Trending Topics:

The Jewish establishment’s ‘war against Corbyn’ risks bringing real anti-Semitism to Britain

on 129 Comments

Greetings from Britain, where the Jewish community is facing an “existential threat to Jewish life”. At least that’s according to an editorial shared by all three of our Jewish community newspapers this week – the Jewish Chronicle, The Jewish News, and the Jewish Telegraph.

You’re probably thinking that Her Majesty’s Government must have just introduced the equivalent of Hitler’s Nuremberg race Laws of 1935. Perhaps it’s worse. Perhaps the round-ups have already begun.

Don’t worry, you haven’t missed a major global news story. Britain remains one of the safest places to live as a Jew on the entire planet. That doesn’t mean there’s no anti-Jewish prejudice here. It’s just that there’s a great deal less of it than some people want you to believe. That’s true for now, but how long will it last?

Thanks to a Jewish communal leadership and a Jewish press which have merged Jewish interests in Britain with the need to defend the interests of the State of Israel, we are set on a path that risks turning fake antisemitism into real antisemitism. What we are witnessing could be an on-coming, self-inflicted tragedy for the Jewish community in Britain. Calling it out now is the best way to stop it happening.

How did we get here?

For those of you who’ve not been following every twist and turn of this saga let me bring you up to speed on the recent developments and the longer term background.

This week’s “existential threat” is just the latest ratcheting up of the rhetoric against the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn over his alleged failure to deal with the alleged epidemic of alleged antisemitism running rife in the party under his leadership – allegedly.

It all began three years ago soon after Corbyn’s election as Labour party leader. What started off as allegations that he was allowing antisemitism to fester in his party unchecked have evolved into direct accusations that Corbyn is himself antisemitic.  

I’m yet to see a credible piece of evidence that demonstrates that antisemitism is rife in the Labour Party. That doesn’t mean it’s non-existent but the claim made in the joint editorial that the “stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015” does not stand up to scrutiny.

It’s impossible to understand the hostility against Corbyn from the Jewish community without acknowledging Corbyn’s long standing support for the Palestinian people and the need for their rights to be respected and internal law implemented. Take this fact away and the last three years would have been very different.

IHRA Definition   

This week’s show of Jewish media unity was all about attacking Corbyn for failing to adopt “in full” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. This has become the pretext for all-out war against the Labour leader.

I’m not sure exactly when it happened, but the IHRA document has now become the ‘gold standard’ for our Jewish establishment in determining exactly what antisemitism is in the 21st century. This despite the fact that the IHRA webpage itself describes the document as a ‘working definition’, that is to say it’s a work in progress and a document to be studied, not a statute of government or a piece of international law.

But this appears to be far too much nuance for the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council which have led the community to war against Jeremy Corbyn.

Two weeks ago, Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) decided that the IHRA document might not be as perfect as the Jewish leadership and media think it to be. While adopting the vast majority of the IHRA wording, and indeed tightening it up in places, the NEC thought it better to separate out those parts of the document that suggest that criticism of Israel could in certain circumstances become antisemitic.

One IHRA example the NEC rejected was that it was antisemitic to describe Israel as a “racist endeavor”. The NEC had clearly taken note of some of the legal opinion produced highlighting the risk to free speech, such as this critique by Hugh Tomlinson QC.

This attempt by the NEC to create a policy against antisemitism that balanced the needs of the Jewish community with the need for free speech turned out to be the last straw for our Jewish establishment. In short they went ballistic, insisting that only the Jewish community has the right to determine what is antisemitism and who is being antisemitic and what punishment they should receive.

“This is a sad day for the cause of anti-racism in this country. Labour, for so long a Party that put equality and inclusion at the centre of its values, has today decided to claim that it understands antisemitism better than the victims of this vile prejudice and to set its face against the clear views of the Jewish community.”

Others including a Jewish Labour MP, Dame Margaret Hodge, felt it justified to call her party leader “a fucking anti-Semite and racist” to his face. This despite Corbyn’s record on fighting racism which looks a whole lot more impressive than just about any other MP at Westminster, certainly Margaret Hodge, as this piece from David Rosenberg shows.

Even 68 British Rabbis who would fail to agree on just about any other issue, political or religious, decided that the IHRA definition was chiseled in stone by Moses himself and was beyond critical engagement.

And this is why I’m becoming increasingly worried that a real wave of antisemitism could be on the way.

General Election

There is a reasonable chance that Jeremy Corbyn could be Britain’s next Prime Minister.

Thanks to the on-going political turmoil created by Brexit we could well be facing a General Election in Britain in the late autumn or next spring. It will be fought predominantly on our post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, a question which will determine the future prosperity of the country for decades to come.

If Labour runs a good campaign the election will also be fought on the issues that mattered long before the Brexit referendum – ending economic austerity, funding for the National Health Service, affordable housing, safer communities, and care for the elderly. As the most radical version of Labour for many decades, a Corbyn victory could well herald serious change and the reversal of the neo-liberal economic agenda pursued by Thatcher/Major/Blair/Cameron/May for the last thirty years. The quality of life for millions of people in this country is at stake. For a change, who wins the next election will actually make a difference.

But none of this is of the slightest concern to the Jewish community’s leadership or its media. They only have one issue on their mind – Israel, and how best to protect it from criticism. On this basis they are willing to brand the main opposition party in Britain as irredeemably antisemitic under Corbyn’s leadership. The Jewish Chronicle has already called for Jewish Labour MPs to break away from the party.

And that’s what makes me fear where we could be heading.

If you vote Labour, will that make you antisemitic in the eyes of the Jewish community? If you stand for election as a Labour candidate, will you be antisemitic?

And what if Corbyn losses by a narrow margin? How will the millions who voted for him see the Jewish community and its three-year campaign to brand him toxic?

The ‘Jewish War Against Corbyn’ is not good Jewish communal politics. It’s playing with fire.

Fighting racism with both hands tied

This is where you end up when you allow antisemitism to become mixed up with Israel and Zionism. This is where the merger between Zionism, Judaism and modern Jewish identity leaves you: fighting racism with both hands tied behind you back.

Mainstream Jewish thinking has created a whole new category of anti-Jewish hatred which the joint editorial this week described as “political antisemitism”. In other words, where they once hated us for our faith, and then for our race, now they hate us for our politics.  This is how Jewish nationalism skews Jewish communal relations around the world.

It’s hardly surprising that the leadership of our community want to frame the debate about Corbyn in terms of antisemitism. It’s much easier to talk about antisemitism than defend Israel directly. Israel itself keeps making that harder and harder.

After the Nation State Law was passed, who can truthfully claim that Israel does not support creating apartheid communities and does not deny national self-determination to millions of Palestinians under its direct or indirect authority? What’s been the case for decades has just been given a constitutional ratification by the self-styled ‘only democracy in the Middle East’. Even the Board of Deputies is uncomfortable with what’s just happened. That’s because it knows how much harder it will make their work on Israel advocacy.

If you want to look credible in fighting racism against Jews, and other minorities in Britain, it’s best not to be supporting it in Israel.

No Palestinian voice

The other benefit of focusing the ‘Corbyn War’ on antisemitism, rather than criticism of Israel, is that it means we don’t need to hear from any Palestinians. The debate becomes an entirely Jewish affair where the rights and concerns of the Jewish community are all that’s being discussed.

In the last few weeks, as the row has dragged on and escalated, I’ve never see a Palestinian invited to comment on the TV news or mainstream media. You never see a Palestinian asked if they think Israel is a “racist endeavor?”. Only Jews are allowed to define their oppression. Israel and Zionism, according to Jewish rhetoric, has had no victims.

Jewish voices of protest

I hope I’m wrong about the threat of a backlash against the Jewish community if Labour is narrowly defeated in the next General Election. I hope the British public will be able to understand the diversity of Jewish opinion on Israel that’s mostly obscured by those who claim to speak for us in our entirety. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for non-Jewish voices to call out the attacks on Corbyn as disingenuous or at least motivated by a more complex agenda than is being admitted to. The antisemitism allegations come think and fast.

That’s what makes the Jewish voices in Britain that have been attempting to counter the official Jewish War Against Corbyn, such as Jewish Voice for Labour and Independent Jewish Voices  so vital to our long-term well-being in a country that remains (so far) incredibly hospitable towards Jews.

This post first appeared on the Patheos site on July 28.

Robert Cohen

Cohen is a British writer. He blogs at Micah's Paradigm Shift.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

129 Responses

  1. Bumblebye on July 29, 2018, 12:03 pm

    bbcR4’s half hour lunchtime news program today devoted more than half its time to this very issue. Starting with the row over MP Ian Austin, under investigation for a temper tantrum over the IHRA, moving on to the views of a Jewish family, then spox for various organisations. I recall one voice in favor – Geoffrey Bindman. Was there no real news to report?

    Britain’s Jewish population is around 0.05%. This presumably also means around 0.05% of the electorate. Analysis from the British Electoral Study of GE 2017 apparently shows that only 26% of British Jews voted for Labour while 63% voted Conservative. The most commonly recognised British Jewish organisations, such as the BoD, are conservative aligned. It’s very easy to see that this is an attempt of malignant manipulation of the electorate for the political gain of a tiny minority – or the major focus the ‘Establishment’ thinks can bring down Corbyn. The only reason it gets as much airtime and space in our papers is the ‘Establishment’ fear of a left-wing Corbyn led government.

    • ErikEast on July 29, 2018, 3:42 pm

      It is getting ridiculous how compliant the British media is in covering the hyperbolic claims put forward by conservative Jewish groups and anti-Corbyn Labour MPs. However, I suspect they have made little impact electorally-speaking. Not least because the endless coverage, which involves the excessive misuse of the antisemitism charge, is not of concern to the British public who are fretting about Brexit, the economy, the future of the NHS etc.

      • MHughes976 on July 29, 2018, 6:20 pm

        I too doubt if there is much electoral impact but something is keeping Corbyn’s approval rating quite low. At a time when May is down to 30% he actually manages to be even lower, on 28% – mentioning from memory what I read in the Independent yesterday

      • echinococcus on July 29, 2018, 6:49 pm


        I bet the approval rating would jump up to 50% if he were to take an unapologetic, combative stand against the Zionists.

    • Maghlawatan on July 30, 2018, 2:50 am

      Corbyn represents the end of neoliberalism. The BoD is Zionist and neoliberal and Zionist practice is to destroy any threat. The problem is that Corbyn has a lot of political support. I can’t see the bots winning this one. This story has been around the block.

