House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-California) plot to appease the most extremist lawmakers in his caucus by removing Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) from her committee assignment is teetering on the edge of failure as more Republicans voice their reluctance to go along with the plan. On Friday, Republican Rep. Ken Buck (Colorado) said that he is opposed to removing Omar…
-
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Sunday contended that some of her Republican colleagues—led by U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy—are trying to oust her from the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee because she is a Muslim refugee from Somalia.
“Let me ask you, Congresswoman Omar, about what Republicans are saying about you, that there is a pattern of antisemitic and other controversial statements that make you unfit to sit on, in your case, the House Foreign Affairs Committee,” CNN‘s Dana Bash said on “State of the Union.”
Omar (D-Minn.) first addressed a pair of February 2019 tweets in which she tied U.S. politicians’ support for Israel to money from lobbyists. “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she said at the time, using slang for $100 bills. Asked who she thought was paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, Omar replied, “AIPAC!” referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
“These people are OK with Islamophobia. They’re OK with trafficking in their own ways in antisemitism.”
The congresswoman said Sunday: “Yeah, I might have used words at the time that I didn’t understand were trafficking in antisemitism. When that was brought to my attention, I apologized. I owned up to it. That’s the kind of person that I am. And I continue to work with my colleagues and my community to fight against antisemitism.”
After countering some other criticisms from the GOP, Omar argued that the campaign to remove her from the panel “is politically motivated. And, in some cases, it’s motivated by the fact that many of these members don’t believe a Muslim, a refugee, an African should even be in Congress, let alone have the opportunity to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee.”
Bash then said that “it sounds like you’re accusing Kevin McCarthy of racism,” to which Omar responded: “I mean, I’m not making any accusations. I’m just laying out the facts.”
\u201cTrump dined with Nazis, said \u201cJews have to get their act together, and said to a group of Jewish leaders, \u201cYou\u2019re brutal killers. Not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me; you have no choice.\u201d He never apologized.\u201d— Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan Omar) 1675040474\u201cMcCarthy is following a well worn playbook: pit minority groups against each other in order to further marginalize them. It has been used by demagogues throughout history and it won\u2019t work. \n\nWe will continue to out-organize and outwork the hate.\u201d— Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan Omar) 1675040474Omar pointed out when then-President Donald Trump went to Minnesota in October 2019 and criticized the state for welcoming “large numbers” of refugees from Somalia. She also highlighted Islamophobic remarks from Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.).
“These people are OK with Islamophobia. They’re OK with trafficking in their own ways in antisemitism,” Omar charged. “They are not OK with having a Muslim have a voice on that committee.”
Omar appeared on CNN alongside Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, both California Democrats whom fellow Californian McCarthy barred from the House intelligence panel. Because that is a select committee, the speaker could unilaterally block the pair from being on it; however, kicking Omar off the foreign affairs panel requires a vote by the full chamber.
\u201cRepublicans say they believe in freedom of speech and debate. But if you don\u2019t agree with their policies, they will try to forcibly remove you from a committee you serve on. \n\nMy joint op-ed with @AdamSchiff and @ericswalwell \nhttps://t.co/XOBcvHaUvs\u201d— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Rep. Ilhan Omar) 1674783300Republicans only narrowly control the House, and McCarthy ultimately may not have the votes to oust Omar. Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) have publicly said they oppose the attempt to remove Omar and Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has openly criticized the effort. Additionally, Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) said Monday that he will be “sidelined in Sarasota for several weeks” to recover from an injury.
Omar was also appointed to the House Education and the Workforce Committee. She said in a statement Friday that “as a child survivor of war living in a refugee camp, I would never have imagined that I would one day have the opportunity to serve on these important committees.”
“Our democracy, and our governing bodies, rest on a healthy and vibrant debate,” she stressed. “Our strength lies not in our perfection, but in the diversity of our voices and our openness to a civil discourse.”
“Whatever our disagreements may be as members of Congress, policy differences alone have not and must not be cause for eliminating someone from serving on a committee,” she added. “I am grateful for the confidence my constituents and my caucus have shown in me to lead this work, and I look forward to continuing to work for a more just and peaceful world.”
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
-
On Tuesday, Twitter reinstated the account of Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist who has given high praise to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler as recently as last week — only to suspend Fuentes’s profile within 24 hours of its reinstatement. The site has not specified why it suspended Fuentes’s account for a second time, but one of the few tweets Fuentes shared while back on the platform referenced…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
-
The BBC has made an admission about its controversial Panorama documentary about antisemitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. It has released what it says is further “context” to a member’s claims in the programme about abuse within the party. However, the BBC‘s disclosure prompts further questions about the programme – and about the broadcaster more broadly.
