Trending Topics:

Zionism is ‘at the heart’ of British Jewish identity, ‘NYT’ author writes

on 82 Comments

As readers are aware, the Labour Party in Britain is now under attack for alleged anti-Semitism because of its support for Palestinian human rights. There is a full-on assault in the mainstream press on the party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, who in the latest turn of the story was shown to have accused British Zionists of lacking British irony in 2013, despite “having lived here all their lives,” remarks that some have interpreted as anti-semitic. (And that Jerry Haber defends.)

What leaps out from the ongoing controversy is that for starters, the assault is relentless, and it will surely come to the United States when pro-Palestinian advocates establish a beachhead in the Democratic Party, as we surely will. We too will be ripped to shreds by mainstream media when that media at last ceases to ignore us. (Norman Finkelstein and I will be accused of anti-Semitism for remarking on Jewish inclusion in the establishment.)

The mainstream press is clear about its stance. Both the New York Times and the New Yorker have lately written that Corbyn’s comments are anti-Semitic. “[S]candal upon Jew-hating scandal has washed up at Jeremy Corbyn’s door,” Josh Glancy writes in the New York Times. The NY correspondent for the Sunday Times of London, Glancy says Corbyn is guilty of “classic anti-semitism.”

Here were a group of Jews with whom Mr. Corbyn has a political disagreement. And he smeared them not on the basis of that disagreement but on the basis of their ethnicity. He accused them of failing to assimilate English values, of not fitting in, of still being a bit foreign.

The next major thing that leaps out from the controversy is that there is nothing in the mainstream articles about Palestinian human rights. The slaughter of Palestinians for protesting at the Gaza fence goes unmentioned; the massive checkpoint at Qalandiya that prevents Palestinians in the West Bank from visiting Jerusalem or the sea, unmentioned; the Jim Crow order in the West Bank of settlers over Palestinians, unmentioned. These are the reasons that I’m an anti-Zionist and that so many young Americans are coming to anti-Zionism. However good Zionism looked on paper 100 years ago, it has worked out very badly for the Palestinian population; and at this site we insist that the treatment of Palestinians is the most important question (many of us support boycott, as discrimination in Montgomery, Alabama, once demanded the bus boycott), and that to ignore Palestinian human rights is inexcusable. As Donald Johnson says, “Since people are revving up their finely calibrated anti-semitism detection apparatus on this subject, while the machinery for detecting anti Palestinian bigotry is rusting unused on a junkpile somewhere, I think we have to explain ourselves.”

Finally, these articles completely erase any difference between Zionists and Jews. “’Zionists’ are conflated with ‘British Jews’ in the space of two paragraphs,” Naked Capitalism notes acidly in its link to the New Yorker piece. That conflation leaves Corbyn in a difficult position. He’s being attacked for saying that Zionists lack the British sense of irony because it is charged that he meant Jews when he was saying Zionists. But the critics are themselves saying: Jews are Zionists.

Consider Glancy, the Sunday Times correspondent who said Corbyn has been washed by one Jew-hating scandal after another. He and Ben Judah are co-authors of a series in Tablet on anti-Semitism in the UK, “the Polite Hatred,” in which they assert flatly that to be Jewish in Britain today means to be a Zionist, because British Jewish identity has become so intertwined with Jewish nationalism in Israel.

Ties between the Jewish community in Britain and Israel have become so close that an attack on Israel is taken by many in the community as a personal affront. Sometimes these attacks have anti-Semitic motivations, often they do not: It can be difficult to tell. But anti-Semitic or not, they are attacks on Britain’s new kind of Jewish life…

This transition can be summed in a single word: “We.” Many British Jews say “we” when they talk about Israel, rather than “they.” No one knows quite when this started, but given this choice of pronoun it is perhaps not entirely surprising that non-Jewish people can also say “you.” Both are identifying Jews and Israel collectively.

Glancy and Judah say anti-Zionism feels anti-Semitic.

The new anti-Zionism, which is becoming ever more pronounced, feels the same way that anti-Semitism does: a singling out, discrimination, them turning against us. One reason for this …  is that in the past 50 years many British Jews have become, in part, culturally Israeli. Zionism is at the heart of their Jewish identity.

Notice the absurd degree of generalization that the authors offer about British Jews. They are “culturally Israeli.” Imagine if Corbyn had been stupid enough to say the same about British Jews: they’re culturally Israeli. What would people say about him?

At the end of their article the authors say that anti-Zionists and Jews don’t even understand this new oneness of Jewry and Zionism, but that if Israel becomes a pariah state, Jews will be at great risk.

Many British anti-Zionists may sincerely think they are only teaching their supporters to oppose “Zionists” and not Jews. But in reality they are teaching their supporters to oppose British Jews not as they imagine them, but as they really are…

It may well be the case that many British Jews don’t fully appreciate the complexity of their new identity either. Or what the implications of this will be if Israel does indeed become a pariah state to Europeans, as many of its detractors hope it will.

So Glancy can state that many or the majority of British Jews identify with Israel to the point that they are culturally Israeli, but when Corbyn offers a generalization which is nowhere near as broad (Zionists lack British irony) he labels him an anti-semite for suggesting that all Jews are “a bit foreign.” Isn’t being culturally Israeli “a bit foreign”? It’s double think, and Glancy does it with perfect sincerity, because other liberals support him in the claims. 
These writers do not perceive the Zionist crisis: For many Jews, including British ones, the treatment of Palestinians is a which-side-are-you-on question, and they reject a Jewish identity that derives from a racially-discriminatory religious state.
This blindness carries over to the insistence in the media that the definition of anti-Semitism proffered by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) be adopted by state bodies. The people pushing this definition identify with Israel, so they want it written into the definition of anti-semitism that an attack on Israel is an attack on them. However, when explaining the IHRA, the US press doesn’t point out that it’s being pushed by Israel advocates, and the press fails to include Palestinian voices. No, you get the boilerplate about how it is okay to criticize Israel. Sure– so long as nothing comes of it.
Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

82 Responses

  1. amigo on August 29, 2018, 12:52 pm

    “According to a 2014 poll conducted by GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes for the BBC World Service, the British public views Israel overwhelmingly negatively, while Israelis view the UK positively: 72% of British people were reported as holding negative views towards Israel, with only 19% holding positive ones.[23] The same poll recorded that 50% of Israeli respondents viewed the UK favourably, with only 6% doing so negatively.[23]

    An October 2015 poll of the British public, commissioned by the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre and carried out by the British market research firm Populus, indicated that 62% of Britons described themselves as viewing Israel negatively, while 19% said they were favourable to Israel.[24”

    Seems to me that if the majority of British Jews feel culturally Israeli , then they are out of step with their non Jewish fellow British citizens of whom some 70% view Israel negatively.