      La Guardia, 1933

    • annie on July 30, 2018, 1:11 pm

      bumblebye, i’ve been following this row over twitter for the last couple days (including the row over this very article, originally published on cohen’s blog and tweeted (or Rt’d) on SKWAWKBOX which they then deleted after protest) and the Ian Austin fiasco.

      one thing i find most interesting is that these 3 jewish publications can claim a corbyn led
      government would cause “existential threat to Jewish life”, and yet this very article, and this line in particular (see tweet is also considered a threat.

      And what if Corbyn losses by a narrow margin? How will the millions who voted for him see the Jewish community and its three-year campaign to brand him toxic?

      but how could anyone not consider this a campaign against corbyn? and people know who is drumming this up. of course there will be a backlash. but they don’t care, they will use accusation of anti semitism as a means keep the tories in.

      the upshot? they can scream about a “threat to Jewish life” to their hearts content, but someone on the “wrong side” bringing up a potential threat to Jewish life? that becomes a threat all to itself.

      • annie on July 30, 2018, 1:21 pm

        one more thing re SKWAWKBOX’s rt, the original title and tweet didn’t have “establishment” in the headline.

      • John O on July 30, 2018, 2:11 pm

        The hypocrisy of the British establishment knows no bounds. The Daily Mail, the paper most virulent in its attacks on Corbyn’s supposed anti-Semitism, is the same one that supported Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in the 1930s and railed against “swarms” of Jews coming to Britain from Germany.

      • Bumblebye on July 30, 2018, 4:33 pm

        It’s also now been posted by other blogs, and has some traction in a few pro-Corbyn fb groups. Even 972 articles have started showing up on them! This constant refrain has opened up debate all over the place – and education. I spotted a bit of a pile-in on a prominent Labour MPs fb page when one commenter tried to stand by his own wrong terminology – others tried very hard to school him. The obsessive focus on ‘antisemitism’ is waking far more people (and alienating them further from the msm and those among all our politicians who take the establishment line).

      • annie on August 1, 2018, 10:58 pm

        The obsessive focus on ‘antisemitism’ is waking far more people (and alienating them further from the msm and those among all our politicians who take the establishment line).

        bumblebye. i think this may be the most manic i’ve seen the british political scene since i’ve been following it. truly hysterical what with the labor party elections for the disciplinary board and the decision of rejecting or accepting the antisemitism definition all heck’s breaking loose (which i am sure you know). this latest thing, w/the pro israel labour blairite in total shock finding out corbyn hosted an event in 2010 w/a holocaust survivor making a nazi comparison (or something i can’t keep track! and then it turns out she was actually at the event herself so how could she now be shocked it happened!

      • Bumblebye on August 2, 2018, 5:25 am

        Annie, it’s relentless.
        Not only was Ellman present throughout the meeting, she wrote a letter to a local paper about it – no antisemitism mentioned. Meanwhile, Corbyn introduced the meeting then left to attend a debate in the House of Commons. Jonathan Hoffman (professional pro-israel supporter) who also hangs out regularly with our fascist far right – Britain First, was there and heckled heckled Hajo Mayer during his speech and others representing other people’s who suffered genocide shouting “boring” along with the little gang who attended with him.

      • Tuyzentfloot on August 2, 2018, 6:25 am

        Anti-antisemitism is very similar to McCarthyism. Propaganda is often seen as a top down affair but it becomes really effective when the ideas start bouncing off other people and you get a good level of group think going.

      • annie on August 2, 2018, 7:55 pm

        one might think that brexit would be dominanting the headlines but noooo.

      • RoHa on August 2, 2018, 10:07 pm

        “one might think that brexit would be dominanting the headlines”

        What, you think the matter of the political and economic relations between some of the biggest economies in the world is important?

        Not when there is whining to be done.

  2. marc b. on July 29, 2018, 12:27 pm

    The quality of life for millions of people in this country is at stake. For a change, who wins the next election will actually make a difference. But none of this is of the slightest concern to the Jewish community’s leadership or its media. They only have one issue on their mind – Israel, and how best to protect it from criticism.

    So Dame Margaret Hodge and the elite of the Jewish community have only Israel on their mind? Not a lick of concern over their economic interests?

    • oldgeezer on July 29, 2018, 12:44 pm


      As with any human no doubt there may well be quite a number of factors that motivate the many players. The protection of Israel from any criticism, or worse, is the cudgel that they have picked to beat Corbyn with in the public eye.

      • marc b. on July 29, 2018, 3:12 pm

        “The Labour MP has been one of the fiercest critics of tax avoidance by companies such as Starbucks, Google and Amazon. However, she is likely to face questions over the limited tax paid by Stemcor, the steel trading company in which she owns shares and which was founded by her father and is run by her brother.
        Analysis of Stemcor’s latest accounts show that the business paid tax of just £163,000 on revenues of more than £2.1bn in 2011. However. it is not known whether the company – which made profits of £65m – used similar controversial tax avoidance measures criticised in the past by Mrs Hodge.
        Stemcor’s tax bill to the exchequer equates to just 0.01pc of the revenues it booked through its UK-based business. In accounts filed with Companies House, Stemcor revealed that despite generating about one third of its revenues in Britain, its UK tax contribution made up only 2.7pc of the tax the company paid globally.”

        Blair’s labor party in a nutshell.

  3. gamal on July 29, 2018, 1:55 pm

    “And this is why I’m becoming increasingly worried that a real wave of antisemitism could be on the way”

    if you imagine it they will come, but

    you mean a wave of resistance to cynical Zionist moves to distort the whole discussion of racism and Imperialism in the UK and the world in furtherance of a settler colonial project in the Arab East, no need to bother the semites, unless when the scourge of anti-semitism descends you looking for black and Muslim allies?

    at this juncture I’d say you are unlikely to find many friends amongst the discriminated against, because of the Zionism, Blairism and neo-liberalism and stuff.

    what are you afraid of? harsh words what will this wave of anti-semitism constitute, drowning in the med, interned in camps like the refugees, bombed, displaced? Zionisms’ latest victims seem frankly a bit whiny….fight the Zionists instead of trying to lay down the Jewish community in front of the Juggernaut of anti-zionism…the MOPE shtick is getting old.

    I never worry what price I or the Muslims may have to pay for Wahhabism, where else is the bill going to land…with Yezidis or animists? we already pay in oceans of blood.

    “in a country that remains (so far) incredibly hospitable towards Jews”

    shame the Windrush people, the Muslims and the working classes can’t say the same, but they are not afraid of the future, i suppose not having your history of oppression

    what definition of anti-semitism are you using?

    • Misterioso on July 30, 2018, 11:06 am

      As history will attest: Zionist Jews are short term smart, but long term stupid, real stupid.

  4. HarryLaw on July 29, 2018, 1:59 pm

    This document is essential reading for anyone commenting on this issue: In it, the man who drafted the definition under discussion urges Congress NOT to include in legislation the various examples such as those that Labour has omitted, on the grounds that in practice those examples are regularly used by those with a political agenda to suppress academic and political discussion of the actions of the Israeli Government. How can Labour be wrong if they are doing what the author of the definition urges?
    “Passage of this legislation might make some pro Israel students feel better, that Congress agrees with them, but it will give ammunition to anti Israel students saying that Congress has enshrined a definition that can only help to chill, if not suppress, their political speech. And they will be right. The EUMC’s “working definition” was recently adopted in the United Kingdom, and applied to campus. An “Israel Apartheid Week” event was cancelled as violating the definition.
    A Holocaust survivor was required to change the title of a campus talk, and the
    university mandated it be recorded, after an Israeli diplomat complained that the title violated the definition. Perhaps most egregious, an off campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for anti semitism, based on an article she had written years before.The university then conducted the inquiry.
    And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise
    itself was chilling and McCarthy like.”

    “My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress rather than answer political speech they don’t like. The academy,Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer”.

    • lyn117 on July 29, 2018, 5:00 pm

      So why did Stern put in the clause about criticizing Israel as a racist endeavor being a form of anti-semitism? When Zionism clearly is a racist ideology.

      • annie on July 30, 2018, 12:53 pm

        lyn, did you read the link? it was written as a tool, as possible examples. it was not written as a legal definition. note “suggested that antisemitism might be present”.

        Because the definition was drafted with data collectors utmost in mind, it also gave examples of information to include regarding Israel. While criticism of Israel like that of any other country was not to be included, other examples suggested that antisemitism might be present, and would be useful for comparing antisemitism over time and across borders. Among these examples, holding all Jews responsible for the actions of Israel, comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or denying Jews the right to self determination (such as by claiming that the existence of Israel is a “racist endeavor.”)

        I encouraged the Department of State’s first Special Envoy for Antisemitism to promote the definition as an important tool. He used it effectively as the framework for a report on global antisemitism….

        and stern may not agree with you that Zionism “clearly is a racist ideology.” hence, the framing of your rejoinder (to your question) has nothing to do with why he opposed the examples being part of some legislation (which he believed would stifle free speech) is a moot point.

  5. Kay24 on July 29, 2018, 5:08 pm

    In Australia, ABCthedrum journalist says that when he writes factually about the illegal settlements, he gets attacked. No one should be surprised.
    The viciousness is always there. The culprits attack the messenger.

    • inbound39 on July 30, 2018, 3:56 am

      Corbyn is unashamedly Pro Palestinian and therefore draws the attention of the Israeli Government and its minions like Friends of Israel and Jewish Labor Movement. These two organisations were found guilty of meddling and undermining the Labor Party in the investigation done by Al Jazeera. Last week on the Guardian they stated these two Organisations are at the forefront of this renewed attack. Both organisations have direct proven links to the Israeli Government. Of course they oppose Corbyn and they don’t want criticism of the Israeli Government left out of the Anti Semitism Definition because they want to snuff out the Apartheid truth. Corbyn has to step up and stand his ground and state the obvious and implicate the Israeli Government of meddling and undermining yet again. Israel deserves NO IMPUNITY for any of its wrongful criminal actions.

      • Mooser on August 3, 2018, 8:03 pm

        And I was worried about the underscore glitch!

      • gamal on August 3, 2018, 8:20 pm

        that was freaky.

      • davemreed on August 3, 2018, 9:45 pm

        We’re getting some new user management software up and running and there are a few odd behaviors. We’re working through it and appreciate your patience!

      • echinococcus on August 3, 2018, 10:49 pm


        Rather than “improve” every week or so, how about leaving things just as they are once they seem to be working well enough? This looks like the usual catastrophe that happens at any outfit that starts to be led by its marketing department (which is probably the case, looking at the fund drives.) Not my business, of course, but I have to note that everywhere money starts coming in, they spend it on stupid geegaws that destroy their site.

