So-called Jewish Labour Movement has no right to speak for me says Jewish activist Leah Levane

Wow, a video clip of a non-Zionist Jewish Labour Party activist, Leah Levane, has made it to the Telegraph Facebook page without the obligatory false allegation of antisemitism in the comment underneath.

I've captured the clip in case it does a disappear:

Telegraph Politics

21 hrs · 

Don't accuse people of anti-Semitism when they criticise Israel, Leah Levane urged during the Labour Party conference.

55k Views

See that?  55,000 views.  

A "little bit of a conspiracy": a bit of an antisemitic trope or a bit of an understatement?

Let's have a look, shall we?

I wouldn't have noticed this but for The Community Security Trust's Dave Rich agreeing with what looked like an allegation from Linda Grant that Jeremy Corbyn is himself antisemitic.

@lindasgrant if Milne was a mensch he would have replied "no, I've known him for years he's a decent guy we just disagree." But he didn't.

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) June 1, 2016

A quick scan of Dave Rich's Twitter account yielded this little gem:

“There is a little bit of a conspiracy going on”. Jackie Walker certainly knows her antisemitic tropes, doesn't she? https://t.co/DPcQW1FStG

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) June 2, 2016

 A "little bit of a conspiracy going on" now has the official stamp of disapproval from the provisional wing of the Zionist movement in the UK.

So what was Jackie Walker thinking of when she invoked this "antisemitic trope"?  Let's have a look at The Jewish Chronicle.  I mean, I hesitate to allege a conspiracy but whenever lots of people in lots of media are saying the same wrong thing about someone falsely accused of antisemitism, the JC is usually in there somewhere.  And their headline:

Jacqueline Walker claims her suspension from Labour was part of a conspiracy

Now immediately we ought to smell a rat because Dave Rich put his quote in quotes.  That is, it was an exact quote.  Where he messed up is he made out "a little bit of a conspiracy" is an "antisemitic trope".  The antisemitic trope about conspiracies is usual the worldwide Jewish conspiracy theory.  That's the idea that all of the world's Jews are party to the same conspiracy to the benefit of all Jews and to the detriment of everyone else.  Not so much a little bit of a conspiracy but a literally impossibly huge conspiracy.

Now the JC was a bit smarter than Dave Rich (who isn't?).  They've made out that Jackie Walker could have been suggesting that the smear campaign against Corbynistas and Palestine solidarity supporters is part of a much bigger conspiracy.  That seems to be what they are attempting with their headline.  But they didn't just run with a headline.  They ran the story and like Dave Rich they seem to have run real quotes that contradict the headline:

Ms Walker, who was readmitted to the party after being suspended over allegations of making antisemitic comments, said: “There is a little bit of a conspiracy going on”. 

Speaking at a meeting in Brighton last night, she told a 50-strong audience that she had been abroad when she was informed of her suspension last month. 

She said: “Look at the date of the Jewish Chronicle when that came out. I was actually in Turkey.“My letter suspending me was actually dated 4 May. The Jewish Chronicle published the story about me on 4 May. 

“Now, you have to put two and two together. What you will know is that somebody in the [Labour] compliance unit, or around there, is leaking information out to the media.

Conspiracy? Well ok, but just a small one, like Jackie Walker said.

Now let's have a look at the case of Tony Greenstein and his suspension from the Labour Party.  Tony was told that he was being suspended because of certain things that he had said but he wasn't told what those things were.  Curiously, The Times and The Telegraph were told what those things were and they said that Tony had said that the Jews had supported the Nazis' antisemitic Nuremberg Laws.  Tony of course had said nothing of the kind and for fear of libel action by Tony (who knows his legal stuff) both The Times and The Telegraph ran retractions.

So the false allegations against Tony Greenstein were leaked to and published by The Times and The Telegraph and before the allegations were put to Tony.  Whoever the leaker was must have known that the details were going to be published.  Conspiracy?  Ok, make it a double!  Cheers, or L'chaim as we rootless cosmopolitans like to say.

So whilst Zionists can make an "antisemitic trope" out of just about anything, the suggestion that the smear campaign against various Israel critics looks like it is indeed a bit of a conspiracy.  I know size isn't important but "little bit" appears to be a little bit of an understatement.

Something rotten about allegations of antisemitism in the Oxford University Labour Club

I first caught wind of these allegations of antisemitism within the Oxford University Labour Club from Harry's Place.  I immediately suspected that the allegations were false not simply because they appeared on Harry's Place but because they have come in the wake of the OULC deciding to support Israel Apartheid Week on campus, something which, of itself, is clearly not antisemitic.

Now look at the quote in the Harry's Place post:

“Whether it be members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly [sic] defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’, a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews. The decision of the club to endorse a movement with a history of targetting [sic] and harassing Jewish students and inviting antisemitic speakers to campuses, despite the concerns of Jewish students, illustrates how uneven and insincere much of the active membership is”.

It all looks very strawman. Let's break it down a bit:

 members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon.

The term, "Zio" is simply short for Zionist and is not confined to sites run by the Klan.

 senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly [sic] defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, 

Solidarity with armed resistance to Israel whatever form it takes is not, of itself, antisemitic.Of course if attacks are indiscriminate or target civilians then that is to be condemned but the failure or refusal to do so or even to support such attacks is not of itself antisemitic.

a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’ 

Most allegations of antisemitism are false and many are themselves antisemitic.

a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.

This isn't just vacuous, it's antisemitic as it conflates Jews, Zionists and Israel.  That of course is without noting the absence of any links, names or anything that could qualify as evidence.

