Trending Topics:

Why the UK Labour Party should not adopt the IHRA Definition or any other definition of anti-Semitism

on 60 Comments

Will the British Labour Party adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism? Leaders of the British-Jewish community have been strong-arming Labour to accept it. The Party is scheduled to make its fateful decision in a matter of days. The definition is supplemented by 11 illustrations. Fully seven of them, however, home in not on anti-Semitism per se but instead on criticism of Israel. Natan Sharansky famously formulated a 3D Test of Anti-Semitism that was later touted by Israel’s supporters: demonization, double standards, delegitimization. Whatever the virtue of his checklist, it might be said that the IHRA illustrations constitute a textbook case of the 3S Test of Political Censorship: suppression, selective application, special pleading. Before documenting this, however, the debate surrounding adoption of the IHRA definition and illustrations must be situated in a broader context.

The IHRA definition imposes constraints on speech in the Labour Party. In a word, it is censorship. It might be argued that the Labour Party is a voluntary organization and as such has the right to set rules and parameters on its members’ public utterances. But at its worthiest, the liberal-left tradition, of which the Labour Party is an offspring, has attached a unique, primordial value to Truth, and recognized that, in the search for truth, untrammeled open debate is essential.

In his classic exposition “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mill posited that the utility of a belief was inseparable from its truth: “no belief which is contrary to truth can truly be useful.” At the other end of the spectrum V. I. Lenin would draw on the power of truth to best his opponents: “Facts are stubborn things, as the English say.”

To get a firm handle on truth, however, liberty of speech must not be abridged. When the young Karl Marx first made his name as a journalist, “the English press,” he approvingly noted, enjoyed “the greatest freedom from restraint,” whereas censorship was rampant in Germany.  This infringement was officially rationalized on the grounds that it required intercession of a higher authority to separate out the “good” from the “bad.” If indeed censorship was designed to preserve what was valuable in speech, Marx rejoined, then this objective could only be attained by its opposite of unbridled criticism:

“Censorship is criticism as a monopoly of the government. But does not criticism lose its rational character if it is not open but secret…, if it operates not with the sharp knife of reason but with the blunt scissors of arbitrariness, if it only exercises criticism but will not submit to it…, if it is so uncritical as to mistake an individual person for universal wisdom, peremptory orders for rational statements, ink spots for patches of sunlight, the crooked deletions of the censor for mathematical constructions, and crude force for decisive arguments?”

When asked much later in life his favorite motto, Marx eschewed sacred, unassailable truths as he replied “De omnibus dubitandum” (“You must have doubts about everything”). Echoing Marx, his otherwise liberal nemesis Mill observed that the only rational test of one’s conviction was its capacity to withstand unhindered criticism: “The beliefs which we have the most warrant for have no safeguard, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded.”

In her critique of the Bolshevik Revolution, Rosa Luxemburg presented a lyrical defense of unqualified free speech: “Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party—however numerous they may be—is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” She upheld this principle, however, “not because of any fanatical concept of ‘justice,’ but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege.” In a passage that resonates as much today as when it was written a century ago, Luxemburg maintained that, if the path to socialism remains uncharted territory, then only free, open criticism from below can discover solutions to unforeseen challenges and correct the inevitable errors that attend its construction: “The tacit assumption underlying the Lenin-Trotsky theory of dictatorship is this: that the socialist transformation is something for which a ready-made formula lies completed in the pocket of the revolutionary party, which needs only to be carried out energetically in practice. This is, unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—not the case. Far from being a sum of ready-made prescriptions that have only to be applied, the practical realization of socialism . . . is something which lies completely hidden in the mists of the future. What we possess in our program is nothing but a few main signposts which indicate the general direction. . . . Socialism by its very nature cannot be decreed or introduced by ukase. . . . Only experience is capable of correcting and opening new ways. . . . The whole mass of the people must take part in it.”

It might be wondered, What if the discovery of a truth contradicts the twin ideal of justice? But this is a false opposition. Exactly as an ennobling end cannot justify ignoble means if the end is as pure as the means that bring it about, so the ideal of justice is as pure as the truth that informs it. If something is true, it is not only, per Mill, useful, it is also, and necessarily, just—or, in the words of Antonio Gramsci, “To tell the truth, to arrive together at the truth, is a communist and revolutionary act.”

Only truth is useful; truth—fact—is dispositive in mental combat; truth can only emerge from unfettered speech; the index of free speech is its universality; a cacophony of competing “truths” inevitably attends the trial and error of creating a just world; truths emerging from ruthless criticism cannot undermine justice because justice is grounded in truth—this is the historic legacy of the Labour Party. But it is now under attack as representatives of British Jewry press the Party to adopt a censorial speech code.   


Faithful to its libertarian roots, the Labour Party up until recently did not curb speech but only conduct. Its rule book stated: “No member of the party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NCC [National Constitutional Committee] is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NCC is grossly detrimental to the party. … The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions.” But in 2017, the Party, acting apparently at the behest of the anti-Corbyn Jewish Labour Movement, transmogrified this rule as it inserted clauses deeply encroaching on speech. The rule currently reads:  

“No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC [National Executive Committee] is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party: these shall include but not be limited to incidents involving racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the Party. The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions except in any instance inconsistent with the Party’s aims and values, agreed codes of conduct, or involving prejudice towards any protected characteristic.” [emphasis added]

None of the notoriously slippery terms in this restrictive speech code—“racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language”—is defined, which in itself cannot but cast a pall on free speech: Who is to determine and how is it to be determined that a redline has been crossed? What’s more, the rule bars, as a discrete subcategory, prejudicial “sentiments.” If this denotes nonverbal sentiments (it would otherwise just fall under “racist language”), then Labour is now in the dreary business of controlling not just speech but also thoughts and feelings. If Comrade X refuses to date Asian guys, Comrade Y refuses to date Muslim girls, and Comrade Z only dates Jewish guys (she’s Orthodox), will they be hauled before the NQSC (National Questionable Sentiments Committee)?

