Marcus Dysch article on Jeremy Newmark disappears from JC website

It's probably an innocent thing but I just tried this Jewish Chronicle link to an article headed, Jeremy Newmark urged to step down as local councillor and I got this:

I always find the JC and Dysch suspect but as I said, it's probably an innocent and google of course has its cache which is here but won't be for long.  So here is that article in full pending its restoration to its rightful place on the JC website:

Jeremy Newmark urged to step down as local councillor

Mr Newmark was advised to “step back” from his role as leader of the Labour group on Hertsmere Borough Council by the authority’s Conservative leader during a meeting in Borehamwood

Marcus Dysch

March 1, 2018

Jeremy Newmark has been urged to stand down as a local councillor following revelations about the circumstances of his departure from the Jewish Leadership Council.

Mr Newmark was advised to “step back” from his role as leader of the Labour group on Hertsmere Borough Council by the authority’s Conservative leader during a meeting in Borehamwood last night.

Morris Bright said Mr Newmark should show “the same deference” to the council that he had paid to the Jewish Labour Movement, from which he resigned as chairman. Doing so would allow him to “defend himself and his reputation”, Mr Bright suggested.

The council leader told a full meeting of the authority that he had been contacted by local residents asking “what the council is intending to do about this matter”.

He revealed he had met Mr Newmark in the days after the publication of allegations dating back to 2013 when Mr Newmark was chief executive of the JLC.

Mr Bright said: “Cllr Newmark was accompanied by councillor Rebecca Butler to the meeting. We spoke openly about the allegations made against Cllr Newmark by a national newspaper.

“I expressed the concern that was being expressed to me around the headlines and stories in the Jewish Chronicle, the Times and other media outlets.

“Cllr Newmark said the claims were ‘largely unfounded’ and ‘largely untrue’ and some were completely false.

“I explained that I was not forming a judgement as to any guilt and that everyone has a right to defend themselves, their name and their reputation.”

Mr Newmark has denied that he misused JLC funds or claimed inappropriate expenses. He resigned as chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement the day after the story broke in February and has made no public comments since issuing a denial to the JC.

Mr Bright added: “Let me repeat here in this chamber and on the webcast what I said to Cllr Newmark at that meeting; and let me be very clear about this… that neither I nor the anyone in my group are implying any guilt on his part at all.

“It is felt though both by my group and by residents who have communicated with me that he should, as indicated by the JLM, allow himself the time and space to attempt in a clear and individual way to seek redress and to clear his name.

“I made this request in person and in writing. I hope now that Cllr Newmark has had time for reflection since we first spoke about this some weeks ago.

“It is appropriate now for him to do the honourable thing and step back from Hertsmere, at what I know must be a difficult personal time for him.

“And I personally wish him well in his efforts to seek to clear his name of these serious allegations.”

Mr Newmark attended the council meeting and spoke after Mr Bright, but did not respond directly to his remarks. It is thought it was his first public appearance since the JC’s revelations last month.

QC on 2 CEs at the JLC

The QC here is one Jonathan Goldberg QC and the JLC is the Jewish Leadership Council.

I remember Goldberg as one of a few high profile Jews speaking out against the ragbag of Zionist hucksters who brought the case of Fraser v The University and College Union.

At the time of the FUCU case he said some very interesting stuff in The Jewish Chronicle about what he called an "epic folly".  The FUCU case involved Ronnie Fraser arguing that the UCU's support for the Palestinian cause amounted to harassing him as a Jew.  He brought ten counts and they all failed.
Here's what Jonathan Goldberg said at the time:

A main premise underpinning the claim — that the union was responsible in law for anti-Israel views promulgated by individual members in its annual congresses and in-house internet chatroom — was held wrong in law. Nor was that by any means the only error of law.

The underlying notion that a commitment to Zionism should be a “protected characteristic” in English employment law was in my view almost as fanciful as suggesting that supporting Tottenham Hotspur should be a protected characteristic, because so many Jews do so.

But it gets better.  See what he has to say about Jeremy Newmark:

Who is qualified to say, unless they sat through the 20 days of evidence, that the particular criticisms made of the evidence of Jeremy Newmark [untrue] and two MPs [glib] were not reasonable. And just as important, why did Mr Newmark and the others ever voluntarily place themselves in a position to be so criticised in support of a claim brought on such dubious legal foundations?

At the time Newmark was the chief exec of the Jewish Leadership Council.

Well now there's been a bit of a to-do over a video made by the current  chief exec of the JLC, Simon Johnson.  In the video Johnson took a hefty swipe at the zionist Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) for exaggerating the incidence and effects of antisemitism.  CAA reacted angrily and the video was pulled as was the tweet touting it:

I managed a screengrab.