BBC Panorama: an admission
The Canary previously reported on BBC Panorama‘s Is Labour Anti-Semitic? documentary. The BBC broadcast the programme on 10 July 2019. As the Canary‘s Joshua Funnell wrote nine days later, one of Panorama‘s claims about allegations of antisemitism in the party already appeared at that point to be incorrect. Now, the BBC has made a further admission.
As SKWAWKBOX reported, the BBC has admitted it failed to apply context to comments made by one participant in the Panorama documentary. It made the admission on the Corrections and Clarifications page of its website on 14 December 2022.
The BBC noted that Panorama showed a participant making the following comments:
I’m Izzy Lenga, I joined the Labour Party in 2015… The antisemitic abuse I received was what I was subjected to every single day… Telling me Hitler was right, telling me Hitler did not go far enough…
In Labour Party meetings… we’ve seen people engage in Holocaust denial… and that’s terrifying for Jewish members… It absolutely breaks my heart to say but I do not think the Labour Party is a safe space for Jewish people any more.
You can watch Lenga’s comments from 8:11 below:
Panorama presented the implication from Lenga’s statement as being that during her time in the Labour Party, people “subjected” her to “antisemitic abuse” “every single day” – including “telling” her “Hitler was right”. We now know this was not true.
Decontextualising Lenga’s comments
The BBC has admitted that it cut what Lenga said. It noted that if it was to “re-broadcast” the Panorama documentary now, it would include the following from Lenga’s testimony:
I’m Izzy Lenga, I joined the Labour Party in 2015… When I was a student… being quite a high profile Jewish woman student, I was subjected to quite a lot of like nasty vitriol and abuse… The antisemitic abuse I received… was what I was subjected to every single day… Predictably a lot of it came from the far right… neo-Nazi abuse… telling me Hitler was right, telling me Hitler did not go far enough and even more… What absolutely baffled me, was at the same time, I was receiving… very similar and almost often the exact same tropes and anti-Semitic abuse… from the far left.
Lenga was discussing her time on her university campus – not her time as a Labour Party member. This is something Al Jazeera‘s Labour Files series had previously claimed. When referencing “Hitler was right”, Lenga was talking about her experiences as a student in 2015.
She was giving the example of people putting up posters with those words on them around her campus. However, the point is it had nothing to do with the Labour Party. The BBC has claimed Panorama did not alter the second part of Lenga’s statement surrounding Holocaust denial in Labour Party meetings.
The BBC says…
The Canary asked the BBC for comment. We specifically wanted to know why Panorama chose to edit Lenga’s comments in the way it did. A BBC spokesperson told the Canary:
Following a recent discussion about any potential re-use of the programme it was decided that, if the programme were to be re-broadcast, we would include some additional comments from Ms Lenga’s original interview to give viewers further context around her experiences. We have published these on our clarifications page in the interests of full transparency.
The Labour Party says…
The Panorama programme was presented by John Ware. As Press Gazette reported:
In July 2020, [the] Labour [Party] apologised and agreed to pay “substantial damages” to Ware after it falsely accused him of “deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public”.
The Canary asked the Labour Party for comment, specifically regarding whether, in light of the BBC‘s admission of the cutting of context from Lenga’s interview, the party still stands by its retraction and damages pay-out to Ware. The party had not responded at the time of publication.
John Ware says…
Meanwhile, on 15 December 2022, Ware commented on Lenga’s antisemitic “experience[s] on campus”. This was in an article about Al Jazeera‘s Labour Files for Jewish News. He also discussed Panorama‘s editing of her comments. Ware said that:
At times, she was subjected daily to antisemitic abuse (on and offline) that included comments like “Hitler was right” and “Hitler didn’t go far enough” as well as Holocaust denial “with absolutely no sanctions and absolutely no repercussions”.
Lenga’s Hitler comments referred to attacks from the right when they were targeting her on campus. However, she also recounted Holocaust denial as a feature of abusive comments from the left.
As Lenga explained, the attacks from both left and right were “very similar… and almost often the exact same tropes”. Through no fault of her own, the fact they were similar meant these comments became mixed up in the editing and we should have made that distinction – Hitler from the Right and Holocaust denial from the Left – clearer.