Even as the revised code of conduct explicitly outlaws anti-Semitism, representatives of British Jewry have issued an ultimatum to Labour: it must also incorporate the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in all its parts—or else! It is, to begin with, unclear why Jews warrant special treatment. Indeed, of all the protected categories in the rule, British Jews are the richest, best organized, most strategically placed, and least subject to “hostility and prejudice.” If Jewish communal organizations can so openly, brazenly, and relentlessly press this demand on Labour, it’s because of the political muscle they can flex and the political immunity they enjoy. Further, the demand is on the unseemly side, as it implies that Jewish lives are somehow more worthy. It recalls the nauseating ethnic chauvinism at play in the stipulation that The Holocaust must be separated out from run-of-the-mill “other genocides.”  

It is yet more disturbing that the proposed definition bears so little on anti-Semitism per se and so much on Israel. It is often heard from Israel’s defenders that the Jewish state should be treated and judged like every other state; indeed, that not treating and judging it like other states is anti-Semitic. But no other foreign state is accorded special dispensation in the Labour manual; indeed, no other state is even mentioned. Is British Jewry imposing on Labour an anti-Semitic coda? It is also cause for intrigue why Israel figures so saliently in a definition the subject matter of which is anti-Semitism. Consider this scenario. The Afrocentric, Jamaican-based Rastafarians worshipped Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. In the early 1970s, Selassie stood guilty of crimes against humanity as he presided over and concealed a mass famine in his country. If Rastas convened an International Slavery Remembrance Alliance, if this body then contrived a definition of anti-Rastafarianism that proscribed criticism of Ethiopia, would it be so hard to discern that the impetus was not fighting “prejudice and hostility” against Rastas but, instead, immunizing their Holy State from deserved scrutiny?

The IHRA definition reads:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

It is widely agreed that this incoherent, illiterate, clunky definition provides nil guidance as to what constitutes anti-Semitism. It is said to be a “certain perception,” but this certainty turns out not to be so certain as it “may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”—which is to say it also may not be thus expressed. But the fact of the matter is, it’s impossible to define anti-Semitism. Moreover, even if an intelligible definition were cobbled together, it would be of dubious utility save to be hurled as an epithet of abuse. It and cognate pejoratives do no real work. Put otherwise, their supplemental benefit, value-added is also nil; if dispensed with, no one would be the poorer.

The term anti-Semitism is commonly defined as “hostility towards Jews as Jews.” But an anti-Semite would deny he hates Jews as Jews; rather, he would purport it’s because this or that offensive trait—parsimoniousness, clannishness, arrogance—inheres in them. Ditto, the racist who hates Black people. She would undoubtedly object that her loathing springs not from the fact that they’re Black but that they’re robbers and rapists. The question is then empirical. In other words, the accusation cannot be refuted by “you’re a racist.” Such a retort shuts down discussion just at the point when it’s most needed. Wouldn’t it be a dereliction of duty if a teacher abusively labels a student who, for all anyone knows, in good faith utters a politically incorrect opinion? Not the least of a political party’s functions is pedagogical, internally as well as externally. “A man curses,” Malcolm X surmised, “because he doesn’t have the words to say what’s on his mind.” Something similar can be observed about he who reflexively reaches for epithets like anti-Semite and racist. It’s an impoverished, ignorant, slovenly substitute for rational dialectic. If he is so blessed as to possess the mental tools to engage in such a dialectic, it’s also inexcusable.

It’s probably right that the hard-core bigot is impervious to reason so it’s futile trying to dissuade him. “If you cannot convince a fascist,” Leon Trotsky famously quipped, “acquaint his head with the pavement.” But who is so perfect as not to harbor one or another “local” prejudice? Surely it cannot be correct that irrational belief is by its essence reason-proof. “The anti-Semitic passion,” Jean-Paul Sartre said, “precedes the facts that are supposed to call it forth.” Were that true, it would be pointless to counter with facts. But Sartre was drawing the internal portrait only of the hard core, for whom bigotry was the poisonous fruit of a “comprehensive attitude . . . and conception of the world,” born, ultimately, of a “fear of the human condition.” In the ordinary course of events, among ordinary specimens of humanity, reason retains its persuasive power; or, at any rate, no a priori grounds exist to give up trying, let alone to replace point-counterpoint with wholly and inherently inadequate epithets.

In a refinement of the common definition, British philosopher Brian Klug proposes that anti-Semitism is “a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.” Still, it turns on an empirical question requiring an empirical answer: whether or not Jews in general are something other than what they’re perceived to be. But there’s another wrinkle in Klug’s definition. It is often alleged by Jews that the anti-Semite resents them because they’re smarter and therefore more accomplished. In fact, Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term anti-Semitism, described Jews as “flexible, tenacious, intelligent” (albeit in destructive excess). For all anyone knows, they and he might be onto something: Jews might be superior. The average IQ score of Ashkenazi Jews is significantly higher than that of any other ethnic group in the world. But if, per Klug, anti-Semitism is the perception of Jews as “something other than what they are,” then the anti-Semite seething with ressentiment of Jews couldn’t be anti-Semitic.

The Labour Party’s code of conduct hitherto faithfully honored its libertarian legacy as it allowed every idea, however bizarre or noxious, to be mooted. Prodded by the anti-Corbyn Jewish Labour Movement, the Party’s leadership poured into the code a mass of verbal sludge that polluted the venerable principle of free speech. Now British-Jewish elites are terrorizing Corbyn to accept a purported definition of anti-Semitism that, one, is and couldn’t but be gibberish, two, exemplifies ethnic special pleading, three, is not just pointless but also stifles vital debate, and, four, has nearly nothing to do with anti-Semitism and nearly everything to do with shielding Israel from deserved condemnation. The long and short of it is, to detoxify its code of conduct, Labour should junk the revised text, reject as a whole and in all its parts the IHRA text, and return to its radical roots.