    British Jews represent , one half on one percent of the British Population.

    If British Jews , or rather the majority of them support Israel , then the majority of them support Apartheid/Land Theft/Colonialism Collective Punishment/Targeted Assassinations and all the other crimes Israel commits and therefore are in direct opposition to what Non Jewish brits support.

    Not sure Britain needs people who are culturally Israeli.

    • Donald on August 29, 2018, 2:28 pm

      I think we want to change people’s minds or failing that, beat them politically, but it isn’t a question of needing or not needing people.

      Not that I am a Brit, but as Phil says, we will have this issue come up here sooner or later.

      • amigo on August 29, 2018, 4:13 pm

        “I think we want to change people’s minds or failing that, beat them politically, but it isn’t a question of needing or not needing people.”Donald

        Well the former option is a non starter so I guess the latter is the lesser of two difficult tasks.

        “Not that I am a Brit, but as Phil says, we will have this issue come up here sooner or later.” Donald

        I am Irish and I doubt this level of Israeli interference would get over the first fence here in Ireland.

        Let,s hope the Labour NEC will give the thumbs down to IHRA next week as that might slow down the onslaught for a while , at least.

    • Maghlawatan on August 29, 2018, 2:47 pm

      Israeli barbarity in Gaza went down very badly in the UK. Brits don’t tend to like ####s.

    • JWalters on August 29, 2018, 6:58 pm

      At the time of the Balfour letter to Lord Rothschild (the so-called “Balfour Declaration”), British Jews predominantly opposed the creation of Israel. This view was explained clearly and compellingly by the one Jew in the British cabinet, Lord Montagu. His strong statement is equally relevant and worth reading today.
      “On the Anti-Semitism of the Present Government
      A Dissenting Note on the Balfour Declaration”

      • wondering jew on August 30, 2018, 1:00 am

        JWalters- Is there some poll of British Jews that you are citing, or is this mere conjecture based upon the opinions of very powerful Jews expressed at the time and thus considered “predominantly”. What percentage of British Jews in 1917 were immigrants from Eastern Europe and how many had roots deeper than 1881?

      • Elizabeth Block on August 30, 2018, 8:58 am

        Balfour wrote: “In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants [sic] of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are. The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism … is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.” (Karen Armstrong, “Holy War,” p.521.)

        Balfour, like many other British Christian Zionists, wanted to get Jews out of Britain. This was a good way to do it.

      • Misterioso on August 30, 2018, 10:45 am

        @wondering jew

        Prophetic comments, i.e., predictions that came TRUE!!:

        On June 4, 2009, the Israeli daily Haaretz published an editorial by mainstream liberal politician and long time Knesset member Shulamit Aloni in which she quotes a letter Lord Rothschild sent in 1902 to Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement. In the letter, Rothschild explained why he could not support a Jewish state in Palestine. He wrote that he “should view with horror the establishment of a Jewish colony pure and simple; such a colony would be Imperium Imperio; it would be a Ghetto with the prejudice of the Ghetto; it would be a small petty Jewish state, orthodox and illiberal, excluding the Gentile and the Christian.”

        Then Secretary of State for India and the British cabinet’s only Jewish member, Lord Edwin Montagu’s response to Prime Minister Lloyd George following issuance of the illegal 1917 Balfour Declaration: “All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto. You want to force me back there.”

        To quote Gertrude Bell, one of the era’s greatest Arabists, a colleague of T.E. Lawrence and a member of British intelligence in Cairo: Realizing what it could lead to, she wrote the British cabinet of PM Lloyd George advising it that “an independent Jewish Palestine” was impractical because “[Palestine]…is not Jewish; ” the native population would not “accept Jewish authority…. Jerusalem is equally sacred to three faiths and should not be put under the exclusive control of any one….” (Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem, p. 585)

        Henry Morgenthau Sr., renowned Jewish American and former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, 1919: “Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history….The very fervour of my feeling for the oppressed of every race and every land, especially for the Jews, those of my own blood and faith, to whom I am bound by every tender tie, impels me to fight with all the greater force against this scheme, which my intelligence tells me can only lead them deeper into the mire of the past, while it professes to be leading them to the heights. Zionism is… a retrogression into the blackest error, and not progress toward the light.” (Quoted by Frank Epp, Whose Land is Palestine?, p. 261)

        Asked to sign a petition supporting settlement of Jews in Palestine, Sigmund Freud declined: “I cannot…I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state….It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land….I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives.” (Letter to Dr. Chaim Koffler Keren HaYassod, Vienna: 2/26/30)

        In 1939, Albert Einstein wrote: “There could be no greater calamity than a permanent discord between us and the Arab people. Despite the great wrong that has been done us, we must strive for a just and lasting compromise with the Arab people…. Let us recall that in former times no people lived in greater friendship with us than the ancestors of these Arabs.” (Einstein and Zionism by Banesh Hoffmann, in General Relativity and Gravitation, eds.
        G. Shaviv and J. Rosen, Wiley, 1975, p. 242)

        Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, 1944: “The concept of a racial state – the Hitlerian concept- is repugnant to the civilized world, as witness the fearful global war in which we are involved. . . , I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences.”

      • Nathan on September 3, 2018, 7:25 am

        Misterioso – You publish every so often this very same comment, claiming that you have “predictions that have come true”. However, not a single one of these predictions actually came true, so I’m beginning to wonder how you understand the complex nature of history and language.

        First of all, Lord Rothschild supported the Jewish settlements. So, apparently this quote that you bring to our attention is mistaken (you didn’t actually read the 2009 Ha-Aretz article that you are quoting, did you). The first Jewish settlements at the end of the 19th century would not have survived without Rothschild’s help (and he and his wife asked to be buried in one of the settlements that he supported).

        Edwin Montagu’s prediction that the Balfour Declaration will put him back into the ghetto turned out to be untrue. Mr Montagu did not return to the ghetto.

        Gertrude Bell’s prediction that “an independent Jewish Palestine” would be “impractical” turned out to be false as well. In 1948, an independent Jewish state was indeed founded in Palestine, and it continues to exist today (seventy years later). I thought that this was common knowledge, so I found it surprising that you understood that this prediction came true. Anyway, check your atlas for a state on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea called Israel. It’s really there.

        Henry Morgenthau Sr.’s statement that he is impelled “to fight with all the greater force against this scheme” strikes me as hollow and insincere. What action did he take that would indicate that he used “greater force” to foil Zionism? Perhaps, you believe that “bla-bla-bla” is “greater force”, but I would imagine that the repeated entry of the same comment by you has applied even a greater force that Zionism has had to confront all these years.

