regulation, intellectual property, and the desire by the US to “liberalise” data protection legislation, all in a way that favours corpoate rather than individual or community interests. A further requirement of the US is that state subsidised industries and organisations are eventually abolished. This goes way beyond anything envisaged by Brussels with most European states having state run health, train and post office sectors. If enacted in the UK, TTIP would therefore be the kiss of death for the NHS, because outside of the umbrella of the protection of EU membership, the UK would simply have no bargaining power to decline its terms.

Secondly there is a political consideration apart from the wider one of Brexit itself. As the immigration crisis following Angela Merkel’s arguably unwise 2015 decision to declare that all immigrants were welcome showed (it may have been better to have facilitated their progress without a public announcement starting a stampede), the EU contains former Soviet bloc countries that are both reactionary and racist, as evidenced by the televised scenes of Hungarian police pepper spraying immigrants at razor wire protected borders, and, the current political tenor of the Polish government. Within the European Parliament itself there is a Conservative grouping called the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) which is a centre to far right grouping containing nationalist parties like Vox (Spain) and Brothers of Italy for example, plus non EU associate members like Israel’s Likud. Controversially under David Cameron, the Tories switched their affiliation from the more moderate right of centre European Conservatives to ACRE. From a Socialist perspective, given the welcome disintegration of the UK’s Conservative Party, and the strong possibility of a Corbyn led Socialist government, it would seem to make little sense to abandon the EU at a time when the UK membership could potentially act as a counterbalance to reactionary groupings within it, against a background of nascent right wing extremism in Europe as a whole. If the UK leaves the EU it will have a greatly diminished influence over European political developments including those within the European Parliament and so would relinquish the fight against organisations like ACRE.

To conclude therefore, I can still see the merits of arguments on both sides of the Brexit debate but now with sufficient clarity to come down on one side or the other. For me the only sane decision to resolve the utter madness unleashed by Johnson and his psycopathic puppet master is to revoke article 50 and Remain in the EU - my guess is that a confirmatory vote, post a GE (Labour policy), three and a half years after the original referendum would reach the same conclusion. In a democracy, as in a relationship, people are allowed to change their minds.

Postscript - many have responded to this article to say that we should respect the “will” of the people. My whole argument above is that that “will” corrupted, a perversion, because arose out of ignorance, prejudice and rank political manipulation and so the injunction does not apply in this case. Some have also said that we should leave with a deal. Such a deal will inevitably involve participation in a customs union, payments, and adherence to the four Freedoms in one form or another minus the possibility of influence on policy - that’s why the logic of a nihilistic No Deal is compelling. No Deal is absolutely unacceptable but I see no point in a half in or half out solution either, in my view we should get back in and fight for reform.

It may be worth reminding ourselves what the LP rulebook (2018) says about procedure on the election of the Deputy Leader - in this case it would be a challenge to an incumbent, and guidance is found at Chapter 4 2B ii as follows;

“Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP.”

The party conference is in September meaning that if a challenge is to be mounted this year, there are about four months to organise it. However there may be a number of political calculations being made by those who would either mount or support a challenge.

Firstly there is the arithmetic. Getting support from a largely Corbyn-hostile PLP may not be straightforward, and while It's not entirely clear what the position is with MEPs (presumably they aren't keen on the party's equivocal stance on Brexit), it would in any case probably be better to wait until after the European elections in May where the Socialists are predicted to do well.

As far as the PLP is concerned, there may be a couple of factors in play, not least Brexit and the possibility of a General Election and this may be stopping an immediate challenge. The reason for this is that it would probably not be a good idea to be embroiled in what would undoubtedly be regarded as a hostile challenge on the eve of, or even during, a General Election - the Tories could exploit that to their advantage. A further calculation may well be that it would be better to wait until the NEC has issued guidance about the implementation of the modified trigger ballot (MTBS) system by which CLPs determine their parliamentary candidates.

The MTBS was brought in at last year's conference instead of full Open Selection and so far the NEC has avoided issuing guidance to CLPs on its implementation, although they would be obliged to in the event of a General Election being called. Once guidance is issued, presumably with the go ahead to CLPs to implement it, this would give a number of CLPs the opportunity to challenge right wing Corbyn hostile sitting MPs - TIG CLPs spring to mind but there are others with MPs such as Stephen Kinnock, John Mann Chris Leslie etc. This process could serve to reduce the number of those in the party who are hostile to the leadership and who would not support a challenge to the Deputy Leader.

Taking all this into consideration therefore much as a challenge to Tom Watson is needed, it would seem improbable on this side of a General Election. When that is going to happen remains unclear, but the nearer we get to the conference season without one, sadly, ousting Watson this year would seem unlikely.

This article was originally a petition on Change.org who unilaterally closed it after the best part of a year having attracted 860 signatures — they have not responded to my request to inform me why.

Ahead of the an extraordinary meeting of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) on March 6 it would seem timely to consider the reasons why JLM should disaffiliate from the Labour party, indeed this is an option being actively discussed by JLM members. This article argues that disaffiliation would be the most honest course for the JLM which finds itself out of tune with both the party and the mass of the membership.