The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism includes 11 illustrative examples. Fully seven of them home in on criticism of Israel. If the Labour Party adopts these taboos, respected scholarship will be suppressed while Israel will become the beneficiary of a pernicious double standard. Consider these examples culled from the IHRA text:

  • “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.” But, according to Israel’s leading historian, Benny Morris, “transfer [i.e., expulsion] was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism,” while according to Israeli writer Ari Shavit, in his widely acclaimed bestseller, “My Promised Land,” “If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be.” The upshot is, if Israel’s founding necessarily entailed ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, then realization of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination must have been a racist endeavor.
  • “Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” But, far from holding Israel to a more stringent standard, overwhelmingly its critics have targeted Israel’s immunity to any standard. For example, since 1979 the UN Security Council has repeatedly condemned Israel’s policy of building settlements in occupied Palestinian territory as a “flagrant violation” of international law, while in 2004 the International Court of Justice unanimously declared Israeli settlements “in breach of international law.” Yet, Israel persists in its settlement policy, while the UN, although repeatedly imposing sanctions on other member states, has not imposed any on Israel, even as its settlement policy constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
  • “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” But Israeli hasbara (propaganda) itself promiscuously exploits the “blood libel” charge (i.e., that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes) in order to silence critics by reversing its sting. Thus, mere mention of Palestinian children killed by Israel typically prompts accusations of a “Global Blood Libel against Israel.”
  • “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” But, on the one hand, Israelis across the political spectrum freely make such bone-chilling analogies, while, on the other hand, Israel has itself routinely depicted its antagonists, be it Nasser’s Egypt or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, be it Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, as reincarnations of Hitler and Nazi-like. Indeed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has—in certifiably mad defiance of every scrap of evidence—declared that Iran might pose an even greater threat to humanity than did Hitler and that not Hitler but a Palestinian leader masterminded the Holocaust.
  • “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” But, by representing itself as the Nation-State of the Jewish people, Israel itself collectively implicates Jews in its actions, just as Netanyahu collectively implicates Jews when he touts himself as the “representative of the entire Jewish people.”

In sum, these examples of anti-Semitism allegedly hiding behind criticism of Israel comprise factually accurate depictions by Israel’s critics (first bulleted example), factually inaccurate depictions of Israel’s critics by its watchdogs (second bulleted example), and questionable practices of which Israel is as, if not more, culpable than its critics (third, fourth, and fifth bulleted examples). If the Labour Party adopts them, it will become a willing dupe of Israeli hasbara; it will disgrace the Party’s noble traditions; and it will betray Jeremy Corbyn’s promise to set the Party on a new-old path of upholding Truth and Justice, wherever it may lead and whatever the price.

A version of this article was originally published by Norman Finkelstein on his website on August 28, 2018. 

Norman G. Finkelstein

Norman G. Finkelstein received his doctorate in 1988 from the Department of Politics at Princeton University. He taught political theory and the Israel-Palestine conflict for many years and currently writes and lectures. Finkelstein's books have been translated into 50 foreign editions. His latest is "Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom" (University of California Press, January 2018).

Other posts by .

Posted In:

60 Responses

  1. amigo on August 28, 2018, 2:50 pm

    Jeremy Corbyn should in no way give in to these 5th column zionists.

    They should in no way be rewarded for interfering in the internal politics of a sovereign nation on behalf of an Apartheid rogue regime .

    • Maghlawatan on August 28, 2018, 3:20 pm

      The bots have bet the farm on unseating Corbyn

      eremy Corbyn’s remarks about British Zionists represent “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”, the former chief rabbi has said.
      Jonathan Sacks said Mr Corbyn had depicted a group of British citizens as “essentially alien” when he said in 2013 that British Zionists “don’t understand English irony”.
      Lord Sacks, who served as chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, said Mr Corbyn was an “anti-Semite” in comments which are likely to pile even greater pressure on the Labour leader.

      • RoHa on August 28, 2018, 9:15 pm

        ‘Jonathan Sacks said Mr Corbyn had depicted a group of British citizens as “essentially alien”’

        But that is exactly what the Zionists say they are!

        Zionists claim that all Jews, including those who are British citizens, are members of the Jewish Nation and belong in their historic homeland, Israel.

      • oldgeezer on August 28, 2018, 9:54 pm


        Not overly relevant as he did no such thing. Sacks is lying through his teeth.

      • RoHa on August 28, 2018, 11:32 pm

        It doesn’t matter what Corbyn said.

        The point is that Sacks was protesting about something which, if it had been said, would just have been a declaration of the Zionist principles which Sacks wants to uphold!

      • Maghlawatan on August 29, 2018, 12:43 am

        Sacks is Papa Smurf so rolling him out is like the heavy artillery.

      • MHughes976 on August 29, 2018, 5:29 am

        There is still no sign of Labour’s losing ground in the opinion polls despite the piling on of this kind of pressure. Corbyn would be long gone and forgotten if he depended on the opinions within the media-parliamentary bubble but he has already shown that the membership will back him against his MPs, even a great majority of them. He does probably think that Zionism as a political creed and culture puts you outside the mainstream culture of England. This is quite a challenging statement. I too think that Z creates an insensitive mentality in certain ways. Whether this is so un-English I don’t know. Whether Z has been assimilated into mainstream English culture I don’t know. Our last PM, Dave Cameron, a very English person, says he is a Z. But then Corbyn too, though he may not admit it much, is an English gentleman.

      • Maghlawatan on August 29, 2018, 10:50 am

        One of the key weaknesses of Zionism is greed. Zionism has never done anything for ordinary British people or ordinary Americans despite years of political manipulation which has probably always been illegal and treasonous. Corbyn will always be able to leverage the people. All the Zionists have is money.

      • marc b. on August 29, 2018, 6:10 pm

        Papa Something, alright. Sacks helped VP Pence with his address to the Knesset earlier this year.

        “Former British chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence to help him frame religious and historical elements of his speech before Israel’s Knesset.

        Sacks and Pence met in New York for 90 minutes prior to Pence’s departure for a two-day visit to Israel, part of trip that also included Egypt and Jordan, the Times of Israel reported.

        Pence sought Sacks’ guidance on the sections of the speech which dealt with the historical connection between the Jews and Israel. He was not paid for the consultation.

        The meeting “centered around how best to frame elements of the speech – in particular the biblical and historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, and the American and Jewish stories,” Sacks’ spokesman Dan Sacker said in a statement.

        “Rabbi Sacks provided input and editorial suggestions on various drafts throughout the writing process,” an unnamed source with knowledge of the speech-writing process told the Times of Israel.

        Pence has been accused of shaping his political views on Israel through the lens of his Evangelical Christian outlook.“

        ‘Through the lens of evangelicalism’? So Sacks is the go-to expert on Christian Evangelicalism?

      • Mayhem on August 30, 2018, 12:33 am

        @Roha, a Zionist – a supporter of Zionism – is a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. There is no specific obligation on a Zionist to actually live in Israel.

      • RoHa on August 30, 2018, 2:01 am

        “There is no specific obligation on a Zionist to actually live in Israel.”

