David Miliband and disproportionate representation

Here's a good piece in The Guardian by Aditya Chakrabortty:

In 1979, 40% of Labour MPs came from a manual occupation; according to analysis by the Smith Institute that is now down to 9%. Just 4% of all representatives in the Commons can claim a background in a manual occupation, which is roughly the same proportion as went to Eton. Over one in four of all Tory MPs were previously employed in finance; more parliamentarians came from jobs in politics than from health, teaching, the army, agriculture and voluntary services put together. With his frictionless ascent from thinktanks to backroom Labour politics to the cabinet, David Miliband is typical of the gilded class who masquerade as our delegates in Westminster. The consequences of this narrowness are easy to see. In this paper and elsewhere there has been much wistfulness about the Spirit of 45, after Ken Loach's recent film. But that spirit, as the film outlines, came from people's lived experiences. Think about the Class of 45: Ernie Bevin – a former lorry driver; Peter Mandelson's granddad, Herbert Morrison – a grocer's assistant. And, the father of the NHS, Nye Bevan: a bolshie ex-miner. However different their politics, it's hard to imagine any of these three accepting a retrospective law imposing benefit sanctions on unemployed people refusing private "workfare", as Ed Miliband's party did last month.

Perhaps Ed will follow his brother instead of leading him.

Not so "brave" Ed Miliband didn't actually use the Z word

Apparently Ed Miliband's office has claimed that his words, reported, incidentally in reported speech, to the effect that he is a "zionist" were misinterpreted.

Here's some zionist in the Daily Telegraph, Dan Hodges:

As I suspected, Ed Miliband is no longer a Zionist. According to the Labour leader’s office, his comments at last night’s Board of Deputies event were misinterpreted. Asked at the event whether he was a Zionist Miliband reportedly responded, “Yes, I am a supporter of Israel”. But I’m told he wasn’t using the word Zionist to describe himself, but merely reaffirming his strong support for the state of Israel, and warning that we should – in the words of a Labour source – be “intolerant of those who questions [sic] Israel’s right to exist”.

This will no doubt disappoint some members of the Jewish community. But the significance of the general thrust of Miliband’s comments shouldn’t be overlooked.

Obviously since the Jewish community in the UK consists of hundreds of thousands of individuals there is nothing anyone can say about anything that won't "disappoint some members of the Jewish community".  So that was a rather stupid thing to say but I did say that this Dan Hodges chap is a zionist, unlike Ed's mother, Marion Kozak, who may well be disappointed in her son whatever he calls his support for Israel.

In fact if you follow the link at the start of the blockquote, ok, here it is again, you will see that this Dan Hodges chap claims that it is "brave and welcome" for Ed to claim to be a "zionist" but that he would probably retreat from that within 24 hours.  Now, according to his office, he was simply saying that Israel has a right to exist.  Now if you look at what he actually said, it is true, that he didn't say "I am a zionist" but he still appears to have said "yes" when asked "are you a zionist?"  Clearly the Jewish Chronicle was being slippery by claiming that he said that he was a zionist. Here's The JC:

He said that he considered himself a Zionist 

Looking at the site today there's no correction or clarification so far.

But now perhaps this Dan Hodges is being equally slippery in not actually quoting the question Ed was asked.

Asked at the event whether he was a Zionist Miliband reportedly responded, “Yes, I am a supporter of Israel”

But then of course we have the slipperiness of Ed himself in allowing himself to be a zionist in zionist company and a non-zionist in non-zionist company.

So the remaining question is how does being a zionist differ from supporting Israel's "right to exist"?  I suspect it is down to the fact that zionism is the idea that there should be a state specifically for Jews whereas the idea that Israel has a "right to exist" could simply mean that it's ok for a state to be called "Israel".  But then why does Miliband say that he is "“intolerant of those who questions [sic] Israel’s right to exist”?  Oh, he didn't say it.  A "Labour source" said he said it.

And this Dan Hodges chap finds, or found, Ed Miliband's support for Israel "brave and welcome".  Obviously it takes more bravery for a careerist politician to oppose Israel and zionism than it does to support it so the idea that he was or is brave on the question of Israel is just plain stupid.  And his stance, as mealy mouthed as it now is, is clearly only welcome to zionists.

Ed Miliband supports Jewish supremacy in occupied Palestine

No surprise there but it's a pity it's not considered controversial for the leader of the UK's Labour Party to be so open about support for colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws.