        Your quote of Albert Einstein is manipulative. Your intention is to convince us that he was against Zionism, but we all know that he was a Zionist. He was one of the founders of the Hebrew University. Anyway, if he really said in 1939 that “there could be no greater calamity than a permanent discord between us and the Arab people”, then obviously that prediction turned out to be untrue.

        The quote from Lessing J. Rosenwald is probably the most humorous “prediction” of all. I’m glad that you brought it to our attention. When Mr Rosenwald tells us that the creation of a Jewish state “might well have incalculable consequences,” he is saying that it is impossible to make predictions at all, especially about the future. It’s funny that you have understood “no prediction” as “prediction come true”.

        You often give us lists of quotes in your comments. It’s all very interesting, but there is a basic mistake in your understanding of what a quote is. All your “quotes” are secondary. This means that you didn’t really read the quote (let’s say) in a book by Ben-Gurion; rather, you repeat the quote supposedly by Ben-Gurion as it appears in a book by Alfred Lillienthal (or some other anti-Israel activist). Well, that’s not quoting, and you should be suspicious if the “quote” is for real. You should try and find the primary source. It’s called intellectual integrity.

    • Misterioso on August 30, 2018, 11:00 am


      I don’t live in Britain, but as I observe what is happening there, it seems obvious to me that British Zionists are in shock and fumbling about trying to ward off the public’s escalating and entirely justified disgust with “Israel.” Zionism is in free fall around the world and its only a matter of time before the majority of Americans also see its ugly truth.

    • Ellen on August 31, 2018, 10:50 pm

      Well…. the British are — or were — the masters of Colonialism and all the horrors colonialist endeavors cast upon us. The Zionist Colonial enterprise is very well understood by the British. No wonder is has little support by the British in the modern world . They, more than most, know what it was, is and how it will end.

  2. eljay on August 29, 2018, 1:04 pm

    The new anti-Zionism, which is becoming ever more pronounced, feels the same way that anti-Semitism does: a singling out, discrimination, them turning against us. One reason for this … is that in the past 50 years many British Jews have become, in part, culturally Israeli. Zionism is at the heart of their Jewish identity.

    Homosexuals feel the same way: Their support for Gay supremacism in/and a deliberately and unapologetically oppressive, colonialist, (war) criminal and orientation-supremacist state has led to Gay supremacist backlash which is becoming ever more pronounced and feels the same way that homophobia does.

    Well, all of that would be true if the majority of gay people were – like the majority of Jews are – supremacists advocating, engaging in, supporting and/or defending their “right” to do evil unto others that they would not have others do unto them.

    But they’re not.

    Poor Zionists. Aggressor-victimhood is such a tough gig…  :-(

  3. Donald on August 29, 2018, 1:34 pm

    People should follow the Derfner link to Haber’s post and read it.

    After reading it, you can still force the worst possible interpretation on Corbyn’s remarks if you choose, but it will take a lot of hard work.

    As an American, though, I am deeply offended at the implication that only the Brits have a sense of irony.

    • Mooser on August 29, 2018, 3:00 pm

      “As an American, though, I am deeply offended at the implication that only the Brits have a sense of irony.”

      Try taking an ironic view of the implication.

      • Donald on August 29, 2018, 5:19 pm

        “I have decided not to read any more commentary on this issue until I have read something by a Palestinian.” Jerry Haber

        The link for this quote doesn’t seem to work or the page is unavailable.

        This post went in the wrong place, but I am too lazy to move it.

      • John Douglas on August 29, 2018, 6:50 pm

        Mooser, Ever try irony, a facetious quip for example, on a born and raised Minnesotan, or like Heartlander?

    • RoHa on August 29, 2018, 9:21 pm

      “the implication that only the Brits have a sense of irony.”

      Where is that implied?

      • Donald on August 29, 2018, 9:50 pm

        It’s only implied that it is implied. You might have to squint and stand on your head, but if you do you will spot the insult with no problem. Obviously.

  4. JLewisDickerson on August 29, 2018, 1:38 pm

    RE: Isn’t being culturally Israel “a bit foreign”? It’s double think, but Glancy does it with perfect sincerity, because other liberals support him in the claims. ~ Weiss

    SEE: “When Facts Fail: Can We Change Hearts and Minds?” | by Amée Latour | | January 5, 2016

    [EXCERPT] . . . I’ve long been interested in finding effective ways to talk to people with whom I disagree. I try not to go into such conversations with the conviction that I am right and they are wrong; they may have information or insight or perspective that I do not. By exchanging such wares, perhaps we can move closer to one another. Maybe one of us will change our minds. Or maybe we’ll just understand one another a bit better. It’s an exercise of understanding first, and convincing second (if at all).

    But recently I’ve found myself embroiled in “conversations” in which I cannot, in any way, understand the other, and he or she cannot understand me. Facts and reasoning hold no sway and we yell across a chasm that grows the more we speak. This is my hell, the opposite of what should happen, a direct challenge to my faith.

    The first step is to understand.

    Why Do Facts Fail?

    Fortunately, those better equipped than I are already attempting to do so. A study conducted between 2005 and 2006, entitled “When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misconceptions,” sought to analyze the impact of factual information on participants’ misconceptions (including the ideas that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, G.W. Bush banned stem cell research and tax cuts increase government revenue). Researchers found that, among the most ideologically conservative participants, receiving factual information about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the lack of correlation between tax cuts and increased government revenue not only failed to correct their misconceptions, but actually strengthened their belief in them. The researchers called this “the backfire effect.” Among liberals, misconceptions were neither corrected nor strengthened by access to information to the contrary.

    The study authors suggest that the phenomenon of “motivated reasoning” may explain why misconceptions were not corrected, and in some cases were even strengthened, by contradicting information. Motivated reasoning is the unconscious process by which people interpret, accept and dismiss information in a way that contributes to some goal, and is the focus of much of Yale Law professor Dan Kahan’s research. Kahan explains that motivated reasoning can have diverse goals, including preserving one’s position within a group, maintaining a certain self-image and abating anxiety or dissonance. There are a number of ways in which motivated reasoning plays out: biased information search (seeking out or giving more weight to information that confirms one’s stance), biased assimilation (discrediting evidence to the contrary of one’s stance) and identity-protective cognition (dismissing evidence that would cause one anxiety or dissonance) are three primary styles noted by Kahan. . .