        Perhaps not, though some Israeli spokespeople seem to give that impression. And Zionists certainly think that Jews don’t really belong in Britain. Jackdaw just said to me

        “Because Israel is the home of the Jewish people.”

        If Israel is their home, then they are not at home in Britain, are they?

      • Maghlawatan on August 30, 2018, 2:05 am


        A Zionist is a supporter of apartheid. The project has failed.

      • eljay on August 30, 2018, 7:25 am

        || Mayhem: … a Zionist – a supporter of Zionism – is a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. … ||

        A Zionist is a person who believes that the religion-based identity of Jewish grants to those who choose to hold it the right:
        – to Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine; and
        – to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

        || … There is no specific obligation on a Zionist to actually live in Israel. ||

        This is true: Zionists are free to advocate, promote, fund, support, justify and defend Jewish supremacism from anywhere in the world, and if they feel like engaging in some of its “necessary evil” a simple visit to the “Jewish State” will do.

    • Misterioso on August 29, 2018, 10:51 am

      @amigo, etal

      For the record regarding Zionism and anti-Semitism:

      During the first three years of its existence a total of 684,275 immigrants arrived in Israel, including 239,576 in 1949. (Frank Epp, Whose land is Palestine?, pp. 198 and 200) An impressive number, but not nearly enough to fulfill the Zionist dream.

      In 1951, Ben-Gurion reiterated his vision for Israel: “To maintain the status quo will not do. We have set up a dynamic state based on…expansionism…. Only now have we reached the beginning of independence in a part of our small country.” (From Israel Government Year Book (October 1951, pp. 419 and 402, quoted by Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, The Other Side of the Coin, p. 49)

      In the same year, while visiting the United States, Ben-Gurion predicted there would be an influx of an additional four million Jews into Israel within the following ten years (Lilienthal, The Other Side of.. p. 31). He was sorely disappointed, however, especially by the continuing lack of response on the part of American Jews.

      Although 175,095 Jews from various countries immigrated to Israel in 1951, the total plummeted to 24,369 in 1952 and only 11,326 came in 1953. From 1954 until 1960, a total of 258,793 arrived with the largest numbers in 1955, 1956 and 1957. (Frank Epp, Whose Land is Palestine?, pp. 200-01)

      In 1959, Ben-Gurion made a plea for more immigration, declaring there was “room for all of Eastern Europe’s 3 million Jews.” (New York Times, 21 February 1959, p. A2; quoted by John Quigley, Palestine and Israel, A Challenge to Justice, p. 99)

      By 1952, it had become evident to Israel’s leaders that something had to be done to increase immigration and the editor of Davar (an influential trade union newspaper supported by Ben-Gurion’s party) suggested a plan to bring it about: “I shall not be ashamed to confess that, if I had the power, as I have the will, I would select a score of efficient young men – intelligent, decent devoted to our ideal and burning with the desire to help redeem Jews – and I would send them to the countries where Jews are absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction. The task of these young men would be to disguise themselves as non-Jews, and plague Jews with anti-Semitic slogans, such as ‘Bloody Jew,’ ‘Jews go to Palestine,’ and similar intimacies! I can vouch that the results in terms of a considerable immigration to Israel from these countries would be ten thousand times larger than the results brought by thousands of emissaries who have been preaching for decades to deaf ears.” (Quoted by Alfred Lilienthal, The Other Side of.. p. 47)

      In fact, it was Theodor Herzl who first saw how useful anti-Semitism could be to Zionism: “Anti-Semitism has grown and continues to grow – and so do I.” (Herzl, The Complete Diaries, Vol. 1, p. 7 as quoted by David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p. 160)

      • Maghlawatan on August 29, 2018, 1:15 pm

        They expelled 80% of the local people in 1948 and imported massive numbers of Jews (mostly the wrong ones)so had an 80/20 split within their internationally recognized borders but their land lust means they are a minority in their greater Israel. The failure to lure sufficient numbers of US and UK Jews is a key reason why Israel failed. There are too many Betar Jews and not enough cultivated Jews. The mix made the occupation and the systemic brainwash of the kids possible. It is also what made mass US immigration impossible. The g’obal Jewish population is split roughly 50/50. Bennett and Jon S are there. Philip Glass and Mooser are not.

        Herzl imagined all the thinkers going. The violence meant they couldn’t.

        Israël is one big clusterfuck and there is no way to close Pandora’s box.

  2. Maghlawatan on August 28, 2018, 3:30 pm

    Zionists do not care about Jews outside Israel
    sold weapons to an Argentinian regime that murdered 8000 Jewish left wingers.
    This IHRA definition has nothing to do with helping ordinary Jews and everything about controlling the debate about Israel.

    • JWalters on August 28, 2018, 7:57 pm

      “nothing to do with helping ordinary Jews”

      Excellent point. It looks to me like the cult leaders are only out for themselves, and even their own cult members are merely fodder for their schemes. Further, the rank-and-file cult members absorb a lot of the blowback from the ringleaders nefarious actions.

  3. Maghlawatan on August 28, 2018, 3:52 pm

    The antiSemitism circus shows how scared Zionists are and the reality of Israeli power. Israel is unlike any other Western country in its reliance on guarantees from other powers in
    order to continue its criminal enterprise in the occupied territories. Politicians have to be bought so that diplomatic support can be secured. Corbyn isn’t interested in this charade. This is why the brigades of Zionism have been trained on him. If the UK is lost it won’t be the last domino to fall. Israel is in serious shit.

  4. Keith on August 28, 2018, 4:23 pm

    Any rule treating anti-Semitism as distinct from other forms of racism is intended to privilege Jews in relation to other groups. Why? Because they are a weak and defenseless minority? No, this is an attempt to privilege the privileged even more. It is said that you can tell who has the power by who you cannot criticize. And how much will that power increase if these Zionists can establish themselves as an ongoing political veto power courted by the fat-cats to dispose of potential threats to their power and privilege, all in the name of fighting anti-Semitism! This would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious. I leave the last words to Norman.