Now, given the flimsy and inarticulately expressed nature of the charges I would hope for this to be a repeat of the Zionists' biggest public humiliation involving false allegations of antisemitism.  I'm referring to the Fraser v University and College Union case which had the great and the good of the Zionist movement in the UK denounced by the tribunal as a bunch of "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars".  But whereas this latest batch of allegations hasn't gone forensic it has got more legs than the FUCU case did.  Harry's Place has run the *story* as have The Telegraph (twice*) and The Guardian. Ironically one of the Telegraph pieces was written by one of the people described as an arrogant liar by the FUCU tribunal, Jeremy Newmark.  Now that might be a good omen for the cause of truth.  The problem right now is that it is all evidence free mud slinging and the sellouts at the Labour Party have decided to take the Zio's seriously but let's just see what happens.

*Woops. three times

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.

Why bark when you have two dogs?

This is a Steve Bell cartoon from The Guardian. The picture appears to be saying that William Hague and Tony Blair are saying exactly what Netanyahu is saying even though Israel's latest assault on Gaza seems to be a typical Israeli election stunt.  But for Telegraph hasbara blogger, Brendan O'Neill, it is saying that "Jews [are] still running the world".

Elsewhere in the Telegraph there's a report on how the BBC apologised to Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, for catching him on the back foot with a question about Gaza.

Lord Sacks sighed, before replying: “I think it has got to do with Iran, actually.” Mr Davis’s co-presenter, Sarah Montague, was clearly concerned that Lord Sacks did not seem to know his remarks were still being broadcast and could be heard to whisper: “We, we’re live.”

Lord Sacks then swiftly adopted a more formal broadcasting manner and suggested the crisis demanded “a continued prayer for peace, not only in Gaza but for the whole region”.

“No-one gains from violence. Not the Palestinians, not the Israelis. This is an issue here where we must all pray for peace and work for it,” he said.

Mr Davis thanked his guest and announced that the programme would “move on” to the next item.

In a statement the BBC apologised for catching the Chief Rabbi off-guard.

A spokesman said: “The Chief Rabbi hadn’t realised he was still on-air and as soon as this became apparent, we interjected. Evan likes to be spontaneous with guests but he accepts that in this case it was inappropriate and he has apologised to Lord Sacks. The BBC would reiterate that apology.”

Hard to see what there was to apologise for here except that, when he thought he was off air, the Chief Rabbi responded like a politician and when he knew he was on air he returned to religion mode. Anyway, perhaps I should change the headline above to "why bark when you have three dogs?"

UPDATE at 5:20 am 9/12/2012: I just had an interesting chat with a chap called Dave Zeglen on the Fat Man on a Keyboard blog where he (Dave Zeglen) says why he thinks the Steve Bell cartoon is antisemitic:

Levi9909,

I don't think criticism of Israel is a priori anti-Semitic, and I also accept that there are certainly some people who respond to legitimate criticism of Israel with the charge that the accuser is being anti-Semitic. However, in this particular case of Steve Bell's cartoon, it is an anti-Semitic cartoon because it invokes an anti-Semitic stereotype for a man who is Jewish. Even if Steve Bell did not intend the cartoon to be racist, the symbolism is clearly racist given how the trope of the Jewish puppet master has been historically used to marginalize Jewish people. Netanyahu should rightly be criticized, but this was not the way to do it. Bell defended his cartoon with the same argument you put forward, that because it depicts a specific individual at a specific moment, it isn't anti-Semitic, but how can you ignore the fact that the person depicted is also a Jew? It's not the same when you invoke a puppeteer trope for a leader who isn't Jewish because there may not be that historical association with a non-Jewish leader. As a corollary, it might be acceptable to draw George W. Bush as a monkey to mock his incompetence, but it would surely be racist to do the same with Obama because of the historical use of such imagery regarding black people, right?

I did respond but I don't want to be ungracious by giving myself the last word here. If you want to see my response, go there. Ta.

Throwing the dogs a bone?

I noticed an Israel advocate bemoaning the fact that an anarchist called Ian Bone had suggested that the Israeli secret service group, Mossad, had some involvement with Liam Fox and his friend, Adam Werrity and even that Fox could have been a "useful idiot" for Mossad. I don't why the guy singled Bone out for criticism when the same story has appeared in The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. But there is a crucial difference between the Mail and Telegraph stories on the one hand and the Ian Bone post on the other.  Well the Mail and Telegraph stories are still on line in their original places whereas the Ian Bone post has disappeared. Note that Ian Bone says "This story has a long way to run yet and could reach a lot higher up the food chain" and yet it appears to have run away from way down the food chain.


Anyway here's google cache to the rescue:
                                                                                                                              Ian Bone

SKIP TO CONTENT

• HOME
• BOOKS
• LIVING LEGENDS
• CONTACT
• FAMILY ALBUM
• NOTW
• RESONANCEFM
• RUCK RIOT’N ROLL
• SWANSEA
• TRISTAN DA CUNHA
• YOU TUBE

← ONE THOUSAND CULTISTS KETTLED AT ST.PAULS

OCTOBER 16, 2011 · 3:04 AM

↓ Jump to Comments

LIAM FOX ‘USED AS USEFUL IDIOT’ BY MOSSAD

This story has a long way to run yet and could reach a lot higher up the food chain. Here’s what the Mail on Sunday says:

‘But my source told me that what really was worrying senior officials in the MOD, FCO and Cabinet  Office was the possibility that Fox could be being used as a ‘useful idiot’ by Mossad, Israel’s far-reaching and extremely effective intelligence service.  

Key funding sources for Werritty were from the Israeli lobby and a rather obscure commercial intelligence agency.  

Might Mossad be pulling Werritty’s strings, with or without his knowledge?