    • JLewisDickerson on August 29, 2018, 2:06 pm

      Cognitive bias
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ~

      A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment.[1] Individuals create their own “subjective social reality” from their perception of the input. An individual’s construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the social world.[2] Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[3][4][5]

      Some cognitive biases are presumably adaptive. Cognitive biases may lead to more effective actions in a given context.[6] Furthermore, cognitive biases enable faster decisions when timeliness is more valuable than accuracy, as illustrated in heuristics.[7] Other cognitive biases are a “by-product” of human processing limitations,[8] resulting from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms (bounded rationality), or simply from a limited capacity for information processing.[9][10]

      A continually evolving list of cognitive biases has been identified over the last six decades of research on human judgment and decision-making in cognitive science, social psychology, and behavioral economics. Kahneman and Tversky (1996) argue that cognitive biases have efficient practical implications for areas including clinical judgment, entrepreneurship, finance, and management.[11][12]

      ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂

      List of cognitive biases
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ~

      Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, and are often studied in psychology and behavioral economics.[2]

      Although the reality of these biases is confirmed by replicable research, there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them.[3] Some are effects of information-processing rules (i.e., mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Biases have a variety of forms and appear as cognitive (“cold”) bias, such as mental noise,[4] or motivational (“hot”) bias, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Both effects can be present at the same time.[5][6]

      There are also controversies over some of these biases as to whether they count as useless or irrational, or whether they result in useful attitudes or behavior. For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. However, this kind of confirmation bias has also been argued to be an example of social skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person.[7]

      Although this research overwhelmingly involves human subjects, some findings that demonstrate bias have been found in non-human animals as well. For example, hyperbolic discounting has been observed in rats, pigeons, and monkeys.[8] .

      Decision-making, belief, and behavioral biases [A VERY LONG LIST] –,_belief,_and_behavioral_biases

      • Ellen on August 31, 2018, 11:06 pm

        Ole’ Jack needs to go back to his handlers for retraining in effective discourse. He is making a fool of himself and the Zio Cause.

  5. Jackdaw on August 29, 2018, 2:34 pm

    Jeremy says: ‘Israel controls Parliament MPs’.,7340,L-5337016,00.html

    Facts, say otherwise.


    • Donald on August 29, 2018, 4:08 pm
      • Jackdaw on August 30, 2018, 12:28 pm


        The messenger is the Daily Mail.
        The message is that Corbyn spread lies about an unfounded link between your PM’s and Israel.

        Just made shit up, same as Trump does.

    • oldgeezer on August 29, 2018, 4:32 pm

      He didn’t say what you claim and neither did the article. jackdaw is perpetually dishonesty something that comes naturally to you or do you work at it?

      Actually the entire article is extremely dishonest.

      • Jackdaw on August 29, 2018, 5:14 pm

        Prove the article is dishonesty or shut up.

      • Donald on August 29, 2018, 5:29 pm

        The article is Corbyn saying that some Israeli flunky must be writing the speeches because they all have the same talking points and various people denying it. I am not sure if they are denying that they share similar talking points or just that some Israeli wrote the speeches.

        I assume everyone said the things they are reported to have said.

      • oldgeezer on August 29, 2018, 5:35 pm


        Prove the article is true or gfy

      • amigo on August 29, 2018, 5:39 pm

        “Prove the article is dishonesty or shut up.” jackduh

        Y, Net News ???.

        Case closed.

      • Mooser on August 29, 2018, 6:32 pm

        Internet Pro-tip for “Jackdaw”: Telling somebody “or shut up” on the Internet when you have no power to ban or delete them just makes you look stupid and childish.

      • JWalters on August 29, 2018, 6:45 pm

        oldgeezer, spot on. Jackdaw gives no proof and demands proof from others in the most rude way. A 4th grade tactic.

      • Jackdaw on August 30, 2018, 12:42 am


        I knew you were a feckless loser. Sod off.


        The PMs in question, denied Corbyn’s claims, and when the Daily Mail re-read the PMs speeches, they couldn’t find Corbyn’s alleged similar ‘keywords’.

        So Corbyn lied and when he peddled in anti-Semitic stereotypes.

        But even worse than that, you people protect him and condone his anti-Semitism.

        Shame on you.

      • Jackdaw on August 30, 2018, 12:51 am


        Not YNet. The Daily Mail.

        Actually, I toned it down. The Daily Mail, who broke the story, used the description, “Bizarre anti-Semitic conspiracy theory” to describe Corybn’s rant.

      • John O on August 30, 2018, 4:05 am


        The Daily Mail is a far-right-wing rag. It attacked Corbyn’s predecessor, Ed Miliband (who is Jewish) by calling his father, the distinguished academic Ralph Miliband, who fought heroically in WW2, as “the man who hated England”. Fortunately, its half-mad editor, Paul Dacre, has been kicked upstairs by the paper’s owners, who seem to have belatedly realised the damage he has done to civilised discourse in the UK.

      • Donald on August 30, 2018, 8:12 am

        Jackdaw, if you meant the Daily Mail you should have linked to it directly. I might read it later.

        BTW, I don’t have anything against Ynet. Don’t know enough about them to say anything good or bad.

      • Maghlawatan on August 30, 2018, 8:12 am


        This is prolly above your pay grade. The Daily Mail was pro Nazi in the 30s so it makes sense that it is pro Israeli now.
        Above all it loathes the UK Labour Party and despises Corbyn so an article on him means nothing, similar to anything from Israel Hayom on The khamas.

      • CigarGod on August 30, 2018, 8:14 am

        Or what, Jack?
        You’ll use a rifle butt on everyone?
        Burn down a grove of olives?
        Shoot a boy in the face and put a girl in jail when she slaps you for it?

    • RoHa on August 29, 2018, 9:35 pm

      “Jeremy says: ‘Israel controls Parliament MPs’.

      Facts, say otherwise.”

      First, and most importantly, unless your second sentence is command to the facts (Facts, I command you to say otherwise), there should not be a comma in the sentence.

      Second, I read your sentence as meaning that the facts contradict Jeremy’s alleged claim that Israel control.

      So I have to ask: what are these facts that prove Israel’s innocence?

      Note that I am not assuming Israel’s guilt.

      • RoHa on August 30, 2018, 12:35 am

        Jeremy’s alleged claim that Israel controls Parliament MPs.

      • RoHa on August 30, 2018, 2:10 am

        That story is about Corbyn’s alleged anti-Semitism.

        It does say that examination of the speeches fails to support Jeremy’s alleged claim that Israel controls Parliament MPs, but it provides no facts to contradict that claim.

        On that basis, we can assume innocent until proved guilty, but you suggest that innocence can be proved.

        So what are the facts that “say otherwise”?

    • oldgeezer on August 30, 2018, 1:14 pm


      Sod off? Pffft. I would repeat my last suggestion as it’s the only way you’ll ever get satisfaction of any kind.

      Jeremy says: ‘Israel controls Parliament MPs’.