    ” It is, to begin with, unclear why Jews warrant special treatment. Indeed, of all the protected categories in the rule, British Jews are the richest, best organized, most strategically placed, and least subject to “hostility and prejudice.” If Jewish communal organizations can so openly, brazenly, and relentlessly press this demand on Labour, it’s because of the political muscle they can flex and the political immunity they enjoy. Further, the demand is on the unseemly side, as it implies that Jewish lives are somehow more worthy. It recalls the nauseating ethnic chauvinism at play in the stipulation that The Holocaust must be separated out from run-of-the-mill “other genocides.” (Norman Finkelstein)

    • eljay on August 29, 2018, 7:32 am

      || Keith: Any rule treating anti-Semitism as distinct from other forms of racism is intended to privilege Jews in relation to other groups. … ||

      IOW, it anti-Semitically “singles out” Jews. I look forward to Zionists opposing the IHRA’s anti-Semitic definition of anti-Semitism.

  5. JWalters on August 28, 2018, 7:45 pm

    Thanks for this absolutely excellent article, a model of clarity, thoroughness, and relevance. A few comments –

    “John Stuart Mill posited that the utility of a belief was inseparable from its truth”

    Amendment: This is true for an honest person. For a criminal, the utility of a belief is often inseparable from its falsity. We see this in the criminal intent of the lying Zionists.

    “Surely it cannot be correct that irrational belief is by its essence reason-proof.”

    This fact of human nature is illustrated by the MANY people who have described how they once supported Israel, but then changed their minds after they learned the facts.

    “The average IQ score of Ashkenazi Jews is significantly higher than that of any other ethnic group in the world”

    This is completely explainable by early nutrition and education advantages, which have HUGE known effects on IQ scores, MUCH larger than any ethnic group differences..

    • MHughes976 on August 29, 2018, 5:10 am

      Or it may just be that they are naturally the best and brightest, the beginnings of the next stage of evolution. But that does not create a right to do things that would, if others did them, be unjust.

      • CigarGod on August 29, 2018, 10:09 am

        Cultural and genetic explanations?

        I am reminded of a Stalin quote about who counts the votes.
        Then I wonder who designs the tests.

      • Maghlawatan on August 29, 2018, 11:27 am

        Perhaps they are lost

      • Brewer on August 29, 2018, 10:51 pm


        If you’re lost in the Simpson Desert or battling a cyclone in the Pacific, a smartarse is the last person you want.

        “Having a high IQ score does not mean that someone is intelligent. IQ tests only capture analytical intelligence; this is the ability to notice patterns and solve analytical problems. Most standard IQ tests miss out two other aspects of human intelligence: creative and practical intelligence. Creative intelligence is our ability to deal with novel situations. Practical intelligence is our ability to get things done. For the first 20 years of life, people are rewarded for their analytical intelligence. Then we wonder why the “best and brightest” are uncreative and practically useless.”

    • Mooser on August 29, 2018, 1:39 pm

      “The average IQ score of Ashkenazi Jews is significantly higher than that of any other ethnic group in the world”

      Yeah, cause when intelligent people mate with other intelligent people, their intelligence is concentrated in their offspring.

      • Brewer on August 29, 2018, 10:54 pm

        Particularly if their parents are close – like brother and sister.

  6. Maghlawatan on August 29, 2018, 3:25 am

    The Zionists are throwing the kitchen sink at Corbyn because of what is at stake. If the UK government abandons Zionism in favour of fairness the truth about Israel will start leaking out and Israel will then become an antisemitism generator.

  7. HarryLaw on August 29, 2018, 6:57 am

    Lord Sacks accuses Jeremy Corbyn of Anti Semitism by using the term Zionism as a euphemism for Jews.
    This is wrong, there are several meanings of what constitutes Zionism i.e. a home for people of Jewish origin in Palestine. Most nations in the UN, NGO’s and most political parties in the world agree that the state of Israel within its 1948/9 borders[Israel proper] is a legitimate state and member of the UN. No political party anywhere in the world campaigns on a one state solution. Therefore most people in the world could be called 1948/9 Zionists, including Professors Finkelstein and Chomsky, On the other hand other Zionists believe in the settlement enterprise and a greater Israel these could be called 1967 Zionists [of course the earlier founders of Zionism had similar aims] these Zionists should be called supporters of war crimes as defined in article 49.6 Geneva conventions, ICC Rome statute and the unanimous opinion of all 15 judges at the ICJ [World Court] which stated that the transfer of citizens of the occupier into occupied territory are grave war crimes. Because Lord Sacks is in total agreement with the recently introduced and racist Israeli state law including this … “It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.” I accuse Lord Sacks of being a supporter of war crimes.

  8. Bennorius on August 29, 2018, 10:46 am

    Thank you, Norman, for this excellent and precise political-philosophical analysis. Your quote of Rosa Luxembourg reminds me again of the respect I continue to have for her as a thinker and revolutionary.
    I am a family physician in rural North Wales, UK and a member of the Labour party and Momentum. The struggle to prevent Labour’s leadership from disastrously adopting the full IHRA definition with all the accompanying examples is one that we cannot afford to lose for the reasons you describe so well. I will make sure that I will bring your analysis to the attention of the National Executive Committee of the Labour party. The Momentum chapter in Camden, London, has started a signature campaign demanding that the members of the Labour party, not just the NEC or the pro-Israel lobby group in the Labour party, have the right to decide on this.
    I think it was a grave mistake to accept the IHRA definition in the first place, because it is so muddled and unclear. Although it is impossible for one short definition to cover all nuances the definition of antisemitism as ‘hate or hostility for Jews as Jews’ remains adequate. Anyone of us with reasonable common sense will know when – in daily life – words or acts have clearly crossed the line of the definition of anti-Semitism and when accusations of anti-Semitism are used as a tool to silence critics.
    Respect for universal human rights, which includes freedom of expression should be our guideline.
    On a different note, Norman. I read your book “Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom”. It moved me to tears. I want to thank you for this important and detailed documentation of the war crimes that have been committed against Palestinian civilians, and it will assist any future prosecution of war crimes in The Hague.
    I have worked for many years as a health worker in Palestinian refugee communities in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip between 1982 and 2005. You are a true friend of the Palestinian people and a thoroughly decent human being.
    I have been in awe of your analytical skills from the day you demolished Joan Peters’s fraudulent thesis in her book “From Time Immemorial”. Never stop speaking out, Norman.