The basic reason for this is the de facto ideological position of the JLM vis a vis the policies and activities of the Israeli state. It is argued that the JLM’s known affiliation to organisations which support the legal and social policies of the Israeli state resulting in the victimisation and oppression of the Palestinian community is incompatible with its continuing affiliation to the Labour Party, based as it is on principles of inclusiveness and non-discrimination. This is a matter of political integrity, but doubtless there are those who would shrilly scream that such a position is anti-semitic, an accusation rejected ab initio by the author. Also for the avoidance of doubt, it should be clearly understood that the author does not subscribe to the view that Israel does not have the right to exist, but is however implacably opposed to how the Israeli state has chosen to establish itself. For a detailed historical analysis of how incompatible the JLM is with anything approaching socialism, please see the following article by Tony Greenstein https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-historic-contradictions-of-zionist.html?m=1

1. JLM’s affiliation of the Labour Party is anachronistic.

The JLM (known as Paole Zion until 2004) was affiliated to the Labour Party in 1920, some twenty-eight years before the declaration of the Israeli State in 1948. It is argued that this is significant insofar as in the intervening years, the Israeli State has assumed a highly contentious political significance due to the way it has developed, not least its continuing settlement programme, subject of numerous UN resolutions. None of this political landscape was present at the time the JLM was affiliated to the Labour Party, and so firstly it is argued that it’s continuing affiliation is anachronistic and out of time given current political realities and should quite properly be reviewed. By definition “affiliation” is a privilege not an open ended right.

2. JLM’s affiliation with the Israeli Labour Party and the World Zionist Movement are incompatible with its affiliation to the British Labour Party.

The JLM is affiliated to the Israeli Labour Party and the World Zionist Movement. It is argued that this is problematic in terms of JLM’s affiliation to the Labour Party, because these bodies hold views and undertake activities which are incompatible with the ideological foundations upon which the British Labour Party is based. So for example the Jewish Labour Party which the JLM refers to as its “sister party”, has consistently supported the settlement programmes and otherwise voted for the myriad measures passed into law by the Knesset resulting in a legal and social framework regarded by many informed commentators as reminiscent of the racist apartheid of pre Mandela South Africa, except in this case it is the Palestinian community who are being victimised. The current leader of the Israeli Labour Party Avi Gabbay is on record as stating that he would never enter into a coalition with the Joint List, a Knesset group dominated by parties representing Palestinian citizens. Additionally Gabbay is also on record as stating that he is opposed to even discussing the removal of the most isolated illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank — clearly this would be necessary as a precursor to a two state solution, (current policy of the British Labour Party), irrespective of whether one considers that a realistic proposition or not.

JLM’s affiliation to the World Zionist Organisation is also problematic, simply because that body is deeply involved in support and funding for the settlement programme. Via its Settlement Division the WZO is meant to engage in rural development throughout Israel, but it has been identified primarily with funding the building and bolstering of settlements in the occupied territories.

To summarise the foregoing therefore, JLMs self-acknowledged affiliation to, and by definition, support for, the aims and endeavours of these organisations, is incompatible with the beliefs, aims and policies of the British Labour Party. It is argued therefore that JLM’s continuing affiliation to the British Labour Party is inappropriate.

3. The JLMs leadership problem

It is clear when considering the leadership of JLM that this is not an organisation which sees any problems with even the most contentious actions and policies of the Israeli state, when those policies and actions have attracted reasonably justified criticism and condemnation from many other quarters. So for example during and after the 2014 invasion of Gaza by Israel in 2014 (Operation Protective Edge) whilst many condemned both Hamas and Israel, or took issue with Israel’s disregard of human rights, the silence from the JLM was deafening. At that time the organisation was led by Louise Ellman MP. Interestingly Mrs Ellman overcame her rhetorical reticence during a recent parliamentary debate, seeking to try and justify the arrest and detention without representation of Palestinian minors by the Israeli military authorities.

Following on from Mrs Ellman’s leadership, JLM has been led by Jeremy Newmark. His stewardship ended after he was asked to step down following allegations of fraudulent activity emerged relating to his previous leadership of the Jewish Leadership Council, a matter subsequently investigated and found to have substance by the Jewish Leadership Council, whose final report is in the hands of the Charity Commission and the police. Irrespective of the outcome of such an investigation clearly the matter has the potential to bring the Labour Party into disrepute by association.

The manner of its ending aside, Mr Newmark’s leadership of JLM has seen the creation of a rival forum for Jewish members of the Labour Party, namely Jewish Voice for Labour which brings into question JLMs claim to be the authentic voice of Jewish members of the Labour Party, including the appropriateness of its right to deliver training about anti-semitism and by extension it’s right to be affiliated. This is an important point because there have been well publicised disagreement between JLM and JVL about the use of the AHCR definition of anti-semitism.

Like JLM, JVL is also a self declared non anti-zionist organisation but nevertheless cleary states that it is not anti-semitic to criticise Israel. It is also notable that it was during Mr Newmark’s leadership of JLM that allegations of anti-semitism surfaced within a Labour Party with no history of such racist attitudes. Indeed Mr Newmark threatened legal action against the party for not dealing promptly with some historical cases apparently, because, some would argue, finding members guilty of anti-semitism was more important tdue process. This rather adversarial relationship with the Labour party has been continued by its current Chair Ivor Caplan. The issue of anti-semitism and how to deal it was of course addressed by the Chakrabahti Report.