      Of course the article you linked to does not say that. Nor does the dail maily article it links to. And the clip linked to by the daily mail clearly shows Jeremy Corbyn did not say that.

      You couldn’t even get past the first line of your post without being the total liar that you always are! And compound your dishonesty by presenting it as a quote when no one said that at all.

      Both articles do claim that Corbyn stated that Israel controls their speeches but as the clip shows he did not say that either. He did comment on the similarity of the pro Israeli speeches during the debate and how they all touched on the same theme. As if they were given talking points.

      Of course The Lobby Part expose and, particularly Part 4, shows Israeli operatives discussing doing that very thing.

      There is very little doubt that Israel does indeed do that via it’s xFI groups which it uses to undermine democracy in other countries.

      I highly recommend The Lobby to everyone but I would imagine most have seen it.

      Apart from jackieduh’s link to the trashrag ynet….
      Here’s a link to the dailymail article which also has the tightly edit Corbyn video and quote. btw the dailymail is also considered a trash rag in the UK which during it’s time supported nazi Germany, Mosley and the recently mentioned Enoch Powell with his rivers of blood speech.

      Here is the debate that Corbyn refers to. It was actually a debate on the Middle East but quickly devolves into I/P by the second or third page. It is long and tedious. There was a video of the session but I can’t find it within a resonable time.

      Finally here is a link to expose The Lobby. Part 4 is relevant to this issue. Watch the whole episode but those who can’t afford the time the relevant part begins at 15:03

  6. Maghlawatan on August 29, 2018, 3:16 pm

    Slavery was at the heart of Dixie identity. Reality v Dixie ended badly for Dixie.

    If UK Jews think international law is negotiable they need a new identity.

    • DaBakr on September 2, 2018, 4:26 am


      Slavery was at the heart of the north African Arab slave trade. Many sheiks and leaders made the equivalent of billions selling to various europeans

  7. Maghlawatan on August 29, 2018, 3:39 pm

    The thing about Tel Aviv for UK Jews is that everyone there is Jewish so it probably feels great . But the price of that concentrated Jewishness is a brutal system of human rights abuses. And UK Jews do not want to choose.

  8. Ossinev on August 29, 2018, 6:23 pm


    “Facts, say otherwise”

    OK for starters the craparticle which you refer to is a Zionism supporting rag. Zionism and “facts” = contradiction in terms.
    Ken Livingstone was stating historical fact viz:
    It states:
    “A long list of party members have become embroiled in anti-Semitic statements in recent years, including senior politician Ken Livingstone, who claimed that Hitler was in fact a passionate Zionist and Naz Shah, who called for a “relocation” of Israel to the United States”

    “Hitler was a”passionate Zionist”. Please show factually where KL said that Hitler was a “passionate” Zionist. Total made up BS.

    As for Naz Shah:
    ” Facebook post that said that moving Israel to America would allow Palestinians to “get their land and life back”. Alongside the post she added: “Problem solved.”

    There are hundreds of millions of intelligent moral international law respecting people out there including a large number of non – Zionist Jews who would certainly have a level of sympathy for this observation given the fact that America enabled the creation of and maintains the existence the Apartheid “State” of Israel . However if this was ever to be seriously tabled as a realistic proposal as opposed to it being an “ironic” free speech observation the pivotal opponents to such a “move” are the Americans who have made Apartheid Israel a reality = the fruitcake end of days Christian Evangelical Zionists. Their fairy tale dream of an end of days presupposes that the Jews remain in Israel and are then converted to Christianity when the Messiah returns. Now that is what I call “Anti – Semitic” – inciting conversion of Jews because they are technically heretics.. Even if .5% of the claims Anti – Semitism in Jermy Corbyn`s Labour Party were proved to be true which they are not it would be a miniscule drop in the ocean compared with vast number of blatant Anti – Semites in the US Evangelical movement. Now I wonder why Zionist Central have not suggested to rent a thug John Mann that he accidentally in a totally unplanned way (there just happened to be a camera crew passing at the time) surprises Mr Pence and attacks him for his blatant anti Semitism. Ironic isn`t it. Perhaps not – Zionists don`t get irony do they.

    • RoHa on August 29, 2018, 9:37 pm

      Why is it anti-Semitic to suggest moving Israel to the USA?

      • Jackdaw on August 30, 2018, 12:45 am


        Because Israel is the home of the Jewish people.

        How about the suggestion that Britain’s Pakistani community move back to Pakistan?

        I can’t believe you are so dense that I have to explain this to you.

      • annie on August 30, 2018, 1:02 am

        How about the suggestion that Britain’s Pakistani community move back to Pakistan?

        seriously? and no others in Britain have agency? you sre drinking too much koolaid.

      • RoHa on August 30, 2018, 2:04 am

        If Israel were moved to the USA, it would still be “the home of the Jewish people”, wouldn’t it?

      • Talkback on August 30, 2018, 6:36 am

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

        ROFL. The majority of Jews doesn’t even live there.

        Jackdaw: “How about the suggestion that Britain’s Pakistani community move back to Pakistan?”

        Why? They never had the goal of taking over Britain and expell its non Pakestini majority to create an Pakistani Apartheid state.

      • eljay on August 30, 2018, 7:16 am

        || Jackdaw: … Israel is the home of the Jewish people. … ||

        Geographic Palestine is the home of non-Jewish and Jewish geographic Palestinians.

        Israel is the home of non-Jewish and Jewish Israelis.

        || … I can’t believe you are so dense that I have to explain this to you. ||

        No kidding.

      • CigarGod on August 30, 2018, 8:26 am

        Jack, Don’t you mean The Great Rift Valley is the home of the Jews?

        Maybe we could ask Carl Sagan…”We are star stuff.”

        But, I guess if you favor meaningless exercises, you can just choose any point in history and call that home.

      • gamal on August 30, 2018, 8:39 am

        “They never had the goal of taking over Britain”

        The Sylhetis are not going to be expelled anywhere, the English can not survive on tinned, chilled or frozen Curry and plastic rice, Sylhet is the home of English cuisine.

      • Misterioso on August 30, 2018, 11:35 am


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

        Patent nonsense, a long since debunked myth.

        Recent in depth DNA analysis has conclusively proven that including their ancestors, Palestinians have lived continuously between the River and the Sea for about 15,000 years. ** (see below.)