  9. HarryLaw on August 29, 2018, 10:53 am

    Lord Sacks sure has chutzpah he is regarded as an intellectual this is part of his contribution to a New Statesman article….
    “Asked by the New Statesman to comment on Israel’s new nationality law, which states that the Jewish people have “an exclusive right to national self-determination” in the country and stripped the Arab language of its official status, Sacks said: “I’m not an expert on this. My brother is, I’m not, he’s a lawyer in Jerusalem, he tells me that there’s absolutely nothing apartheid about this, it’s just correcting a lacuna… As far as I understand, it’s a technical process that has none of the implications that have been levelled at it.”
    The Israeli state law is racist to its core, a five year old child could understand that, not the clever intellectual Lord Sacks. Lord Sacks is a racist phony.

  10. Ossinev on August 29, 2018, 1:46 pm

    As you may have noted this condescending racist idiot also stated in the New Statesman interview:
    ” because Jews did not wish to come back to their land to make any other people suffer and that goes very deep in the Jewish heart.”

    Of course they did not want to make them “suffer” Jonny they just wanted to steal their (ie the Palestinians ) buildings and land and expel them to a foreign country and guess what they still do.

    No doubt if a Goy/Goys turfed him out of his nice little gaffe in Golders Green because they considered it to be their historic building or land he would be totally forgiving in his”deep Jewish heart”

  11. Misterioso on August 29, 2018, 2:30 pm

    More grist for the mill:

    “Siding with the Palestinian struggle is not anti-Semitic.” By Ahmad Samih Khalidi
    The Guardian, August 28/18

    “Jeremy Corbyn has no need to apologise for being the first Labour leader to oppose Zionism on moral grounds”

    “Jeremy Corbyn’s choice of words about Zionists may be open to criticism. But his, and anyone else’s, right to oppose Zionism is not. Zionism is the assertion of the primacy of the Jewish claim to Palestine over the expressed will of the 70% Arab majority before 1948, and at its continued expense since. Israel, as a Jewish majority state, could not have been established other than on the debris of Arab Palestine, the destruction of its society and the dispossession and disenfranchisement of its indigenous population.

    “Opposition to Zionism on these grounds is a moral stance, is neither antisemitic nor racist, and is founded on the belief that the creation of Israel has a profound injustice at its roots. Jewish opposition to Zionism has a long and distinguished history. Furthermore, the Palestinian historical narrative has been largely vindicated, in part by Israeli and Jewish historians, and Jewish voices in support of Palestinian rights today abound. Using the charge of anti-Zionism as a tool to silence critics of today’s Israel is the last resort of those seeking to deflect attention away from the egregious path that Israel appears to have chosen. It wants to have it both ways, on the one hand to charge with racism those who conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism. On the other hand, it accuses those who refuse this conflation, of antisemitism on the grounds that anti-Zionism denies the Jews the right to self-determination. By this token, any criticism of Israel or Zionism becomes a slur on the Jewish people. The insidious goal of the ‘anti-anti-Zionist’ campaign is to silence the Palestinians and their supporters and to smother them with the charge of racism. No one should fall for this or accept it.”

  12. nadapretnar on August 29, 2018, 5:54 pm

    I would like to point out that the actual working definition consists in six lines. The ones published in 2016 by the Romanian IHRA presidency at the time. The 11 examples are NOT part of the definition. So we are debating about something which is actually not part of the problem.

    • MHughes976 on August 30, 2018, 6:39 pm

      I see this as actually the heart of the matter. The ‘examples’ are the problem. The attempt is being made to insist – eventually to legislate – that the words of the definition, negative perception of Jews etc., apply in their natural meaning, when logically they do not, to rejection of the claim that the foundation of Israel was the exercise of a genuine right.
      The reference to negative perceptions is not really challenging, hardly different from the standard dictionary formulae.
      It is awful that UK politics are being dominated (per BBC, newspapers etc.) by a campaign to have this dishonest stuff put on a pedestal and honoured – eventually, of course, to be enshrined in law. Awful in itself and awful in that the question is framed in thus way, over words, when the blood and tears of the Palestinians flow daily. Awful that the feelings of British people who are Jewish should be assuaged specifically and directly by ruthless indifference or worse to the feelings and sentiments of Palestinians amid the cruelty they suffer.
      Another thing, of course, that should be noticed when definitions are all the rage is that there is a difference between perceptions of certain people who are in fact X – that is, are within the extension of the term – and perceptions of ‘what it is to be X’, the intension of the term. These are quite different yet the rhetoric whizzes between the two.

      • RoHa on August 30, 2018, 10:36 pm

        “It is awful that UK politics are being dominated (per BBC, newspapers etc.) by a campaign to have this dishonest stuff put on a pedestal and honoured – eventually, of course, to be enshrined in law. ”

        On the plus side, it does serve as a distraction from May’s plans to screw the people over with a fake Brexit, the defeat of Anglo-American aims in Syria, British complicity in the slaughter of the Yemenis, privatisation of the NHS, and so forth.

        Much better to sling mud at Corbyn than talk about any of that stuff.

  13. Qualtrough on August 31, 2018, 12:15 am

    I would like to point out that it is simply amazing that a group constituting a mere 0.5% of the UK population can have such a profound influence on public opinion there, but that would be anti-semitic so I won’t.

  14. Jackdaw on August 31, 2018, 2:59 am

    Veteran Labour Party whip quits over Corbyn’s turning Labour into a den of anti-Semitism.

    Hey Labour Party.

    Time to kiss him goodbye.

    • annie on August 31, 2018, 7:05 am

      seriously jack?
      “Antisemitism? No, Frank Field jumped before he was pushed”

      His resignation has nothing to do with antisemitism. Last month, the government was on the brink of defeat over its nonsensical customs arrangements plans. It may well have collapsed if the vote went the wrong way: Tory rebels were told that a general election could ensue. But Theresa May was saved by Frank Field and three other Labour rebels. That understandably riled Labour members, who pay their subs and surrender evening and weekends knocking on doors because they would quite like to replace a Tory government beholden to Jacob Rees-Mogg with a Labour administration instead.

      The local parties of both Field and Kate Hoey near-unanimously voted no confidence in both, and called for the whip to be removed. Indeed, both politicians have a unique talent of being able to unite party activists on left and right: Hoey’s party activists nominated Blairite candidate Liz Kendall in 2015. Field knew he was about to be pushed. Instead, he jumped. It was what he called for Labour MPs to do three years ago if they were deselected, and he wasn’t citing antisemitism as a pretext back then.