        PS now that you can’t see the author name I suppose it’s the right time for some of us to try fooling the Honorable Moderator…

      • annie on August 3, 2018, 11:56 pm

        I suppose it’s the right time for some of us to try fooling the Honorable Moderator…

        echi, if our honorable moderator(s) can see what i can see (they can), i wouldn’t count on it. this has something to do with the “display” function related to everyones profile pages (i think).

        we really appreciate everyones patience. and a big thank you to bumblebye who first alerted us to the situation (i think it was bumblebye!). i know dave’s doing everything he can (24/7) to figure this out.

      • davemreed on August 4, 2018, 7:18 pm

        Unfortunately sometimes software just no longer works, which was the case with the user profiles over the last few days. We implemented a new system that is under active development, but there will inevitably be some issues getting it up and running. Thanks for your patience.

      • Sibiriak on August 3, 2018, 11:19 pm

        Dave, Rather than “improve” every week or so, how about leaving things just as they are once they seem to be working well enough?

        Yes, yes, yes! Excellent advice.


      • RoHa on August 4, 2018, 2:14 am

        Dave, before the first Great Cock-Up Improvement, I could go to the 100 Recent Comments, click on the date next to a comment, and be taken straight to that comment.

        Afterwards, not only had a chunk of the archives been lost, but I had to click on the name, go to what was left of the commenter’s archive, find the comment there, and go from there to the comment.

        What new difficulties will this new “user management software” throw up for us?
        What archives, if any, will remain?

        (From RoHa. My user name no longer appears.)

      • davemreed on August 4, 2018, 7:11 pm

        Hi RoHa, as you can see the usernames have been restored. Some of them had disappeared because those users had a blank “nickname” field in their user profile, and the site was pulling a blank space as the display name. We forced it to pull the username and the problem was solved. Issues with the recent comments page are more difficult to fix because of how that page is coded.

      • Keith on August 4, 2018, 10:38 am

        SIBIRIAK- “Yes, yes, yes! Excellent advice.”

        I’m dissappointed. On your resume you said that you were looking for a challenge. What gives?


    • echinococcus on August 4, 2018, 12:08 am

      By the way, Dave, the only improvement most have been asking for was a ‘reply’ button under each message. Not there.

      More importantly, now there is no way to find the message one wants to reply to. The cute little bell is useless, as it refers to the whole article, not the particular post. Same for the profile pages.

      Instead of buying new software, I’d get professional advice if I were in your shoes, which I am not.

      • davemreed on August 4, 2018, 7:15 pm

        The link in the new notifications tool does take you directly to the comment. An issue we identified was that some elements on the page are loading late, causing the page to “jump” downward so that the target comment may not be displayed. This is obviously annoying and not what’s intended and we’ll try to find a fix. I explained the reply link issue in another comment response.

  6. JLewisDickerson on July 29, 2018, 5:27 pm

    RE: “The Jewish establishment’s ‘war against Corbyn’ risks bringing real anti-Semitism to Britain”

    “What My Escape From Hitler’s Germany Taught Me About Trump’s America”
    • And what Trump’s America teaches us about Netanyahu’s Israel.
    By Henry Siegman | | July 27, 2018
    LINK ~

    • JLewisDickerson on July 29, 2018, 5:52 pm

      RE: Others including a Jewish Labour MP, Dame Margaret Hodge, felt it justified to call her party leader “a fucking anti-Semite and racist” to his face. This despite Corbyn’s record on fighting racism which looks a whole lot more impressive than just about any other MP at Westminster, certainly Margaret Hodge, as this piece from David Rosenberg shows.

      DAVID ROSENBERG: . . . You have chosen a side, Margaret. It is the wrong one. As The Beat sang about another Margaret, “Stand Down, Margaret, stand down please!”

      The Beat – Stand Down Margaret (Extended Version)

  7. Keith on July 29, 2018, 5:29 pm

    ROBERT COHEN- “Others including a Jewish Labour MP, Dame Margaret Hodge, felt it justified to call her party leader “a fucking anti-Semite and racist” to his face.”

    Ah, the new royalty takes umbrage that a commoner was insufficiently servile. A preview of things to come?

  8. Ossinev on July 29, 2018, 6:49 pm

    And this BS just goes on and on and on and on and on. Headlining the BBC online news this evening. No not Brexit.No not the NHS. No not the UK economy . No not the impact of the recent severe weather conditions in the UK. No definitely not the recently enacted Apartheid legislation in the Light unto the Nations (Apartheid South Africa Mark 2) Guess what it is the alleged Anti – Semitism within the Labout Party:

    Yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn. Whinge whine whinge whine. Stuff the real needs concerns problems of the other 95% of the British problem. The absolute priority is to prevent an honourable politician who happens to have loathed and fought against racism of all kinds throughout his life including the particularly ugly and barbaric Zionist variety from becoming UK PM. OMG the very thought = someone who is openly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. They are seriously fouling their underwear over this.

    Nothing else matters to the Zio Israel Firsters and their nauseating get rid of JC at all costs so called “Labour” collaborators

    The attacks are now definitely becoming very personal and vile which is a sure sign of desperation The response from the Labour Leadership which has been criticised as being too appeasing has nevertheless been measured, objective and placatory and this in turn must be further enraging the pit bull Zios and their Blairite poodles.

  9. JWalters on July 29, 2018, 7:46 pm

    How can one half of one percent of Britain’s population exert such a huge influence on its politics? The standard answer for outsized influence, we now know, is “follow the money”.

    The very early English aristocracy’s power was based on land holdings. Agriculture was the main source of wealth. With the advent of large ships capable of (reasonably) safely sailing the Atlantic, trade became a primary source of wealth. And with large-scale trade came large-scale banking.

    In 1689 a group of bankers based in Amsterdam colluded with William of Orange to take over the English throne. In return, the new King William chartered a bank owned by these bankers, with himself as a partner to share in the profits. The bank was named the Bank of England, despite its being entirely privately owned.

    Prior to this bank, when additional currency was needed in the English economy to handle the growth of economic activity (inevitable with a growing population), the king created the new currency and spent it into the economy on projects such as roads. But with the new bank in place, new currency was created by this bank, and loaned to the government, to be repaid with interest. That is, all new money created was the property of this bank, and the government now had to go into debt to build the roads. These bankers naturally became fabulously wealthy, including King William.

    In 1815 the London branch of the Rothschild bank captured control of the Bank of England by creating a false panic over the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo. Now the new money went disproportionately to the Rothschild bank. Such stupendous wealth enables buying up the media and the politicians.

    The above history is recounted in Ellen Brown’s excellent book, The Web of Debt.

    The Rothschild bank financed the establishment of Israel. Lord Jacob Rothschild acknowledged this on the 100th anniversary of the so-called “Balfour Declaration”, which was in a letter from Prime Minister Balfour to his uncle, Walter Rothschild.

    In modern politics, power flows from the barrel of a bank account. As another example of the power of “donors”, “Rabbis want to criticize Israel but fear donors (and NYT buries the news)”

    The above example is also important because it shows how the interest of the “donors” is not always aligned with the interests of the community at large. The “donors” can sacrifice the interests of that community to pursue their own interests, while still using that community to justify bogus claims of anti-Semitism.

    As other example, former Senator James Abourezk wrote, “I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear—fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress—at least when I served there—have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public.”

    For new MW readers, an excellent sketch of modern Zionist power in America is in Philip Weiss’s excellent piece, “Let’s talk about Russian influence”

    • MHughes976 on July 30, 2018, 1:18 pm

      There was a certain involvement of Amsterdam Jewish financiers on both sides of the Civil War of the 1640s and this fact persuaded the two main postwar leaders, Cromwell and (more effectively) Charles II, that it was essential for Britain’s development that Jewish businesses be allowed freedom to operate here. Otherwise we would have been outclassed by the Dutch. I don’t think we should regret that in any way. It was good for religious liberty.
      I wouldn’t refer in words suggestive of conspiracy to William III’s regime. He too promoted religious liberty and stopped the diastrous expansionism – accompanied with the severest intolerance of the time – of Louis XIV. Though W did secure a famous loan from Abraham Suasso this was part of the general consensus of the Amsterdam business community. Louis was so frightening outside France that W was also financed, though nor explicitly for his English purposes, by the Pope, or so it is often said.
      I think that the roots of the current anti-anti-Semitic onrush are much more recent, part of our sense of righteousness derived from WW2. We put down the marker that stopped Hitler, the great anti-Semite. We have grievously misled ourselves in our reflection on these events.

      • JWalters on July 30, 2018, 7:45 pm

        “It was good for religious liberty.”

        Lord Rothschild exercises his religious liberty by financing the slaughter and robbery of an entire population of innocent people, for “that sacred goal, the return of Israel to its ancestral homeland”, twenty centuries after the fact. This thinking is clearly pathological to any normal, modern person, and completely inonsistent with any modern notion of “religious liberty”. For instance, he makes NO MENTION of the thousands of human sacrifices he has financed for his “sacred goal”. And the entire Zionist establishment follows his lead today on this tactic of selective silence. Coincidence? I doubt it.

        It looks like Lord Rothschild has the British establishment by the balls. But it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of them, like the U.S. Congress described above by Senator Abourezk, resent it.

      • MHughes976 on July 31, 2018, 4:09 am

        All ideas in the religious sphere or concerning religion – even atheism – can become involved, God knows, in excess, fanaticism (which means, I think, excessive devotion to shrines) and crime. That is one reason why there should be freedom, no domination or exclusion, in these matters. So I’m pleased to think that owing to King Charles’ good sense in these matters (he lacked it in others) the Bevis Marks synagogue of 1670 is the oldest continuously and openly operating one in Europe. It is thought that there had been a synagogue in London for some decades before, operating discreetly in the absence of any relevant law or government declaration.

      • gamal on July 31, 2018, 10:51 am

        “That is one reason why there should be freedom, no domination or exclusion, in these matters”

        Alberto Toscano, the philosopher writes below, I mean if the fanatic didn’t exist would we not have to create him? The crazy guy who we can divest of rights and property?