        The Jebusite/Canaanites were ancestors of today’s Palestinians and it was they who founded Jerusalem around 3000 BCE. Originally known as Jebus, the first recorded reference to it as “Rushalimum” or “Urussalim,” site of the sacred Foundation Rock, appears in Egyptian Execration Texts of the nineteenth century BCE, nearly 800 years before it is alleged King David was born. Its name “seems to have incorporated the name of the Syrian god Shalem [the Canaanite God of Dusk], who was identified with the setting sun or the evening star…and] can probably be translated as ‘Shalem has founded’.” (Karen Armstrong, Jerusalem, One City, Three Faiths; Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1996, pp.6-7)

        It is estimated that the Hebrews did not invade until circa 1184 BCE and their resulting United Kingdom of Israel, which never controlled the coast from Jaffa to Gaza, lasted only about 75-80 years, less than a blip in the history of Canaan and Palestine.

        Thus far, no credible archaeological evidence, or more importantly, writings of contemporaneous civilizations, have been found that prove Solomon or David actually existed. (Nor has any evidence been discovered to confirm that a Jewish exodus from Egypt ever occurred. )

        To quote the late renowned Jewish Israeli writer/columnist, Uri Avnery: “[David and Solomon’s] existence is disproved, inter alia, by their total absence from the voluminous correspondence of Egyptian rulers and spies in the Land of Canaan.” (“A Curious National Home,” by Uri Avnery, May 13/17 –

        Front. Genet., 21 June 2017 |
        “The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish”
        “Recent genetic samples from bones found in Palestine dating to the Epipaleolithic (20000-10500 BCE) showed remarkable resemblance to modern day Palestinians.”

        “The non-Levantine origin of AJs [Ashkenazi Jews] is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004). In a principle component analysis (PCA), the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews, whereas AJs clustered away from Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans.”

        “Overall, the combined results are in a strong agreement with the predictions of the Irano-Turko-Slavic hypothesis (Table 1) and rule out an ancient Levantine origin for AJs, which is predominant among modern-day Levantine populations (e.g., Bedouins and Palestinians). This is not surprising since Jews differed in cultural practices and norms (Sand, 2011) and tended to adopt local customs (Falk, 2006). Very little Palestinian Jewish culture survived outside of Palestine (Sand, 2009). For example, the folklore and folkways of the Jews in northern Europe is distinctly pre-Christian German (Patai, 1983) and Slavic in origin, which disappeared among the latter (Wexler, 1993, 2012).”

      • Ellen on August 31, 2018, 11:17 pm

        @Jackdraw….. actually what is now Yemen was long before concentrated with what are known as Hebrew speaking tribes. Jerusalem was a late afterthought… a colonial province of the Hebrews. In the highlands of Yemen and Oman there are still what the locals call “Hebrews.” They speak very old Hebrew and have Hebrew names. They have been there longer than the Hebrew conquest of Jerusalem. After all Queen of Sheba was a Yemeni and Solomon was her provincial vassal.

      • Nathan on September 2, 2018, 9:05 pm

        Misterioso – Here’s an update regarding archeology and King David. In the 1990’s, Prof. Biran discovered at Tel-Dan an Aramaic inscription in which the king of Damascus brags that he killed in one day both the king of Israel and “the king of the House of David” (i.e. the king of Judah). The very expression “House of David” in this inscription means that in the ninth century BC it was common knowledge that a dynasty was established by a man called David. In other words, there was indeed in real history a King David.

        Your quote from the late Uri Avnery is quite silly. Mr Avnery was a very intelligent man, and it’s nice that you have read his articles. But he wasn’t an expert in ancient inscriptions or in archeological sites. He was a journalist with a political agenda. You can assume that here and there some of his statements might be unsubstantiated.

        So far, King Solomon has not been found in archeology, but since David is now historical, the likelihood that Solomon was a real person has probably increased (although, indeed, it remains unproven). It’s ironic that you tell us that the ancient Hebrew kingdom lasted “just 75-80 years”. That is the Palestinian narrative, and it is based on the reign of David and Solomon as it is presented in the Old Testament. So, on the one hand you tell us that David and Solomon are fictitious characters, but on the other hand you tell us that they reigned for 75-80 years.

        The truth is that the ancient kingdoms of the tribes of Israel lasted a few centuries. People who are trying to present what they think is an anti-Israel argument like to mention that David and Solomon are fictitious (and that the Tel-Dan inscription is “a forgery” or “found out of context”) – leaving the impression that the narrative of the Jews is a figment of their imagination. Therefore, the later kings of the House of David (Hezekiah, Menasseh, Amon, Josiah…) – all very real people mentioned in Assyrian and Babylonian documents – are never mentioned in such political discussions.

        Of course, the real question is “why do David and Solomon come up in conversation in the first place?” Perhaps, the secret dream of the anti-Israel activist is that Israel will disappear if we could just prove that her founding narrative is fiction. It’s really quite silly.

        Finally, Misterioso, allow me to bring to your attention that DNA studies and a political debate shouldn’t mix. The founding of states and citizenship are not based on DNA. There are no blood tests that one has to pass to prove legitimacy. That would be racism. The State of Israel was born, and its citizens are the local people who live there. Israel also has the right to grant citizenship to immigrants in accordance to whatever criteria she wishes. Moreover, It could be that the Israelis’ self-perception of descent from ancient Israel is true or false. It could be that they are the descendants of Martians or Jebusites. In political science, it’s not an issue.

      • eljay on September 2, 2018, 10:02 pm

        || Nathan: … People who are trying to present what they think is an anti-Israel argument like to mention that David and Solomon are fictitious … ||

        Whether or not David and Solomon are fictitious is entirely irrelevant to the incontrovertible fact that not a single person for centuries past or alive today who has chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish is an “Ancient Israelite” who is entitled to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

        || … It’s really quite silly. … ||

        There’s nothing “silly” about the fact that hypocrites like you believe you’re entitled to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality that you would not have others do unto you so that you can enjoy being a supremacist in a supremacist state.

      • Maghlawatan on September 2, 2018, 11:48 pm


        Big deal if the Jewish kingdom lasted 500 years. Israeli architectural practice is unique – dump 14 layers of history to find the Jewish sliver.

        The key point is that the Temples were destroyed twice. Once by the Egyptians and once by the Persians. Why ? Because the land of Israel is impossible to defend. Because the land of Israel can’t generate as much wealth as other bigger regions with better land And because there will always be more goys than Jews because of the rules on who is a Jew.

        Today Israel has dealt with these 3 weaknesses in 3 ways

        -By occupying the hills of the West Bank to ensure no invasion from the East
        -By developing nuclear weapons
        -By buying Congress

        So far so good apart from the apartheid and the collapse of Israeli morality.

        But forever is very long. I can’t see Israel making it to 150

      • echinococcus on September 3, 2018, 4:01 am


        No reason to drag it on and on. Nobody give’s a rat’s a$$.

    • Keith on August 29, 2018, 11:42 pm

      OSSINEV- ““Hitler was a”passionate Zionist”. Please show factually where KL said that Hitler was a “passionate” Zionist. Total made up BS.”