      • Jackdaw on September 1, 2018, 1:43 am

        If you say so, Annie.

        But you might take a moment to consider what comes straight from the horse’s mouth. It can’t hurt, right?

        “Britain fought the Second World War to banish these views from our politics, but that superhuman effort and success is now under huge and sustained internal attack”.

        “The leadership is doing nothing substantive to address this erosion of our core values. It saddens me to say that we are increasingly seen as a racist party.”- -British Labour MP Frank Field.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on September 1, 2018, 11:15 am


        I’ll bet the house that you did not know Frank Field existed until this week. Yet you’re now an expert on him? OK. He voted for Corbyn in the leadership election. Was he not aware of him being such an awful antisemite then? After all, he’d known him for decades. Also, could you point out all the previous occassions when your new hero expressed concern over antisemitism, in the UK or beyond?

        “Britain fought the Second World War to banish these views from our politics.”

        No it didn’t. It fought that war to defend Britain and its allies. Many in the British elite – up to and including members of the royal family – had views not dissimilar to the Nazis regarding Jews and others.

        But hey, it’s been shown several times in the last few months that one sure way to get an uncritical hearing in the MSM is to attack Corbyn, so Field is free to spout any old nonsense he likes.

      • Jackdaw on September 1, 2018, 12:14 pm


        No, I never heard of him, and no I’m not an expert on him, but Field is an expert on contemporary Labour politics and should be heard.

        Hear the man!

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on September 2, 2018, 4:58 am

        Frank Field is not an ‘expert’. He’s an interested party, who knew he was about to be kicked out so had to concoct a nice media-friendly excuse for jumping before he got pushed.

        Everyone who knows anything about British affairs knows that. However, you only discovered Field existed last week, so you don’t know that.

        And I notice you haven’t answered any of my questions. If Corbyn is such a rabid antisemite, how come Field voted for him a mere 3 years ago?

      • gamal on September 2, 2018, 9:06 am

        “you did not know Frank Field existed”

        Tony Blair characterised Frank “Flanders” Field as thinking the unthinkable on welfare reform, he was an ardent supporter of the Iraq war (2003 episode), as a general rule of thumb if Frank is for it it’s probably not a good idea on balance.

    • oldgeezer on September 2, 2018, 10:46 am


      Frank is a fan of Enoch Powell.

      Racists, fascist and antisemites. Those are the people zionists are attracted to.

    • annie on September 9, 2018, 4:34 pm

      hey jack, the daily mail is on the front lines with all these make believe stories, here’s another you might like. great video too. “EXCLUSIVE INSIGHT INTO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MAIL SMEAR”

  15. Maghlawatan on August 31, 2018, 5:05 am

    « Natan Sharansky famously formulated a 3D Test of Anti-Semitism that was later touted by Israel’s supporters: demonization, double standards, delegitimization »

    Sharansky was a political prisoner in the Soviet Union. Zionists lobbied ceaselessly for his release on human rights grounds. They demonized the Soviet Union and delegitimized it. And they have always had double standards. Israel holds over 10000 political prisoners and Sharansky turned out to be a wanker who only cares about his people.

  16. Maximus Decimus Meridius on September 1, 2018, 7:19 am

    “It is, to begin with, unclear why Jews warrant special treatment. Indeed, of all the protected categories in the rule, British Jews are the richest, best organized, most strategically placed, and least subject to “hostility and prejudice.” If Jewish communal organizations can so openly, brazenly, and relentlessly press this demand on Labour, it’s because of the political muscle they can flex and the political immunity they enjoy.”

    Exactly this.

    Far from displaying how ‘victimised’ British Jews are, this whole farce is doing precisely the opposite. Contrast the pearl-clutching and hysterical coverage of 5 year old comments which weren’t in any way antisemitic, to Boris Johnson taking to the pages of The Telegraph to describe women from another religious minority as looking like ‘post-boxes’ or ‘bank robbers’. While there was some condemnation, Johnson was never formally reprimanded and TV coverage made sure to provide ‘balance’ by also interviewing those who said they agreed with his comments, dragging out all the usual ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘PC gone mad’ arguments that are never ever made with regards to Jews. Needless to say, if Johnson had made similar comments about the attire of conservative Jewish women, his political career would be over by now.

    But Johnson is not stupid and knows that certain religious minorities are fair game, while others have to be pandered to. Of course if anyone dared say this in public, this in itself would be seen as you-know-what.

  17. Maximus Decimus Meridius on September 1, 2018, 7:23 am

    “Jews might be superior. The average IQ score of Ashkenazi Jews is significantly higher than that of any other ethnic group in the world.”

    If Jews are so intellectually superior, why is that the Jewish state has a distinctly mediocre record in education?

    Israel comes only about halfway down the PISA rankings (imperfect though they may be) and there isn’t a single Israeli university in the top 200 ranked universities in the world. You would think that a country which can avail of all that concentrated Jewish brilliance would do a bit better than that.

    • Maghlawatan on September 1, 2018, 8:47 am

      Israelis are not educated. They are indoctrinated. The 14 or so families who own Israel aren’t fond of education. Neither is Zionism. An educated population is harder to scare and would never elect someone like Netanyahu.

  18. Ossinev on September 1, 2018, 3:08 pm


    “Hear the man!”

    What about hearing a real man on the real Frank Fields:

  19. Ossinev on September 1, 2018, 5:53 pm

    “One thing that the Labour leader could do today is he could announce that all the Jewish MPs are re-standing automatically as Labour candidates at the next election, that would shut up some of the extremists.”

    Yes all you Labour Party members and supporters out there this is a so called Labour Party MP (and leading Friend of Israel) John Mann suggesting that just because a prospective candidate is Jewish he/she should automatically be selected – in other words you should have no democratic say in the matter. Now that is rich coming from a Labour ( sic or sick if you prefer ) MP. If you prefer an Anglican,Catholic,Muslim,Atheist candidate well too bad.

    For those of you who know little about John Mann:

    Notice in the carefully staged video footage that the thuggish loud mouth bully Mann obviously working to a pre-prep Zio script throughout shouts down Ken Livingstone who despite being virtually kidnapped tries to give his views in a calm and polite manner.