        “The introduction of the concept of fanaticism into the debate on today’s ideological conflicts indeed seems to lean more towards cultural and psychological causes than political, strategic, and material ones. Fanaticism often appears as an invariable that transcends historical events, or even, in an Orientalist and racist vein, a characteristic of fantastical entities such as “the Arab mind”. The anti-historicity of the concept in part allows for its often arbitrary and hypocritical use. Fanaticism, as we cannot help but notice with painful frequency, is often projected onto an enemy with which, by definition, one cannot negotiate. As Amos Oz writes in How to Cure a Fanatic, “it is enough to read the newspaper, or watch the news on television, to explain the ease with which people become fanatically anti-fanatic, anti-fundamentalist, with which they undertake an anti-Jihad crusade”.3 Words that ironically gain weight when one notes that the very same Oz, who advocates “imagining” the Other, was initially spurred by the recent war in Lebanon to abandon his own reasoning, proposing an apologia for Israel and a demonization of Hezbollah that fails any test, empirical or moral. Alone the Orwellian title of one of his recent opinion pieces gives us a sense of the dangers of partisan anti-fanaticism: “Why Israeli missiles strike for peace”.4

        The growing use of the term “fanaticism” to identify the dangers of the present, particularly the exacerbation of religious politics and the terrorist phenomenon, is rarely accompanied by a reflection on the genealogy of the term and the variety of its applications.”

        and interviewed by Gisle Selnes

        When the so-called war on terror started in 2001, fanaticism seemed epidemic, with endless discourses about terrorism, its prevention, Islam and its radicalization; even though the word fanaticism wasn’t always used, there emerged an ensemble of statements and discourses that nevertheless revealed a kind of monotonous commonality. At the beginning of the book I quote the fact that even in one of Obama’s pre-presidential texts – the 2004 preface to Dreams from My Father, where he lays out his supposedly progressive vision for the United States – he latched on to this notion or figure of the fanatic as the nemesis of all things liberal and civilized. So there was a kind of short circuit between the history of philosophy and the presence of “fanaticism” in the domain of everyday speech, the press, the speeches of politicians, in the rationale for invasions and occupations and the like. In other words, it was in the combination of a very speculative question and a very concrete and political one that the idea of the book crystallized”

        “No domination” the only people within any structure or society that are free are the rebellious often derided as fanatics, criminals, heretics, ideological criminals, a social pathology etc for their determination to avoid the life evacuating power of the “proper order”, but everyone and I mean everyone wants to come our parties, it’s just a fact of life, no use complaining, afterall

        “In a letter of Voltaire to Jean le Rond D’Alembert, he praises Catherine II for having sent Russian troops to Poland “to preach tolerance with bayonets at the ends of their rifles”. “

      • jon s on August 1, 2018, 2:38 am

        Mhughes, I seem to recall that Cromwell is usually credited with allowing the Jews to return, and that it happened without a formal declaration: Conversos had arrived in England , reverted there to Judaism, and established a community which was tolerated de facto.

      • MHughes976 on August 1, 2018, 10:32 am

        I think, jon, that the very interesting story unfolded through, as you say, at first through de facto toleration amid quite a lot of uncertainty which Jews wanted to see removed or alleviated through some official statement. In the 1650s under Cromwell there was war with Spain and some people charged with being enemy aliens, liable to confiscation of goods, began to bring the de facto situation into the open by claiming that they were Jewish refugees from Spanish persecution.
        Into this situation stepped Manasseh b. Israel of Amsterdam, previously author of a book called Conciliador, arguing against the existence of inconsistencies in the scriptures, one of his students being the incipiently scandalous B. Spinoza. He was increasingly into millenarian preaching and got on well with Christians of similar temper. He wrote to Cromwell, who convened a conference to of various notables to discuss the topic in December 1655. Two judges present declared that there was no legal objection to Jewish presence. Cromwell ‘ingeniously evaded’ the question of desirability rather than legality – at least that’s the view of the Jewish Encyclopaedia, which, though dating from 1906, seems to me to put the matter best. The conference ended inconclusively but by 1657 Jewish confidence had grown to the point of founding a discreet but not really secret synagogue in Cree Lane, which Samuel Pepys visited in 1663. In that interval the schemes of the possibly Jewish anti-Jewish conspirator Thomas Violet had failed – he had planned to entrap them, more or less all, into a currency counterfeiting scheme. The King had received a Jewish delegation who complained of what we might call anti-Semitic remarks and threats at which he ‘chuckled and spat’ – so says Antonia Fraser in her bio – and gave assurances that he was totally against that kind of thing. On August 22, 1664, he issued the much-desired Order in Council which began the formal regularisation of the Jewish position in England. Many steps had to be taken before most Jews ceased to be regarded as foreigners. It’s interesting to ask whether the problem should have been attacked more dramatically or whether step-by- slow step sometimes works.
        It’s also interesting to imagine a tutorial involving Manasseh and Spinoza representing two points of Jewish and Chrstian convergence, end-time preaching and critical Bible study, both so much with us still and both always provoking some displeasure. It was during M’s absence in London that Spinoza got thrown out of the synagogue, which must have been a slap to M’s face as well. It seems that the Jews of London didn’t like him that much, perhaps because they didn’t want him barging in or they thought he was a bit of a crackpot. They decided to appoint a rabbi from Hamburg.

      • gamal on August 1, 2018, 12:08 pm

        “and critical Bible study”

        have you heard of your fellow Christians Theodore Abu Qurra, who is said to have been at the Palestinian monastery at Mar Saba, or Habib ibn Khidma Abu Raita Al Takriti, from Saddam Husseins home town, he was the Jacobite who wrote “refutation of the Melkites” or Ammar al Basri the nestorian they all took part in extensive munazarat or public disputations with muslim scholars i think a book by Al Allaf maybe not extant but is in a list called kitab ala Ammar al nasrani fi l rad al nasara which is book against Ammar and in refutation of the Christians..the disputes are interesting if you into that sort of thing Theo Abu Qurra would be a good place to start.

      • jon s on August 1, 2018, 1:56 pm

        Thank you for the additional information.
        Two further notes regarding R. Menasseh b.Israel:

        1.A possible motive for his efforts to reintroduce Jews to England was his idea that it would fulfill prophecy and thus hasten Redemption. He based the idea on
        Deuteronomy 28:64 ” And the Lord will scatter you among all the nations, from one end of the earth to the other…”. As long as the Jews are absent from England , which he considered “the end of the earth” the prophecy is not fulfilled and therefore the Messiah is held up.

        2. An etching by Rembrandt may be his portrait :

      • RoHa on August 2, 2018, 9:37 pm

        ‘England , which he considered “the end of the earth”’

        Which is odd, since anyone who has been there knows that it is the centre of the Earth. (That’s why the Prime Meridian starts there.)

        Scotland, on the other hand …

    • Keith on July 30, 2018, 3:17 pm

      JWALTERS- “How can one half of one percent of Britain’s population exert such a huge influence on its politics?”

      I suspect that they can count on help from American Zionists. There is a reason they call the World Zionist Organization the World Zionist Organization.

      • JWalters on July 30, 2018, 7:57 pm

        Not sure how much weight American Zionists have in Britain. They’re definitely a force in America. And they provide some demographic cover for the bribery. Mark Shields, in discussing Trump’s moving the embassy to Jerusalem, made Evangelicals the main force on Trump. Sheldon Adelson’s billions got barely a mention, like he just happened to be there.

      • Sibiriak on July 30, 2018, 10:49 pm

        JWalters: How can one half of one percent of Britain’s population exert such a huge influence on its politics?”

        Attacks on Corybyn and, more broadly, pro-Israel ideology and all the propaganda that supports it, serve powerful, entrenched non-Jewish interests in Britain.

        If there wasn’t that alignment of Jewish Zionist interests with non-Jewish elite interests, the influence of that “one half of one percent” would be drastically diminished.

      • Keith on July 31, 2018, 12:29 am

        JWALTERS- “Not sure how much weight American Zionists have in Britain.”

        Not sure of how much weight the empire has in Britain? Surely you jest.

      • Bumblebye on July 31, 2018, 7:36 pm

        Whenever I/P becomes newsworthy, I’ve noticed that the talking heads invited to comment, or throw in their opinions on the matter via BBC radio are from the most right-wing US think-tanks. That must surely be connected to the number of not just Conservative placemen in the bbc news hierarchy, but also the fact that many of those are zionist (and not all Jewish). Complaints have had no impact. Always framed and controlled to minimise Israeli responsibility.

        On the ‘antisemitism’ issue the stories (it ain’t news) are framed to maximise Labour flaws while never noting either Stern’s recommendations re the examples, OR those of the govt panel which suggested the same changes that Labour made. And it’s blown up to the most ridiculous proportions.

        Craig Murray has an interesting perspective on the media behavior, born out of his own experiences as a diplomat:

      • JWalters on August 1, 2018, 6:06 pm

        Bumblebye, thanks for that link to the excellent Craig Murray essay. It’s a vivid, first-hand account by a deep insider of how “good” civil servants and reporters are coerced into being evil tools of the men behind the curtain.

      • JWalters on August 1, 2018, 6:16 pm

        Sibiriak, I agree completely. And when somebody has you by the balls, you can get aligned pretty fast. bumblebye’s link to Craig Murray’s report is a highly relevant example of how that can work.

  10. MHughes976 on July 30, 2018, 4:23 am

    I have confidence in this country about some things and agree with Mr. Cohen that anti-Semitism in the traditional and so far normal sense of that word, = hostility or prejudice against Jews or things Jewish, is by no means rife in the Labour Party. I would add that it is not rife in our society generally and never will be. Anti-Zionism may grow stronger – and sympathy for Corbyn in the face of foul-mouthed rants – may grow but we are not the people to make any humane and rational cause violent and mind-poisoning. We’re not like that.
    The question of anti-S under the IHRA def remains. The def itself does not, as it stands, imply logically that believing that Israel is a racist endeavour is anti-S. Israeli Zionism has always called for people who are Jewish, where ‘Jewish’ is a term significantly defined by reference to ancestry, to have certain exclusive rights. Any fairly large group of people defined that way is – normal usage again – commonly called a race, and claims to exclusive rights for a race are commonly called racist. I say this without invoking or in any way presupposing – without even implying – a negative perception of Jews. So I would say that I’m not anti-S unless the definition is extended by stipulation to include people who say what I’ve just said.

  11. HarryLaw on July 30, 2018, 5:50 am

    Why is the IHRA definition of anti-semitism 500 plus words, including those 11 ‘examples’, 7 related to Israel necessary, when the Oxford English Dictionary definition of anti-Semitism, ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ is quite sufficient? The answer is the former is politically motivated and is tailored to include criticism of Israel, a right a major political party cannot afford to relinquish, hence the attacks on Corbyn. It must be said Corbyn does not stand up to these attacks as I think he should, always on the defensive, of course he is surrounded by appeasers like John Mcdonnell who will do anything to make these accusations just go away. Corbyn’s attitude should be, if you don’t run away, they cannot chase you.