So what has this to do with Jonathan Goldberg QC?  I saw the Jewish News today and it had the recent saga on its front page under an "apologise or resign" headline.  Deep down in the article Jonathan Goldberg is quoted thus:

“The sheer smug complacency of Simon Johnson in this matter is appalling.”

He added: “All credit to the unpaid young volunteers of the CAA for calling it how it is unlike the cosy back-slapping club of our Jewish establishment organisations.”

That's some beef he's got with the JLC. When it comes to false allegations of antisemitism, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Zionist Antisemitism and the Reinvention of Judaism in Home Affairs Select Committee Report

I just had another look at the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Antisemitism report.  It makes for such depressing reading I can only take in little looks at a time.  I was just looking at what I thought was the Chief Rabbi's contribution and I was struck by the casual way his evidence was used, it was gleaned from something he wrote for the Daily Telegraph.  I was also struck by his sheer dishonesty though Lord Sacks was a hard act to follow where dishonesty was concerned.

See this:

In an article for The Daily Telegraph in May, the Chief Rabbi criticised attempts by Labour members and activists to separate Zionism from Judaism as a faith, arguing that their claims are “fictional”. In evidence to us, he stressed that “Zionism has been an integral part of Judaism from the dawn of our faith”. He stated that “spelling out the right of the Jewish people to live within secure borders with self-determination in their own country, which they had been absent from for 2,000 years—that is what Zionism is”. His view was that “If you are an anti-Zionist, you are anti everything I have just mentioned”

That's utterly absurd. If Zionism goes to the "dawn of our faith" what happened between the destruction of the second temple and the rise of the Zionist movement in the late 1890s?  There were Zionistic ideas around before then but they tended to lead to the excommunication and even execution of their promoters.

Another question is, so what?   Even if Judaism does demand a Jewish supremacist state based on colonial settlement and ethnic cleansing, why should anyone else accept that?  The Chief Rabbi's sheer dishonesty or ignorance about the history and tenets of his own religion gives you some idea of why the Haredim (ultra-orthodox Jews) were excluded from the HASC's process.  If Satmar Jews were called upon they would say, as they often do, that "Zionism and Judaism are diametrically opposed".  Even the now Kahanist inclined Lubavitch would have to admit that they only became Zionist when the Jewish state moved from being an issue to a fact in 1948. Not the "dawn of our faith" then.

Moving on from the exclusion of the wrong kind of Jews I saw this:

Similarly, CST and the JLC describe Zionism as “an ideological belief in the authenticity of Jewish peoplehood and that the Jewish people have the right to a state”. Sir Mick Davis, Chairman of the JLC, told us that criticising Zionism is the same as antisemitism, because:

Zionism is so totally identified with how the Jew thinks of himself, and is so associated with the right of the Jewish people to have their own country and to have self-determination within that country, that if you attack Zionism, you attack the very fundamentals of how the Jews believe in themselves.

Neither CST nor the JLC are essentially religious so they had to admit that Zionism is an ideology not a religious tenet or religion in its own right but look at how Sir Mick Davis expressed himself:

Zionism is so totally identified with how the Jew thinks of himself

"How the Jew thinks of himself"?  Leaving aside that for Davis, the Jew is a "him", it looks like an extract from a Nazi tract.  Do Zionists know what they're messing with?  And to think they cry when you call them racist.  The Jew, the Jews, Zionism, Israel are all the same to them.  The individual, the race, the ideology, the state, and for the Zionists that is in reverse order of importance to them.

They're riding a tiger and they don't seem to know it.

Let sleeping dogs lie or let lying dog sleep?

I see, belatedly again, that one of two people openly accused of lying by the judge in the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal case, Jeremy Newmark, has stepped down as leader of the Jewish Leadership Council.  Here's the Jewish Chronicle:

Lucian Hudson said that last week’s decision by JLC chief executive Jeremy Newmark to step down for health reasons created a new opportunity.

Mr Hudson, who is a member of the JLC council, expressed sadness at Mr Newmark’s departure, saying that he was “an outstanding leader”.

Here's what the Tribunal said:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at t he 2008 Congress (see our findings under complaint (8) above). Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was al so false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill- judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him.

And that's an "outstanding leader" of what passes itself off as the Jewish community.  Only one zionist, as far as I know, has criticised Newmark himself over his dishonesty and that was Adam Wagner in Cartoon Kippah:

...we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars.

And this "arrogant liar", Jeremy Newmark, is no longer leading the Jewish Leadership Council, not because he has been caught by a court lying to that court, but because of his ill health.  Well the illness, I believe it's diabetes, is all very sad and all, but to have such a character, not simply not censured but praised by his peers says it all about mainstream Jewish organisation today.

As far as wilful dishonesty goes they have decided both to let sleeping dogs lie and the lying dog sleep.