In addition to apparently creating divisions within his own community, some would argue that Mr Newmark’s leadership of the JLM was characterised by a needless ratcheting up of tension within the Labour Party vis a vis the Israel Palestine debate not least in terms of how members of JLM have conducted themselves on social media — this would include Ella Rose a Director of JLM and former employee of the Israeli Embassy who was caught on film threatening violence against a Labour Party member she didn’t agree with.

Conclusion

Taking all the above into account it is arguable that the political and ideological allegiances of the JLM and its conduct, render some of its members unsuitable for membership of the Labour Party, but it is argued it is certainly the case that it is inappropriate that the JLM as an organisation continues to enjoy the privileges of affiliated status, and if the JLM cannot see the writing on the wall then Labour’s NEC should help them to do so.

John Spannyard Indaworks
August 9th 2018

A recent Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x2sGI-ASyA) shows the disgraced former Chair of Tonbridge and Malling CLP Euan Phillips at a Campaign Against Anti-Semitism organised rally, addressing a small crowd of people, some waving Israeli flags and shouting “Corbyn out”. What is interesting about the video apart from Philips ludicrous but very public slander against Jeremy Corbyn, (“he’s a racist and an anti-semite”), is the presence of burly figures wearing vizivests emblazoned with the acronym “CST”, standing for Community Security Trust, a charity described by one of its founders Mike Whine of the Board of Deputies of British Jews as “A Jewish neighbourhood watch - with a little bit added'

One might question why a “neighbourhood watch – with a little bit added”, is seen apparently policing a political demonstration, by those supporting a foreign state and seeking to undermine the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. However at a time when we have seen the Jewish Chronicle claiming that a Corbyn led government would pose an “existential threat to British Jews”, the more salient question is perhaps, “Why is there a need for what is effectively a separate police force to protect the Jewish community?”

The CST was founded in 1994 in the wake of the bombing of the Israeli Embassy, being granted charitable status at that time. Significantly the Embassy bombing was the principle reason cited for its creation, notwithstanding that this was an event perpetrated by Palestinians, and there was no evidence of widespread attacks on the wider UK Jewish community at that time.

On its website the CST states its mission is to “To work at all times for the physical protection and defence of British Jews”. The current chairman and one of its founding patrons is Gerald Ronson, a multi-millionaire property tycoon. Ronson was convicted of fraud in the 1990 “Guinness Four” share dealing scandal and served time in prison.

In 2015 the Home Office started giving the CST a Jewish Community Protective Security Grant in response to the perceived threat of anti-semitism in Europe. In answer to a parliamentary question it was revealed that the grant was £10.9 million in 2015/6, £13.4 million in 2016/17, £13.4 million in 2017/18, and a further £13.4 million has been pledged for 2018/19. As of March 2017 according to Charity Commission figures, the CST had declared income of £30.4 million - not bad for a “neighbourhood watch” - and it would be no exaggeration to say that it is awash with cash. It is also interesting to note that the government considers its grant money appropriately spent whilst simultaneously cutting police budgets

By way of contrast it is worth pointing out that there is no equivalent grant to the Muslim community or the Polish community, both of whom significantly outnumber the Jewish community in population terms. A look at the demographic data of the 2011 census is instructive with the numbers of those self-identifying as follows;

Jewish - 270,000
Muslim - 2.7 million
Polish - 500,000

In its 2017 survey the Institute for Jewish Policy Research state that the levels of anti-semitism in Great Britain are amongst the lowest in the world, with 2.4% expressing multiple anti-semitic attitudes, and about 70% having a favourable opinion of Jews. However, only 17% had a favourable opinion of Israel, with 33% holding an unfavourable view. Despite this the CST figures argue that anti-semitism is on the increase as measured by reported incidences, although happily these have not resulted in any deaths.

In its latest quarterly report the CST acknowledges some of the increase can be accounted for by the political climate, and as influential commentators within the Jewish community have pointed out, (see Robert Cohen's excellent article in Mondoweiss https://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/establishments-bringing-semitism/), deliberately exaggerating the prevalence of anti-semitism for political ends, as bodies like the Board of Deputies and the Campaign for Anti-Semitism have been accused of doing, is very likely to increase real incidences of actual anti-semitism with adverse consequences for the entire Jewish community.

Again, by way of contrast when considering race hate crime as a whole which includes anti-semitism, there have been notable incidences of race hate directed at both Polish and Muslim residents of the UK. Thus for example Arik Jozvik a Polish national was killed in Harlow in August 2016 and most recently in March this year Mariam Moustafa was attacked and killed in Nottingham. Notwithstanding such horrific attacks, there does not seem to be a call for a quasi Polish or Muslim police force funded by the Home Office.

Returning to the matter of the CST policing of political demonstrations therefore, and taking all the above into account, one may well ask, “whose community?”, “whose security?” and “whose trust?” is being paid for?