  12. Boomer on July 30, 2018, 7:56 am

    Thanks for this excellent report on developments in the UK. I had seen some references to this before, but as an American who doesn’t follow the news from Great Britain in detail, I had been unclear about some points.

    You are understandably concerned about the potential for a future rise in anti-Semitism in the UK. That seems unlikely to me, but as I said, I don’t know a lot about the details of life there. As for me, I’m more concerned about the potential that a powerful Western democracy will support a policy of dispossessing Palestinians, making them homeless, stateless people without rights, and oppressing them in a variety of ways.

    Oh, wait. That has actually been happening for a long time.

  13. NickJOCW on July 30, 2018, 10:33 am

    Most UK citizens find these accusations of antisemitism remote, incomprehensible even, certainly boring. We know what antisemitism is and it doesn’t need to be defined, trying to define it only leads to nitty-gritty dispute. Principally it is anti-social acts like desecrating buildings, or leveling attacks on Jews, attempting to stir others to such actions, and so on, which are crimes anyway, exactly the same crimes whoever the victim. I hold no torch for Corbyn but he is not a racist; his views on Palestine are natural; the oppression of the Palestinian people is seriously distasteful and would be so whatever group was perpetrating it. It is not ordinary non-Jewish folk who create pressure on Israel’s actions but the actions themselves, and those like Netanyahu and his ilk who distorted things by pretending to represent all Jews. When we faced the ugliness of South African apartheid no one viewed it other than a local geographical issue of a specific group of white settlers applying rigid discrimination, legislation, and land theft against the indigenous people, which is exactly the what it is over there. Just as with South Africa, it has to be resolved by external pressure. It is understandable that Israelis attempt to resist such pressure, and their accusations of antisemitism are feather smoke blown in our eyes. Dame Margaret Hodge is an ill-mannered nut-case but there are, alas, several of them on both sides in the Commons. The solution is not to worry too much about antisemitism but get on with BDS, which has been cruising down the runway too long and needs to take off.

  14. Rashers2 on July 30, 2018, 12:35 pm

    @HarryLaw, agree fully about the OED’s definition – seems perfectly adequate and any embroidery or embellishment highly politically suspect….
    “Corbyn’s attitude should be, ‘if you don’t run away, they cannot chase you.'” I, too, have been disappointed at Corbyn’s lack of robustness when it comes to the allegations of anti-Semitism against him. Maybe it’s naïveté but I can’t help believing that, if he turned round and asked in a clear voice, “Because I stand up for the abused and dispossessed; and against illegal, egregious acts of violence, cruelty and theft, how DARE you try to tar me with the same racist/supremacist brush which taints the perpetrators of that violence, cruelty and theft?”, he’d get a round of applause from most people and the lowlife apologists for Israel and Zionism responsible for the attacks on Corbyn might scuttle back under their stones – if only in shock that someone – for once – had shown them the middle finger.

  15. Ossinev on July 30, 2018, 1:51 pm

    “Most UK citizens find these accusations of antisemitism remote, incomprehensible even, certainly boring. We know what antisemitism is and it doesn’t need to be defined, trying to define it only leads to nitty-gritty dispute. Principally it is anti-social acts like desecrating buildings, or leveling attacks on Jews, attempting to stir others to such actions, and so on, which are crimes anyway, exactly the same crimes whoever the victim”

    Neatly summarised and underpins the fact that this increasingly hilarious witch hunt is based not on tangible evidence as you have described but on warped twisted perceptions and ludicrous hype. The objective of the Israeli Firsters in the UK is clearly to attempt to neuter open and democratic discussion and criticism of Israel and its actions. As the Al Jazeera undercover operation clearly revealed this is prompted and orchestrated by Zioland and is quite simply blatant interference by a foreign government in the UK`s political processes.

    I would certainly add that IMO UK citizens will increasingly find these grotesque allegations deeply insulting given the role this country played and paid a huge price for in fighting Fascism and Nazism.

    Whatever one thinks of Corbyn`s response and it is arguable that he may have been naive in underestimating the sheer evil of those who started this campaign and the disgusting hypocrisy of the likes of Hodge/Mann etc who have been complicit in the crime he has at least been calm and consistent in his response. It is this latter which I think has frustrated the Zioland stooges in the various organisations which claim to represent “all Jews” here in the UK.

    As you have said it has become boring but each new chapter serves to educate the UK public about the activities of these Fifth Columnists.

    To get an idea of just how unhinged these Israel Firsters are have a read of these thoughts from that towering intellect Mad Melanie Phillips:

    Got to go now multiple breaches of the IHRA AS definition don`t you know . Expecting a knock on the door by the UK branch of the Zio thought police at any moment and am feeling seriously existentially threatened.

    • HarryLaw on July 30, 2018, 4:36 pm

      Ossinev, “The real task, therefore, is not to adopt the IHRA wording. It is to start telling the British public that virtually everything they hear about Israel from the media and intelligentsia is a lie; that anyone who supports Palestinianism is endorsing the most profound and demonic kind of antisemitism; and that Israel stands unambiguously for law, justice, truth and human rights, and that those who vilify it are themselves repudiating all these things”.
      Now everyone knows why they call her ‘Mad Mel’.

  16. Emet on July 30, 2018, 2:30 pm

    Robert, you would not know what real antisemitism was even if it punched you in the nose. Protestants, Anglicans and Muslims in the UK need no introduction to hating Jews. They are practiced experts at it. Jews were banned from Britain for 350 years but Robert would like not be told such stories. That’s right, three hundred and fifty years.

    • Mooser on July 30, 2018, 3:17 pm

      “Jews were banned from Britain for 350 year”

      “Emet”, you just keep telling Britains they owe Jews something for that.
      I’m sure you can collect on the debt.

    • John O on July 30, 2018, 3:21 pm

      Then they were allowed to return by more enlightened governments and have enjoyed full civil rights, and provided this nation with some of its most admired sons and daughters – from 18th century bareknuckle boxer Daniel Mendoza (an ancestor of Peter Sellers) to Amy Winehouse.

      Frankly, Emet, if you can’t let go of the historical past you will be shackled to its miseries for ever.

      • Emet on July 31, 2018, 9:18 am

        John O, if you don’t learn from the past then you are bound to repeat the mistakes of your forefathers. Anyone up for a Crusade?

      • eljay on July 31, 2018, 10:27 am

        || Emet: … if you don’t learn from the past then you are bound to repeat the mistakes … ||

        People study the past in order to learn how to avoid the mistakes.

        Zionists studied the past in order to learn how to repeat the mistakes for the benefit of Jewish supremacists.

      • echinococcus on July 31, 2018, 11:12 am

        This Ziobot working for the Crusader Kingdom is so Z that he is asking who’s up for a Crusade.
        These people in their cocoon have cut themselves off from even elementary history, to say nothing of logic.

      • John O on July 31, 2018, 12:22 pm

        @Emet. Nope. Nobody’s been up for a crusade since the Middle Ages, the period in which you appear to have become stuck.

      • Mooser on July 31, 2018, 1:39 pm

        “John O, if you don’t learn from the past then you are bound to repeat the mistakes of your forefathers. Anyone up for a Crusade?” “Emet”

        ROTFLMSJAO!!! Only the Zionists, “Emet”, only the Zionists.

        Gosh, “Emet” anything in the Jewish past we can learn from? I know! This time we’ll have more sicari to keep the laggards in line!

      • Talkback on July 31, 2018, 2:16 pm

        Emet: “John O, if you don’t learn from the past then you are bound to repeat the mistakes of your forefathers.”

        Yes, those poor people of Canaan. Another invasion by the same people.

    • Talkback on July 30, 2018, 3:33 pm

      It must have punched you so many times in your face that it messed up with your brain, Sheqer.

      Here’s what you call antisemitism:
      “Israel [in 1967] had one option to defeat the Arabs and Muslim armies, and that was by a preemptive attack. War was already declared by the blocking of the shipping lanes by Egypt. International Law is not consistent and goes many ways, especially when Israel is mentioned. It’s called antisemitism.”

      Now besides the fact that Egypts blocking of shipping lanes is not a casus bellli except for a state that has been planning its aggression for decades to conquer and settle in even more land you really believe that not only a “preemptive attack” was necessary (it wasn’t according to Israel’s after war confessions), but that international law would see such an attack as a legitimate defense according to article 51 of the UN Charter. But it isn’t. And just based on your self lies and idiocies you claim that “international law” is not consistent, when Israel is mentioned and that this would be antisemitism.

      I tell you what you call antisemitism. Your own dishonesty and ignorance about international law, based on your racist and fascist need to defend the morally indefensible. Because nothing what you present as being antisemitism has ANYTHING to do with hatred against Jews for being Jews. It is just a word you use to mask your own deep rooted racism. You need proof? Tell us one single violation of international law that Israel commits. You can’t. You are dishonest to the bone. That’s why you need to call yourself “emet”. It is something that you will never achieve. You were caught far to many times lying and lying and lying.

      Shame on you!

    • Keith on July 30, 2018, 4:43 pm

      EMET- “Jews were banned from Britain for 350 years but Robert would like not be told such stories. That’s right, three hundred and fifty years.”

      This is a perfect example of the mangling of real history to construct a Jewish Zionist myth-history to justify Zionist actions. The reality is that medieval Jews filled a specialized economic niche where they served strong unpopular kings in administering the non-Jewish society. I provide two long relevant paragraphs.

      “In fact, classical Judaism flourishes best under strong regimes which are dissociated from most classes in society, and in such regimes fulfil one of the functions of the middle class – but in a permanently dependent form. For this reason they are opposed not only by the peasantry (whose opposition is then unimportant, except for the occasional and rare popular revolt) but more importantly by the non-Jewish middle class (which was on the rise in Europe), and by the plebian part of the clergy; and they are protected by the upper clergy and nobility. But in those countries where, feudal anarchy having been curbed, the nobility enters into partnership with the king (and at least with some of the bourgeoisie) to rule the state, which assumes a national or proto-national form, the position of the Jews deteriorates.
      Since the first period of Jewish residence in England was so brief, and coincided with the development of the English national feudal monarchy, this country can serve as the best illustration of the above scheme. Jews were brought over to England by William the Conqueror, as part of the French-speaking Norman ruling class, with the primary duty of granting loans to those lords, spiritual and temporal, who were otherwise unable to pay their feudal dues (which were particularly heavy in England and more rigorously exacted in that period than in any other European monarchy). Their greatest royal patron was Henry II, and the Magna Carta marked the beginning of their decline, which continued during the conflict of the barons with Henry III. The temporary resolution of this conflict by Edward I, with the formation of Parliament and of ‘ordinary’ and fixed taxation, was accompanied by the expulsion of the Jews.”
      (p56, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” Israel Shahak)

      • jon s on July 31, 2018, 7:20 am

        The reality was that the Jews were, indeed, expelled by Edward I. Not a myth, it really happened , even according to Prof. Shahak. Also, the first medieval ritual murder (“blood libel” ) accusation (William of Norwich, 1144) occured in England.