      Indeed, it is totally made up BS. I find it difficult to come to grips with the reality that some folks can bald faced lie with no conscience whatsoever. And that is exactly what we have with these power-seeking British Zionists. Ken Livingston comments:

      “Eighty Jewish Labour Party members wrote a letter stating that in all their hundreds of years in the party none of them had ever heard or seen a single incident of anti-Semitism. I had been doing many interviews, pointing out that this was a distraction to undermine the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – our first socialist leader in over a generation. As I turned up at a television studio I was confronted by a right-wing Labour MP with a television crew filming as he shouted in my face that I was a Nazi apologist. This clip went global immediately and the MP then claimed I had said Hitler was a Zionist. A couple of hours later I received a phone call from the Labour Party saying I had been suspended because of the accusations. No one from the party bureaucracy phoned to check if I had said Hitler was a Zionist. Had I done so, I would not just have apologised for causing such offence but I would have been straight off to my doctor to check that I wasn’t at the stage of early onset dementia. How can anyone claim that a man who loathed Jews all his life was a Zionist?”
      I didn’t say Hitler was a Zionist but I did point out that back in 1933 his government negotiated a deal with the German Zionists in which they agreed to collaborate on moving Germany’s Jewish population to Palestine. In the three hours after I made this comment, no journalist bothered to phone me about it because you only have to go on Jerusalem’s Holocaust Memorial website where you can download the paper that spells out the detail of the agreement. Or you could contact Frances Nicosia, professor of Holocaust studies at the University of Vermont, who has researched and written about the Holocaust for over 40 years and whose most recent book specifically identifies the overwhelming support amongst German Nazis for German Zionists. This wasn’t because they liked each other, but the Nazis wanted a Germany free of Jews and the German Zionists wanted all Jews to return their ancient homeland.”
      (Ken Livingstone)

      • guyn on August 30, 2018, 10:00 am

        He put it forward very well.

      • Eva Smagacz on August 30, 2018, 3:20 pm

        Unfortunately, Ken Livingston’s words never made it to the press.
        Only the accusations of of anti-Semitism and twisted (and deliberate) misinterpretation of his factual statements.

        He resigned from Labour Party, and the party lost a principled politician in the process.


      • Keith on August 30, 2018, 6:54 pm

        EVA SMAGACZ- “Only the accusations of of anti-Semitism and twisted (and deliberate) misinterpretation of his factual statements.”

        Yes, and bald faced liars are defended by other bald faced liars who push the same meme, and for whom solidarity is the only value worth pursuing. Real Zionist values on display.

  9. JWalters on August 29, 2018, 6:38 pm

    Thanks for this complete evisceration of Josh Glancy’s desperate concoction of truly Alice in Wonderland “thinking”. The Zionists are ripe for a modern Lewis Carroll. Have the Zionists put “ridiculing Zionist illogic and lies” on their IHRA list of illegal speech yet?

  10. edwardm on August 29, 2018, 7:02 pm

    “Zionism is at the heart of their Jewish identity.”
    So lets get this straight. An abstraction like self perception, e.g. feeling culturally Israeli, separate from other such qualifications- being a man, English, a vegetarian, a stenographer- this is supposed to be of greater import than the very real – constant harassment, arbitrary detention, home demolition, theft of land water and life itself that is reality for Palestinians? In America we have liberal Zionists complaining that they “feel excluded” by other progressives!
    Talk about prejudice and power combined.

  11. JWalters on August 29, 2018, 7:16 pm

    In the midst of the Zionist Big Brother assault on open information and speech, I feel compelled once again to express my profound thanks to Mondoweiss for its strong stance in defense of free and open political debate. This is an ESSENTIAL foundation of any true civilization. The powerful Zionist cult is trying to set the world back 20 centuries. Even Jews who dissent will be victimized, as they were back then.

    • Jon66 on August 29, 2018, 8:48 pm

      Mondo is very selective about endorsing free speech. It has to be the right kind of speech in order to be worthy of protection.
      “The other significant victory was the shutting down of the scheduled Milo Yiannopolous talk at the University of California in Berkeley. Anyone who would blame the protestors for “violence,” rather than resistance, is assuming that the promotion of hatred is non-violence. But that assumption, quite simply, is wrong. There is no such thing as “non-violent hate speech.” Hate speech has direct consequences, all of which are violent. In October of last year, blogger Jonny Silvercloud asked “Why Isn’t Anyone Talking about White Radicalization?” and concluded his post with the warning that unless white radicalization is stopped, fascism is next. Preventing Yiannopolous from speaking at Berkeley was direct action to shut down fascism.”

      • echinococcus on August 29, 2018, 11:40 pm

        Johnny 66 “the Surgeon” still unable to refrain from calumny.
        Any proof that this delirious rant by “Elia” is the official Mondoweiss line? There’s a byline, and it don’t say “Mondoweiss”.
        After all, Mondoweiss publishes a huge lot of Zionist garbage, and it prints comments from Johnny and his merry band without batting an eyelid.

        As for smuggling in the totally unrelated usual and proper heckling of a public speaker with government authority in Irvine, as if it were equivalent with a shutdown, try again, propaganda Johnny.

      • JWalters on August 30, 2018, 1:13 am


        The Constitution’s 1st Amendment protection for freedom of speech was intended to protect the discussion of ideas, primarily from suppression by the government. Government suppression of opposing ideas had a long history, and was a key tool of dictatorship.

        But as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted,

        “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. “

        The first article you cite is about protesters getting UC Berkeley to cancel a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos. In July 2016 Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for what the company cited as “inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others”. So there was a case to be made that his speech would have incited actual abuse or harassment of others, and that was the grounds for cancelling his speech.

        The second article you cite is about 10 Muslim students who were convicted of misdemeanors for a protest they held at a speech by Israeli ambassador Michael Oren. In that case Oren was not banned, and the students were disciplined for their protest. A primary reason for the students’ protest was the general suppression of the Palestinian point of view in America. Oren’s position was that of the Israeli government, which orchestrates the suppression of the Palestinian story in Europe and America.

        The articles at Mondoweiss consistently take the side of equal justice for ALL human beings, and advocate for serious discussions with ALL sides being heard. Further, the viewpoints that Mondoweiss opposes are given full and fair treatment in their rebuttal articles. Israeli arguments, by contrast, completely omit the Palestinian half of the story. Your implication that Mondoweiss practices the same kind of suppression of information and discussion as Israel is absurd.

        The complete lack of any case in your post suggests you know it’s not even worth trying. So perhaps you are being paid by the post, regardless of its emptiness.