Here's the Jewish Chronicle.  I'm sifting through an article for the bits that are about Israel or where antisemitism is conflated with anything regarding opposition to Israel:

Speaking at a Board of Deputies event the Labour leader said he was opposed to boycotts of Israel and warned of the need to be “ever-vigilant”against antisemitism.

I don't see what being "opposed to boycotts of Israel" and being ""ever-vigilant" against antisemitism" have to do with each other. In fact suggesting that boycotting Israel amounts to antisemitism suggests that Israel represents all Jews and vice versa.  The suggestion itself is antisemitic.

He added: “I take antisemitism very seriously. Any kind of delegitimisation of Israel is something we should call out for what it is and not tolerate it.

Again, the one, antisemitism, has nothing to do with the other, delegitimisation of Israel.

I think the boycotts of Israel are totally wrong. We should have no tolerance for boycotts. I would say that to any trade union leaders.”

But Mr Miliband warned the audience that while he was opposed to anti-Israel activities in this country, people must “understand the anger and dismay about settlements”.

He said that he considered himself a Zionist but was critical of some Israeli government policies. Asked about Labour’s support for the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations, Mr Miliband said he wanted to “encourage moderate” Palestinians and work in an “even-handed” way.

Ah that's nice. He wants to be even-handed between Jewish supremacists and the victims of Jewish supremacy.  He is a zionist, he doesn't want equality for Jews and Arabs but a pretense of equality behind apparent even-handedness.

The politician made repeated reference to his support for a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict and said he hoped Britain could be an “honest broker” in the peace process.

And at the same time he made it clear that Britain will be no more an honest broker with Ed Miliband as Prime Minister than it has been under any other Prime Minister.

Don't sign up for the JNF, Ed

A lengthy group of names have signed off an open letter in today's Guardian to Ed Miliband, new leader of the UK's Labour Party, calling on him to break with the modern Labour Party tradition of patronising, albeit honorarily, the ethnic cleansers of the Jewish National Fund:

We welcome Ed Miliband's statement that Labour's foreign policy should be "based on values, not just alliances" (Leader's speech, 29 September). For too long Britain has blindly followed the US in supporting Israel, right or wrong. There is one, immediate decision Ed Miliband can make which will show that these are not empty words. Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were patrons of the Jewish National Fund. We urge Ed Miliband to break from this tradition.

The JNF is actively complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. For example, it established the Canada Park in the West Bank on the ruins of the villages of Imwas, Yalu and Beit Nuba. Today in Israel's Negev region it plays a major role in the establishment of exclusively Jewish settlements and the demolition of "unrecognised" Arab villages.

The JNF was founded in 1901 with the aim of purchasing land "for the purpose of settling Jews on such lands and properties". To this day it refuses to lease or rent land to anyone who is not Jewish. In 1953 and 1961, Israeli legislation made the JNF responsible for the land allocation policies of the state itself. In 1995 the Israeli supreme court, in the Ka'adan case, ruled that the JNF's partner, the Israeli Lands Administration, could no longer discriminate against Israeli Arabs by refusing to lease or rent state lands to them. This was held to be equally applicable to the JNF. The response of the JNF was that Israel was first and foremost a Jewish state not a state of its own citizens. Ed Miliband stood as the candidate of change in the Labour party. Now is the time to show that these weren't just words of spin.

Tony Greenstein

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi

Emeritus Professor Moshe Machover

Michael Mansfield QC

Dr Chris Burns Cox

Professor David Pegg,

Leon Rosselson

Dr Sue Blackwell

Pete Firmin,

Abe Hayeem

Professor Myriam Salama-Carr,

Dr Rumy Hasan

Roland Rance

Dr Monica Wusterman

Deborah Fink

Jackie Alsaid

Ken Baker St Jerome Publishing

Professor Mona Baker

David Bangs

Dr Judith Brown

Ruth Clark

Adam Darwish

James Dickins

Greg Dropkin

Jackie Fearnley

Alf Filer

Naomi Foyle Brighton Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Kenny Fryde

Terry Gallogly

Anne Gray

Cliff Hanley

Rosamine Hayeem

Bob Jarrett

Ros Levy

Kevin Moore

Beryl Maizells

Zoe Mars Chair, Brighton & Hove Palestine Solidarity Campaign

John Metson

Safiya O'Donnell

Nicola Ostreicher

Ernesto Paramo

Dinah Rahman

Roger Reeve

Professor Dee Reynolds

Michael Sackin

Miriam Scharf East London NUT

Michael Shanahan

Ruth Tenne Israeli Human Rights Activist

Yvette Vanson

I gather there were some editing issues.

For more on the JNF see Gabriel's post on the Canadian branch of that racist organisation.