      • Keith on July 31, 2018, 11:09 am

        JONS- “The reality was that the Jews were, indeed, expelled by Edward I. Not a myth, it really happened , even according to Prof. Shahak. Also, the first medieval ritual murder (“blood libel” ) accusation (William of Norwich, 1144) occured in England.

        You (intentionally?) miss the point. Events must be evaluated in historical context. The history of the Jews must be evaluated in relation to their economic niche, their exploitive relation to the peasantry, and to the ongoing power struggles in which they played a role. The ongoing attempt to misrepresent this as some sort of intrinsic Gentile hatred of Jews because they are Jews is a false narrative. William the Conqueror didn’t hate the Jewish Norman nobility he brought into England as official money lenders. And their specialized function didn’t endear them to the conquered and exploited populace. It is not as if a group of Jewish peasants (there weren’t any) migrated from France and wished to settle down and assimilate, is it? As for the history of the so-called “blood libel,” I am not knowledgeable on that, nor am I concerned about it. This ongoing fixation on incidents of medieval anti-Semitism, taken out of context without regard to the overall course of events is the stuff of myth-history. A different perspective would be that the Jews came over to England as conquerors and money lenders who contributed to the plight of the peasants. Also, medieval European Jews exhibited more than a little anti-Gentilism, particularly against the Gentile peasants who they looked down upon. And the ongoing reckless and incessant charges of anti-Semitism are a continuation of the ideological demonization of non-Jews. According to Shahak, Zionism is a throwback to the ideology of Classical (medieval) Judaism, albeit in secular form.

      • Talkback on July 31, 2018, 11:17 am

        Keith: “As for the history of the so-called “blood libel,” I am not knowledgeable on that, nor am I concerned about it.”

        Well, for those who are concerned:

      • echinococcus on July 31, 2018, 1:42 pm


        For those who are concerned, that is not authoritative history. The only up-to-date work is by Prof. Ariel Toaff (History chair of Bar-Ilan U and son of Rabbi Elio Toaff), Pasque di Sangue, 2007. I believe there is no English translation anywhere on the net of the original version, i.e. before it was retracted-Goldstoned following the usual worldwide outcry and political condemnation.

      • Keith on July 31, 2018, 3:36 pm

        TALKBACK- “Well, for those who are concerned”

        Why are you concerned about this? Why should we be concerned about it? Is this a balanced picture of Jewish life in medieval Europe?

      • echinococcus on July 31, 2018, 10:51 pm

        Following up, for those concerned (even though it’s not immediately relevant to the discussion), it seems that the English translation is on the Internet after all

      • Talkback on August 1, 2018, 3:08 am

        Keith: “Why are you concerned about this? Why should we be concerned about it? Is this a balanced picture of Jewish life in medieval Europe?”

        We should be always concerned about the various forms of racism against every people. And blood lible and other defamatory accusations against Jews as such is nothing medieval.

      • Keith on August 1, 2018, 10:01 am

        TALKBACK- “And blood lible and other defamatory accusations against Jews as such is nothing medieval.”

        Has there been an upsurge in accusations of Jewish use of Gentile blood?

        TALKBACK- “We should be always concerned about the various forms of racism against every people.”

        Are you concerned about racism against every people or do you focus on a particular group? It was Jon S who brought up the topic of Blood Libel in medieval England and you who linked to a Jewish (Zionist?) version of events. I still fail to see the relevance of something which may have occurred in 1144 and was wondering why Jon S and you were dredging it up. Hence, my question of whether this represented a balanced picture of Jewish life in medieval Europe. Also, what does this tell us about the life of Jews in the UK in 2018? Bear in mind that my initial comment was in response to Emet’s irresponsible charge of Jew-hatred by British Protestants, Anglicans and Muslims. I was simply wondering about your focus on blood libel. Your response about we should always be concerned about racism is rather evasive, don’t you think? I leave you with a quote.

        “All modern studies on Judaism, particularly by Jews, have evolved from that conflict, and to this day they bear the unmistakable marks of their origin: deception, apologetics or hostile polemics, indifference or even active hostility to the pursuit of truth. Almost all the so-called “Jewish studies in Judaism,” from that time to this very day, are polemics against an external enemy rather than an internal debate.” (p22, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Israel Shahak)

      • echinococcus on August 1, 2018, 12:51 pm


        Sure, it’s important to be “always concerned about the various forms of racism against every people. And blood lible and other defamatory accusations against Jews as such is nothing medieval.” But then it’s even more important to have a good look at serious history and see exactly what is the latest knowledge before spreading BBC platitudes. Just wholesale denial without examination won’t do.
        Have a look at that link.

      • Talkback on August 3, 2018, 5:07 am

        Chill guys. I was simply responding to Keith’s “I am not knowledgeable on that, nor am I concerned about it.” And I provided a link for those who are concerned. Don’t be hysterical about it.

      • echinococcus on August 3, 2018, 8:48 am


        Where do you see hysteria? It’s one of the few soft-spoken discussions here, in fact. You provided a BBC link for those concerned.
        Keith wrote back that medieval happenings are not relevant to the initial discussion, while expounding his historic analysis.
        I observed that, while none of this is relevant to what was being discussed at the start, your BBC link is pure official propaganda and there is solid historical research re “blood libel”, that has been silenced by the usual worldwide Zionist outcry instead of any historical research.

      • Keith on August 3, 2018, 3:11 pm

        TALKBACK- ” Don’t be hysterical about it.”

        Interesting reply to my questions, but not unexpected in view of your previous responses. In response to Jon S that I wasn’t going to discuss accusations of Blood Libel in Britain circa 1144 CE, I made the point that “This ongoing fixation on incidents of medieval anti-Semitism, taken out of context without regard to the overall course of events is the stuff of myth-history.” You responded by linking to a somewhat recent BBC article discussing Jews in Britain which mentioned purported Blood Libel accusations in 1144 CE. Obviously, you think we should be interested in accusations of Blood Libel in 1144 CE or you wouldn’t have provided the link. You later commented that “blood lible and other defamatory accusations against Jews as such is nothing medieval.” This was in your evasive response to my questions regarding why we should be interested in “Blood Libel” circa 1144 CE, and whether this incident, viewed in isolation, represented an accurate and balanced view of Jewish circumstances in medieval Europe. More questions followed which you continued to evade, now going on the offensive and accusing me of being hysterical and advising me to chill.

        The problem, Talkback, is that our perception of current events is colored by our understanding of historical events. It has been obvious to me for some time that Jewish-Zionist depiction of history is, in reality, a myth-history composed of a collection of purported anti-Semitic events, no doubt many real, culled out of a much broader reality of actual Jewish life as Jews interacted with the surrounding Gentile community as they performed their niche economic function. This in addition to their role in the struggle for power among the various Gentile groupings. In short, a myth-history which serves primarily to demonize non-Jews, “polemics against an external enemy.” (Shahak) I attempted to initiate a discussion with you regarding why you thought that Blood Libel was relevant to the current situation regarding Corbyn, a discussion you obviously don’t want to have. No problem. Your last response more-or-less confirmed my suspicions. And Talkback, I am as chilled as can be.

      • Talkback on August 4, 2018, 5:56 am

        Accusations of blood lible against Jews did not only happen in medieval times. And we should also be concerned about racism against Jews.

        I don’t care, if anyone needs to contest these simple statements and blow them out of proportions.

    • Mooser on July 30, 2018, 6:23 pm

      “Jews were banned from Britain for 350 years “

      No “Emet”, not all, only the bad ones.

      • MHughes976 on July 31, 2018, 4:26 am

        ‘England has been all she could be to the Jews, Jews will be all they can be to England’ declared the Jewish Chronicle of August 1914, recorded on August 1, 2014. Wartime rhetoric tends to excess but these were the words of people who were neither really ill informed nor really insincere. A higher proportion of Jews, I understand, served as officers rather than other ranks, a testimony to their educational and social status, and an equal proportion were awarded the Victoria Cross.

      • Mooser on July 31, 2018, 1:41 pm

        ” and an equal proportion were awarded the Victoria Cross.”

        And looked honored and confused in equal measure.

    • Talkback on July 31, 2018, 12:22 am

      Emet: “Jews were banned from Britain for 350 years but Robert would like not be told such stories. That’s right, three hundred and fifty years.”

      Would you like to tell us for how many years the Palestinian refugees and their descendants will be banned from Israel? Let me guess, at least 1000 years? And is this Jewish antisemitism towards Palestininians, Arabs, Muslim or Nonjews?

    • RoHa on July 31, 2018, 1:53 am

      Wow! I know of troublemakers being barred from pubs, but to be barred from a whole country!

      Well, eventually they were allowed back. For a while they were left alone to be moneylenders and jewellers, but even then many of the poor, oppressed, British Jews ended up in the boardrooms of industry and finance.

      That wasn’t bad enough for the Jew-hating British.

      Jews were pushed into leading positions in the arts, academia, medicine, law, and so forth.

      They were driven to become professors, and forced to do scientific research, or write lengthy tomes on the humanities.

      They had to serve as actors and producers, as solicitors and barristers, as doctors and surgeons.

      But all that was at the hands of the establishment. The general population vented its spite in the worst of all ways.

      The elected Jews to Parliament.

      The result of this was that sometimes Jews suffered the torment of being leaders of the famously anti-Semitic political parties. A number of the poor sods became Cabinet Ministers! They end up with a seat in the Lords!*

      One weeps for them.

      Nor are these horrors limited to Britain. The picture is much the same in Australia. To give just two examples, in WW1 the Australian Army in Europe was commanded by General John Monash, after whom a university is named, and the first Australian-born GG was Isaac Isaacs.

      (*All though he at least once referred to himself as a Jew, Disraeli was brought up as a Christian. That did not save him from the indignity of being Queen Victoria’s favourite Prime Minister.)

      • echinococcus on July 31, 2018, 7:13 am

        Avoid spell checkers.

  17. Eva Smagacz on July 30, 2018, 2:44 pm

    So now, after months of hysteria about “ANTI-SEMITISM” (as opposed to garden variety
    racism) in Labour Party, the biggest gun has been fired:
    “Corbyn is personally an Anti-Semite”

    And the guy is still standing.