    Can`t find any record of Mann having a similar live go at George Galloway – I wonder why. If you are out there George perhaps you should invite him for an exchange of views on Israel/Zionism. Would be great to see you rip this loathsome hypocrite to shreds.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on September 2, 2018, 4:56 am

      I had to read the comment by John Mann twice to make sure he said what I think he said.

      He did.

      He is saying that candidates should be chosen not because they are deemed fit by the rest of their party, but simply on the basis of their religion.

      Unbelievable. And Mann isn’t even Jewish. Though he is, of course, a card-carrying Friend of You-Know-Where.

      But of course if we say that this is all about priviliging Jews (or at least Zionist, establishment Jews) and allowing Israel to interfere in the domestic affairs of the UK, you’re a vile antisemite.

      And it also proves the point many of us have been making all along – nothing will be enough for Corbyn’s attackers. The NEC could adopt the sacred ‘definition’ with all its ‘examples’ and the rest, and they’d still be after Corbyn. That’s because it isn’t about The Definition, or some remarks he made 5 years ago – it’s about Corbyn himself. They want his scalp. And they’ll stop at nothing to get it.

      BTW did you see The Observer today? No fewer than 4 (!) “antisemitism row” stories in the top slot. Four. And at least one other piece futher down the page. Because in the days of Brexit, NHS cuts and austerity, this is the story which is really engaging ordinary Brits up and down the land. Sure it is.

      • Keith on September 2, 2018, 4:40 pm

        MAXIMUS- “BTW did you see The Observer today? No fewer than 4 (!) “antisemitism row” stories in the top slot.”

        Yes, and the dramatic increase in stories about anti-Semitism will be used to infer an actual increase in anti-Semitism. Thus, does propaganda justify itself.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on September 3, 2018, 12:23 pm

        Exactly. Like the ‘antisemitism row’ which is really just a few Blairites and their associated media hacks mouthing faux outrage to one another. Since it was them who created it, the ‘row’ persists as long as they want it to. And they want it to persist until Corbyn is gone, and not one moment sooner. Let us be in doubt about that.

      • amigo on September 3, 2018, 1:11 pm

        “Because in the days of Brexit, NHS cuts and austerity, this is the story which is really engaging ordinary Brits up and down the land. Sure it is.”MDM

        I am guessing , but surely by now , ordinary Brits , Labour/Tory or otherwise are beginning to wonder if they are Antisemitic .They must be wondering also , why they cannot pick up a newspaper without being exposed to articles about Antisemitism.

        Sacks told us in his latest interview that Jews no longer feel safe in the UK because of the level of “New Antisemitism” that is rife in the UK.

        My advice to British Non Jews is to keep their contact to an absolute minimum to ensure they are not making British Jews feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

        Oops , silly me .That would also lead to accusations of Antisemitism.Some people are never happy.

  20. Ossinev on September 3, 2018, 1:54 pm

    “Yes, and the dramatic increase in stories about anti-Semitism will be used to infer an actual increase in anti-Semitism”.

    Totally agree it is line with the theory of serial liars actully ending up seriously believing their own lies to be the truth.

    I think also that in the UK Zionist Jew scenario and in the Jewish Zionist scenario worldwide there is obviously a strong element of parental,synagogue,school etc brainwashing which also especially with younger people who have been raised in a Zionist Jew environment increasingly an element of self brainwashing. The rampant Anti -Semitism/existential threat allegations are completely made up but I believe that a lot of younger Zionist Jews in the internet age are really struggling to square the circle. There is an almost palpable desperation to believe that it`s all true because the papers say so. Fortunately in 2018 as opposed to 1948 people no longer have to go to libraries and spend hours doing research and checking facts. It`s all there at the click of a button. And all the brainwashing in the world will not change the simple fact that Israel the dreamland of the Zionist Jews here in the UK and elsewhere was from the beginning and is patently now a Racist Apartheid Colonial State which commits war crimes and human rights abuses on a daily basis. Thus it is right and proper and moral to speak out against these crimes and criticise the perpetrators who are in this case Zionist Jews. That is not in any shape or form “Anti- Semitic”. On the contrary it is fundamental to the principles of the religion which is Judaism

    Forget for a moment about the obvious culprits in this nasty little scenario = the unelected Jewish Lobby Group Representatives (Deputies,Sheriffs or otherwise) and the Jewish Labour MP`s who are patently IMO speaking and acting at the request of a foreign government. Forget the Tory Party which has jumped on the A/S bandwagon and is relishing it all as a gift from on high in their ongoing fight against the Labour Party (be it a Corbyn led Labour or any other type of Labour Party). The real culprits are those so called Labour MP`s who overnight became has beens in the Labour Movement , resent that fact are quite obviously going along with the witch hunt as a way of getting back at and undermining Corbyn simply because they feel aggrieved and fear rightly that their days of being amongst the elite in the party are over .Liars,turncoats,backstabbers,Judases the lot of them. The Labour Party and UK politics as a whole will be better off once they disappear into the dustbin of politics..

    • amigo on September 3, 2018, 3:00 pm

      “Fortunately in 2018 as opposed to 1948 people no longer have to go to libraries and spend hours doing research and checking facts. It`s all there at the click of a button. ” 0ssinev

      Yup and who was it that gave us Computers/Internet and all the high tech products that allow us to “fact check”, with such ease.

      Oops, what an own goal.

  21. Maximus Decimus Meridius on September 3, 2018, 1:59 pm

    “My advice to British Non Jews is to keep their contact to an absolute minimum to ensure they are not making British Jews feel uncomfortable and unsafe.”

    Yes indeed. While walking down the street I always make sure I keep my eyes downcast and exhibit a non-threatening manner so as to not intimidate any Jews I might happen to encounter. Not that I’d know. Although we’re told that Jews are a ‘race’, most of them don’t look very different from the other Brits I come across every day.

    “Sacks told us in his latest interview that Jews no longer feel safe in the UK because of the level of “New Antisemitism” that is rife in the UK.”

    Ah yes, like that demented ‘article’ in the Guardian from some ‘journalist’ saying she feels the need to teach her 3 year old (yes, 3 year old) about antisemitism, because Jews in the UK feel SO threatened.

    For a highly privileged person to seek out victimhood, and much worse, try to indoctrinate your tiny child in the same, strikes me as a form of mental illness.

Leave a Reply