      • echinococcus on August 30, 2018, 10:08 am


        if you’ll allow me a couple remarks,

        – Twitter is a malignant corporate growth that routinely suppresses political speech unwelcome to the US ruling class, not a court of law (well, courts are also abject slaves of the rulers, but that’s irrelevant here.)

        – Mondoweiss does publish a lot of (mainly Zionist) articles that do the diametrical contrary of taking “the side of equal justice for ALL human beings”, but of course these do not necessarily reflect the owner’s and editors’ views.

        – there is no similarity between a fire in the legendary crowded theatre and speech directed at individuals who are not panicking in immediate danger of life, i.e. as individuals carry the full responsibility for acting or not acting on whatever they are told. There’s no need to blatantly misinterpret the Holmes analogy.

  12. Boomer on August 29, 2018, 7:30 pm

    but burning attack kites!

  13. Rusty Pipes on August 29, 2018, 8:01 pm

    Could someone reprint Haber’s defense of Corbyn and British Irony? I’m having trouble with the link.

  14. Keith on August 29, 2018, 8:30 pm

    “It is astonishing that the Labour Party presumes that it is more qualified than all of the above and, in particular, the Jewish community, to define anti-Semitism,” (UK Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis)

    Yes indeed, those with power and privilege will determine what constitutes legitimate criticism of them. What could be more fair?

  15. RoHa on August 29, 2018, 10:21 pm

    “Many British anti-Zionists may sincerely think they are only teaching their supporters to oppose “Zionists” and not Jews. But in reality they are teaching their supporters to oppose British Jews not as they imagine them, but as they really are…”

    If British Jews are Zionists, then they should be opposed.

  16. oldgeezer on August 29, 2018, 11:29 pm

    Zionism is defined by what it has done, and is doing, over the past 70 years. There is no room at the table for a theoretical Zionism that is somehow less malevolent. Too many innocent people have been dispossessed and murdered by this racist ideology. If some group wishes to regain some moral original intent (I scoff) then it requires repudiating what it has become. Far too late with little to no effort to stem It’s racist and murderous activities.

  17. ErikEast on August 30, 2018, 2:18 am

    The pro-Israel assault on Jeremy Corbyn this summer has largely failed. Plenty of hyperbole along with the protracted debate on whether Labour should apply the IHRA working defintion and illustrative examples unedited has opened people’s eyes to the nefarious role played by Corbyn’s detractors.
    Yesterday, the former British Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks claimed Corbyn’s criticism of a small band of pro-Israel supporters at the now infamous event was the same as Enoch Powell’s notorious “Rivers of blood” speech. British people are not buying this BS despite the media diligent coverage.

    • inbound39 on August 30, 2018, 7:01 pm

      Sacks chose unwisely when he singled Enoch Powell out because when the colour bar was lifted Powell made several predictions and all have largely come true and the Thinking people in Britain realise that now. At the time he pursued a cap being put on migrants so it was not such a jolt in change for the British people. Because of the then Governments refusal to place a cap on migrants there was an absolute flood of Indians and Pakistani’s that streamed into Britain and the culture clash was inevitable as were the riots that followed. I was there in England and saw the effect when it was lifted. It is why England is currently in such a mess. It has never recover from the Colour Bar being lifted. England was too small to cope with the flood and resulting legal battles and massive unemployment.

      • amigo on August 30, 2018, 8:27 pm

        ” England was too small to cope with the flood and resulting legal battles and massive unemployment.”inbound39

        Those Indians and Pakistanis also went to Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland (Where Eunoch Powell had won a seat in Parliament).He found many fellow travelers in NI and felt quite at home there.Disgusting man.

        Btw , wasn,t Eunoch the racist bigot who wanted to pay British Africans 1000 sterling to get them to return to Africa.

      • gamal on August 30, 2018, 8:39 pm

        “Sacks chose unwisely when he singled Enoch Powell out because when the colour bar was lifted Powell made several predictions and all have largely come true”

        when was the “colour bar” lifted?

        and which of Powells predictions have come true?

        ” I was there in England and saw the effect when it was lifted” what was lifted? the colour bar? are you insane?

  18. Eva Smagacz on August 30, 2018, 3:29 pm

    Listen to powerful voices of young people – who really do not buy the hysterical and artificial ” Anti-Semitism” palaver around Jeremy Corbyn

  19. Brewer on August 31, 2018, 4:25 am

    There is something very fishy about this whole affair. So far as I have been able to ascertain (and as has been remarked above) the majority of British voters do not support Israel and Corbyn’s political standing has not been greatly damaged by Israel’s campaign to daub him with the dreaded antisemitism smear.
    Yet when I read the comments in the Daily Mail and Guardian, they are almost 100% against Corbyn. This is most odd. Normally, under an article about Palestine they run about two thirds for fairness, one-third for Israel.
    I suspect this is a major hasbara campaign and indicates a mustering of the online forces at Israel’s command.
    Be interested in hearing from pommy Mondoweisers on this aspect.

    As an aside, I seriously believe there is political capital in a hashtag/movement/bumper sticker/campaign based on a slogan such as “Israel second” or “Lobby-free zone”.
    I truly believe the voting public is ready for it. Perhaps MondoWeiss could run a competition for a suitable slogan.
    There is a great deal at stake here and it is very complicated. Political forces have identified the vulnerability of democracy (popular sentiment) and are exploiting it to the max. The ideal – one man, one vote resulting in “government by the people” has been accommodated but superseded, overpowered by the manipulation of information.
    It is this that is the true enemy. The use of silly labels to influence the direction of democracy towards the aspirations of interested parties.
    I hope Corbyn finds the stones to face it down. For the first time in my political life I think public sentiment has turned. The general direction is not looking good for a race/religion based ideology such as Zionism. There is a whole new generation of young voters who reject the very basis of identity politics.
    A short window of opportunity. The political cycle is prime – the Conservatives are toast but for this controversy.
    Corbyn needs to learn to turn the blade against his enemies and the first requirement is to recognize who those enemies are.

    How funny. It seems the entire World press is enthralled by “Russiagate” while here is a blatant intervention in British politics by an alien State that goes unremarked.

  20. Bumblebye on August 31, 2018, 9:19 am

    Brewer, comments in the Guardian are heavily moderated, so those supporting Corbyn and/or anti-zionist don’t get through. The Mail is considered a right-wing, beyond the pale rag by most Corbyn supporters, so they probably don’t go there to comment. Note – even Wikipedia considers it an untrustworthy news source.
    Even as sales, circulation and readership decline our msm keeps trying to go further to the right in its political coverage – and every time they do, their figures drop further. Meanwhile, the ‘new left media’, largely online sources, continue to grow.

Leave a Reply