    People who support him, especially young people, know that media will attack Corbyn with whatever is to hand, and all projectiles are equally suspect these days.

    For many of them, (especially those who were thought history which is deliberately stripped of oppression as an ever-present facet of society interactions throughout the ages) anti-semitism is stripped of its meaning already. in their minds, Its what Jews call you if they don’t like you.

    From pro-zionist perspective, relative immunity that Corbyn presents against political and personal smears is deeply unsettling.

    It is almost as if lack of crowd hysteria about sudden growth of ANTI-SEMITISM is itself proof or anti-semitism. Its a self propelling spin of greater and greater frenzy of neurosis.

    I don’t recall a single weekend that there is no mention of the Great Labour Anti-Semitism Drama in dailies and weeklies. If by some Editorial foul-up topic does not figure, you can be sure to find a fluffy philo-israelian piece of writing about some achievement or other by Israel.

    For some reason, the whole thing reminds me of branding cattle.


    • JWalters on July 30, 2018, 8:21 pm

      A relevant reminder. I see a sizzling star of David on the daily editor’s rump.

  18. Ossinev on July 30, 2018, 3:11 pm

    “Robert, you would not know what real antisemitism was even if it punched you in the nose. Protestants, Anglicans and Muslims in the UK need no introduction to hating Jews. They are practiced experts at it. Jews were banned from Britain for 350 years but Robert would like not be told such stories. That’s right, three hundred and fifty years”

    Ok then big shot. Go ahead give us all those independent tangible examples of A/S (yawn cry) in modern times say since GB quashed the right wing AS Mosleyites in the 30`s. No I don`t mean the big boy shouted at me and ran away mommy examples I mean real evidence from real sources ie not Israeli Firster Zio “Think Tanks”.

    I for one know what real anti – UKism is. It is stooges like you falsely accusing the UK of fostering so called Anti – Semitism. If it is so bad why do so many Zios choose to live here and stay here. We welcome and embrace all those Jewish citizens in the UK who contribute so much to this country. They are moral and honorable. We do not welcome nor do we want to keep all those Zios whose priorities are for a foreign “state” and who continue like you to insult us and our democratic traditions.

  19. Tom Suarez on July 30, 2018, 3:59 pm

    Thank you for the excellent piece. I’d like to offer two thoughts…
    • One inexact historical precedent for your fears of Jews being held culpable for the actions of Zionists, causing an anti-Semitic backlash, comes to mind. In the summer of 1947, the Irgun’s gruesome hangings of two sergeants, was the final trigger after years of relentless Zionist terror. News of the executions ignited a five-day anti-Semitic rampage in England. British Jews were assaulted, their windows smashed, and swastikas painted on Jewish businesses. The bigots were taking the Zionists at their word — Zionism = Jews.
    • This in turn allows Zionism to self-perpetuate by “causing” [sic] the anti-Semitism upon which it depends. Without a never-ending supply of “hostility towards Jews as Jews” (as Stephen Sedley perfectly defined anti-Semitism in five words), Zionism would evaporate.

  20. Stephen Shenfield on July 30, 2018, 5:36 pm

    Corbyn should sue some of those who defame him for libel (selecting instance where he would have the strongest legal case). .

  21. Bumblebye on July 30, 2018, 6:46 pm

    Meh, not true. There wasn’t a state called Britain then. Scotland never expelled Jews, so if you’re talking Britain there has been a continuous presence.

  22. jon s on July 31, 2018, 7:26 am

    Perhaps I’ll observe some of this controversy in person. My wife and I will be on vacation in London in a few days.

    • MHughes976 on August 1, 2018, 1:12 pm

      You might like the Tate Britain ‘Aftermath’ exhibition about the years after 1918.

    • amigo on August 1, 2018, 1:48 pm

      “Perhaps I’ll observe some of this controversy in person. My wife and I will be on vacation in London in a few days.” Jon S

      Approach any Conservative MP ,(most are members of FOI –Friends of Israel)and they can direct you or even call one of these Israel firsters who spend their waking hours concocting fake evidence of hatred for Jews in the UK.

      Clearly these people are coming unhinged as they know the gig is up.

      If your interested in a balanced view look up the folks at “Jewish Voice for Labour “.

      Be on your guard though and don,t look Jewish or tell anyone as the UK is rife with antisemitism and all Jews are under existential threat , so the apologists claim.

    • Marnie on August 2, 2018, 11:53 pm

      jon s “My wife and I blah, blah, blah”. Watch out for low flying balloons.

    • oldgeezer on August 3, 2018, 8:04 am

      @jon s

      Just the time for a break from being apart of the oppressor’s machinery. Tough gig depriving millions of people their rights. And yes, you are a very active part of it. You weren’t accidentally born into the system but instead made a conscious choice to join in. Disgusting and immoral.

      Can’t wait to hear the tales and see the pics of what a victim you were while in the UK.

      Whine whine whine.

  23. Ossinev on July 31, 2018, 7:56 am

    On the plus side this horrendous endemic existentually threatening cruel heartless yawn etc Anti – Judaism in the Corbyn lead Labour Party is uncovering a lot of Zio skeletons:
    Interesting to note that Tom Watson you know the cuddly chubby one who is the Labour Party`s Deputy Leader has also dipped his head in the Zio trough. Hell he is so enamoured with the Light unto the Nations he has sung its praises:
    Presumably he will be chanting the refrain more often and lauding Zioland more often now that it has declared itself a fully fledged Apartheid state.

    All you true Labour members and true Labour supporters out there bear this in mind when it comes to Watson and do your research on your own Labour MP`s and Labour councillors to establish whether they have got any Zio skeletons in their particular cupboards. Follow this up by getting a clear position statement on the I/P conflict from them via e-mail, at MP`s surgeries and in constituency meetings. Remember to include a request for clarification of their views ref the newly hatched Zionist Apartheid.

  24. HarryLaw on August 1, 2018, 4:50 am

    The Labour Party are on the run, Peter Willsman NEC member is the latest victim, he was secretly recorded saying ‘some’ members of the Jewish community supported Trump and congratulated him on his victory, he is correct right-wing Board of Deputies, including its former President Jonathan Arkush welcomed the election of Trump. Marie van der Zyle, the current President, was amongst those defending Arkush. Then he asked for evidence of the “wide spread” Anti -Semitism in the party. In my opinion there was nothing anti-Semitic in anything he said, then the roof fell in, with the Zionists calling for his blood. He has apologized and unbelievably offered himself up for equalities training. Corbyn has also come under attack again this time for speaking at an event where the actions of Israel in Gaza were compared to the Nazis.

    The Labour leader acknowledged he had appeared with people “whose views I completely reject” when he hosted a Holocaust Memorial Day event in 2010, while he was a backbench MP. He apologized for the “concerns and anxiety” it had caused.

    The main talk at the event, called Never Again for Anyone – Auschwitz to Gaza, was given by Hajo Meyer, a Jewish survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp. He repeatedly compared Israeli action in Gaza to the mass killing of Jewish people in the Holocaust.

    Corbyn said: “The main speaker at this Holocaust Memorial Day meeting was a Jewish Auschwitz survivor. Views were expressed at the meeting which I do not accept or condone.

    “In the past, in pursuit of justice for the Palestinian people and peace in Israel/Palestine, I have on occasion appeared on platforms with people whose views I completely reject. I apologize for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.”
    I suppose the late Gerald Kaufman should be posthumously abused when he complained of Israels barbarity.
    While critical of Israel in his early political life, it was perhaps in January of 2009, at the height of Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” war on Gaza, that Kaufman’s repulsion reached its heights, leading him to compare the Israeli government’s actions to those of the Nazis in Poland.

    • JWalters on August 1, 2018, 6:33 pm

      Thanks for these excellent details. The Zionist press in Britain will be their last castle wall to fall, but fall it will. It is a wall of lies being bombarded daily with rounds of 50 pound facts.

      • amigo on August 1, 2018, 8:27 pm

        “It is a wall of lies being bombarded daily with rounds of 50 pound facts.” J Walters.

        Sterling facts.

  25. Qualtrough on August 1, 2018, 3:17 pm

    “One IHRA example the NEC rejected was that it was antisemitic to describe Israel as a “racist endeavor”.

    Any doubts about Israel being a racist endeavor were laid to rest when Israel passed its recent apartheid law.

  26. MHughes976 on August 1, 2018, 4:41 pm

    I think that the bad guys are laughing fit to bust at warnings that they will provoke anti-Semitism. Real anti-Semitism and imaginary anti-S are both things that they are using quite triumphantly. The true heirs of traditional anti-Semitism, those who thought the Jewish presence in Europe damaging, are now very happy with Zionism as an exporter of Jews from the West and as a force resisting Islam. People who want or once wanted justice for the Palestinians melt away, look sheepish, accuse themselves of imaginary crimes and generally get krrushed, all by the black magic that hapoens when the word ‘anti-Semitism’ is used. If they bring Corbyn down it will be their biggest triumph yet and they are getting ready for it. And we say that the accusation of anti-S is getting weak through overuse!!
    Hajo Mayer, now so demonised, said that all this is not about Jews or Judaism but about something else. I think he was right.

  27. amigo on August 1, 2018, 6:12 pm

    This subject is all over the British News /Current Affairs Programmes.

    BBC News/ITV etc.

    It is discussed ad nauseum on “Question Time” / Daily Politics /Peston on Sunday (now shown on Wed eve ) and several others.

    Over the last 2 weeks , it feels as if it is more significant than Brexit.

    You have to hand it to the Zionist tribe when it comes to propaganda ,
    It,s all hands on deck.

    The irony though is , you have all these folks trying to paint Israel /Jews as victims and their Leader is back at zionist HQ steering racist supremacist laws through the Knesset that confirm what we have all known for years , that Israel is an Apartheid State.

    If it wasn,t such a serious subject , it would be hilarious.

    • MHughes976 on August 2, 2018, 5:08 am

      How true, amigo! I was somewhat relieved by reading the comments in the Independent after a ‘Labour is about to split’ rant by Andrew Grice. Outside the media bubble in London and satellites people can see this confection for what it is.
      I am sure that there will always be nutcase anti-Semites who scream ‘bloody Jews!’ at every minute and think that Goldman Sachs controls heatwaves. They are bad people and no doubt measures should be taken to protect Jewish people, particularly those in high places, from the nuisance they cause with their tweets etc.. Violence and threats should be dealt with firmly. But these have no support from the mass of people or from any serious political force. They are being mentioned in order to conflate them with those who object to the injustice and cruelty in Palestine and to help the campaign to make all forms of this objection illegal.

      • echinococcus on August 2, 2018, 3:49 pm

        True, Hughes.

        But Goldman-Sachs does control heatwaves,

      • amigo on August 2, 2018, 5:51 pm

        MHughes976 ,

        I am able to access BBC /ITV and some other UK networks and check in daily to see how are closest neighbour is doing.Lately I find myself reducing my viewing time in to avoid having to listen to the absolute lies coming from these folks.

        Job one for them is to “Bring Corbyn down ” .Where have we heard that before.That so few people can cause so much trouble astounds me .
        Where are the other voices.Why is no one fighting back .They have truth on their side and could put an end to this fiasco.


        I agree , that anyone who abuses or insults anyone because of their religion/race /sexual orientation or colour should be dealt with appropriately .Such people make the battle for Palestinian rights that much harder.

      • echinococcus on August 2, 2018, 10:41 pm


        Religion is not inborn. It is acquired, very rarely by conscious consideration and most generally by passive inertia. Where’s the call to respect it –or respect the respect of it?

        That’s why the only part of “antisemitism” that I’ll accept as reprehensible is when it’s pure racism, ie motivated solely by the birth accident of being from historically Jewish “blood”. And that don’t deserve a fancy name different than racism.

      • Talkback on August 3, 2018, 4:05 am

        echi: “That’s why the only part of “antisemitism” that I’ll accept as reprehensible is when it’s pure racism, ie motivated solely by the birth accident of being from historically Jewish “blood”. And that don’t deserve a fancy name different than racism.”

        The term “Antisemitism” (hatred against Semites) was hijacked by Jews and abused, beeause not all Jews speak Hebrew and Hebrew is not the only semitic language.

        IMHO it’s just another expression of Jewish exceptionalim to use this term. So is every definition which goes beyond hatred towards Jews as Jews.

        Racism on the other hand doesn’t only target races. It targets groups as if they were races. As if they had some negative traits which are based on their biology.

      • echinococcus on August 3, 2018, 8:26 am


        Racism on the other hand doesn’t only target races. It targets groups as if they were races.

        Precisely. That’s why the civilzed consensus usage of racism is “group discrimination based on accident of birth”. Not the insignificant American nonsense particularism based on skin color.

  28. HarryLaw on August 2, 2018, 10:00 am

    Just how ludicrous these attacks on Corbyn have been is when Louise Ellmen complained about Corbyn being present at the House of Commons meeting with the Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer, what about this?…..
    “Labour MP Louise Ellman has come under fire this evening for attacking Jeremy Corbyn on last night’s BBC Newsnight programme. Ellman claimed to have just found out about a 2010 event with Jewish Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer that Corbyn attended – and to be ‘absolutely appalled’ that Corbyn had been at the event because of Meyer’s views on Israel.

    But Ellman had not only been at the same event – and stayed far longer than Corbyn, who introduced the seminar and then had to leave to attend to other responsibilities – but had witnessed an interruption by a rowdy pro-Israel protest while she was there, so it would have been memorable”.

    • RoHa on August 2, 2018, 9:40 pm

      If Corbyn had not attended that meeting, the headline would have been “Corbyn snubs Holocaust survivor”.

  29. HarryLaw on August 2, 2018, 11:21 am

    Just to elaborate on Qualtrough’s comment above, how is it possible for Senior Labour Party officials to argue for all the examples of the IHRA being included in the UK Labour policy on Anti-Semitism when one of those examples is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”.
    When the new basic law in Israel states unambiguously,and taken together with its “Jews only” right to return law, that it is in fact a racist endeavour.

    “The state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people …
    “The actualization of the right of national self-determination in the state of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
    “The state will labor to ensure the safety of sons of the Jewish people …
    “The state will act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of the Jewish people among the Jewish diaspora,” and so on.

    But most dangerous of all is the stipulation that “the state views Jewish settlement as a national value and will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.”
    Are UK Labour Party members to be called Anti-Semites for rejecting and calling out these plainly racist Israeli basic laws?

  30. Ossinev on August 2, 2018, 1:48 pm

    The UK press which is almost universally anti Corbyn and Pro Zionist is currently indulging in what I would call an orgasmic feeding frenzy and they are such ecstasy over the lates “revelations” and “allegations” that they don`t realise that their underwear is severely twisted.
    The Ziofeed account of the 2010 meeting is a classic example of this. Mp Louise Ellman is outraged to discover that JC was at this notorious meeting in 2010 and that his behaviour and indeed his attendance in itself was appalling. As has been pointed out she herself was at the meeting and didn`t say a dickie bird at the time or immediately after.
    For another classic Zio take on this have a read of this article + contents from the UK`s leading “quality” newspaper famous for it`s Page 3 topless females pictures.

    As Amigo says absolutely hilarious but serious in as much as it clearly illustrates the depths to which the MSM(in the BBC) have sunk.

  31. Ossinev on August 3, 2018, 2:00 pm

    An excellent summation from a commentator on a Haaaretz article written by an ” Anshel Pfeffer” who apparently has a weird “thing” about Jeremy:

    “Jeremy Corbyn is now being attacked for chairing the alternative 2010 Holocaust Memorial meeting in the House of Commons, where a comparison was made between Israel and the Nazi regime. The headline of the meeting was not “Auschwitz to Gaza”, as Pfeffer alleges, but “Never Again For Anyone”. It was a coming together of many communities which have faced dehumanisation, racism and genocide. Speakers were Armenian, Bangladeshi, Irish, Native American, Roma, Rwandan, Tamil, as well as people with disabilities, and a speaker on the Slave Trade from Africa to the Americas and the revolution which ended slavery in Haiti. Hajo Meyer, a Dutch Jewish survivor of Auschwitz spoke on “The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes”, and Dr Haidar Eid, a human rights activist, who participated in the meeting from Gaza via speakerphone, on the situation in Palestine. Both compared the dehumanisation of Jewish people in Hitler’s Germany pre-1941 and the dehumanisation of Palestinian people in current day Israel and occupied Palestine. Hajo Meyer: “My great lesson from Auschwitz is: whoever wants to dehumanise any other, must first be dehumanised himself. The oppressors are no longer really human whatever uniform they wear.” The event attracted leading Zionist figures Louise Ellman MP [then and now, Vice Chair of Labour Friends of Israel], Jerry Lewis [then Vice President, Board of Deputies] and Jonathan Hoffman [then Co-Vice Chair of the Zionist Federation], and Christian Friends of Israel. Most of them had clearly not come to listen. They barracked both Dr Meyer and Dr Eid, and one of them, Martin Sugarman, had to be escorted out by the Commons security; on his way out he stunned everyone by giving the Nazi salute and shouting “Sieg Heil”. After the recent massacre of Palestinians in Gaza the words of Hajo Meyer are more valid than ever”

    Shame that there is not a full video recording of this meeting (Or perhaps there is out there somewhere ?). I hope that JC and the Labour Party have realised the importance of this and that all meetings/addresses given by JC on I/P issues will now be recorded so that the whining Zionist hyenas and their Bliarite and Tory collaborators can be called to account for their blatant lies,distortions and world class leading hypocrisy.

    Oh and it would be nice if someone in the MSM asked that nice butter wouldn`t melt in her mouth Louise Ellman MP why during her tirade about being “appalled to read about the meeting” she neglected to mention the fact that she was actually at the meeting LOL. Zioamnesia methinks.

  32. JoeSmack on August 3, 2018, 3:07 pm

    I don’t normally agree with Rob Cohen’s obsessions with anti-Semitism but I’d say overall this is a well-written piece.

    It is a very interesting difference between the United States and the UK that the Jewish population is so disproportionately associated with the right. Certainly, Jews in the United States also tend to support Israel more than other small minority groups, but they generally vote for the Dems. This might be due to the fact that both parties are far more pro-Israel than the left segment of Labour, so they don’t really have to worry, but I wonder also if there is a class component to it. Perhaps the issue is not that Jewish establishment voices care more about Israel than other issues. Perhaps they do also care about those issues, but they are simply on the wrong side of those issues as well.

    I find it hard to believe that the Jewish community as a whole would simply ignore every other issue just to shield Israel from criticism. That’s usually not how it ethnic minority politics works, even when it’s a privileged ethnic minority group like the Jews. Usually there are domestic concerns first and then when those line up, you see loud angry voices for other stuff. It’s one of the reasons Arabs in America are so weak despite having similar numbers and resources.

  33. HarryLaw on August 4, 2018, 4:19 am

    Harry Law.
    Imagine if the UK had in its statutes, and the USA had in its constitution measures to ensure only white people had the right to immigration [one of Israel’s basic laws is only Jews have the right to immigration into Israel]. Continuing the analogy with Israel’s recently passed ‘Nation-State’ [basic law].
    1/. “The states of the UK and the US are the nation-states of the ‘white people”.
    2/. “The actualization of the right of national self- determination in the states of the UK/USA is unique to white people”
    3/. “The UK/USA will labour to ensure the safety of sons of white people”.
    4/. “The UK/USA will act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of white people among the Diaspora”.
    5/. “The US/USA views ‘white’s only’ settlement as joint national values and will labour to encourage and promote its establishment and development”.
    Now let us look at one of the IHRA examples which many members of the Labour Party, some of Jewish origin, some not, want to incorporate into the Labour Party rule book.
    “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination – e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
    Who could deny that examples 1 to 5 above if incorporated into UK and US law would prove 100% that the UK and US were inherently racist and that their ‘existence were racist endeavours’ and that anyone in the UK/US [including Jeremy Corbyn] who disapproved of 1 to 5 above, and said so, would fall foul of the IHRA definition, be accused of being Anti Semitic and drummed out of the Labour Party and possibly ostracised from society for life. If the IHRA examples are included in the Labour Party rule book, most members of the party would face disciplinary action, which the Zionists would heartily approve.

  34. HarryLaw on August 6, 2018, 8:15 am

    Jeremy Corbyn has said “people who use Anti-Semitic poison need to understand you do not do it in my name or the name of the party, you are not our supporters and any one who denies that this has surfaced in our party is clearly actually wrong and contributing to the problem”.
    If Corbyn folds and accepts all the examples set out in the IHRA definition, the most notable one [in my opinion] being ‘that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavor’ which has just been confirmed and made explicit in Israel’s new Nation State basic law, then it is myself and most contributors of Mondoweiss and members of the UK Labour party who are “contributing to the problem” [of Anti-Semitism]. We shall see.

Leave a Reply