Ware’s recollection of Lenga’s comments, though, is not exactly the same as what the BBC claimed she said in its 14 December 2022 correction. Ware continued:
A relatively minor slip, yet Corbynites have banged on and on about this, as if it invalidates the entire 59 minutes of Panorama. Presumably Al Jazeera knew that the Holocaust denial like that experienced by Lenga from the Left has led to expulsions of Labour members for neo-Nazi views. The antisemitism logs seen by Al Jazeera contain meticulous notes on such cases.
Poor journalism or intentional manipulation?
SKWAWKBOX called the BBC‘s actions “grossly-misleading edits“. Moreover, former Labour councillor John Edwards said on Twitter:
Frighteningly, during the process of a general election @BBCPanorama broadcast significant lies which coincided with Tory government propaganda. Just think about that.
Labour Files producer Richard Sanders wrote for Byline Times that:
The Izzy Lenga story is so astonishing that it ought surely to have set alarm bells ringing at the BBC for anyone with even the remotest familiarity with the internal culture of the Labour Party. It certainly did with a number of viewers.
The BBC‘s admission also begs the question: what, if any, context did Panorama remove from other participants’ comments, in addition to Lenga’s?
At best, Panorama‘s editorial decision was a poor piece of journalism – and at worst it may have been an intentional misrepresentation of Lenga’s comments, in an attempt to manipulate the viewer. Either way, the broadcaster’s admission only strengthens the argument that the BBC is not fit for its stated purpose of rigorous, unbiased, public service broadcasting.
Featured image via Peoples War – YouTube
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
-
In his quest for the House speaker’s gavel, Republican leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy has pledged to remove Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar from her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for allegedly making antisemitic comments. Jewish American groups came to Omar’s defense this week, dismissing the accusations against her and pointing out antisemitism in the GOP’s own ranks. Meanwhile…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
-
The following interview was originally published by The Institute for Anarchist Studies. Paul Messersmith-Glavin: Talk about what was going on in the world four or five years ago and what motivated you to put this collection together. Shane Burley: I think I first came up with the idea in 2018 when I was at a bar with Kim Kelly and Spencer Sunshine. It seemed like the time to start something like…
-
A Twitter account managed by Republican lawmakers who are part of the House Judiciary Committee deleted a tweet praising Kanye West after the rapper praised Adolf Hitler and denied the existence of the Jewish Holocaust during World War II during an interview on Thursday. The tweet, authored by the House Judiciary Committee Republicans account, was posted on October 6 and was meant to show support…
-
Singer and producer Kanye West’s descent from musical genius to fascist fanboy has hit new lows after a bizarre interview with far-right huckster and bullshit foghorn Alex Jones.
The musician appeared on Jones’ Infowars show for three hours on 1 December, and engaged in a vicious right-wing diatribe. Somehow, West managed to make a programme which is already a sump of racism and fascistic conspiracy theory even worse.
A love of Hitler
From behind a mask, West praised Adolf Hitler and attacked Jewish people to the point that even Jones, whose politics are hardly far from West’s, tried to dial back the tone.
At one point West even stated that there were “a lot of things that I love about Hitler”:
Alex Jones desperately tries to get Kanye West to clarify that he doesn't actually love Hitler … but nope.
Ye: "There's a lot of things that I love about Hitler. A lot of things." pic.twitter.com/QI87RNcx8A
— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) December 1, 2022
West’s rant featured some bizarre claims. These included that Hitler invented both highways and microphones. Naturally, the singer offered no evidence to support these claims:
“Well, I see good things about Hitler also.” -Ye pic.twitter.com/BdUj7tQXlL
— Rex Chapman
(@RexChapman) December 1, 2022
Mental health?
As comedian Jolyon Rubenstein pointed out, we are far past the point where mental health issues can be used to cover for West:
I was a huge Kanye fan.
This isn’t a mental health issue.
This is a man with 30M followers telling them that Hitler should be admired.
This has to be a line in the sand and I hope that artists will come out and make clear to their fans that this is utterly disgusting. https://t.co/lx5xaOR8bY
— Jolyon Rubinstein (@JolyonRubs) December 2, 2022
And Rubenstein is absolutely correct. Anyone with a basic understanding of fascism can unpick West’s ramblings for what they are. But his vast platform, and his millions of fans and followers, may not have that capacity. And that is, among other things, a danger to Jewish people and the broader public.
The interview was so bizarre that it might be tempting to see Alex Jones as a moderate voice within it. But Jones is far from moderate – his politics are barely a hair’s breadth from those of West. On 13 October 2022, Jones was ordered to pay out $965m to the families of victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre. His claims included that the massacre was faked by the government and that the bereaved parents were ‘crisis actors’. Crisis actors are a commonly used trope by conspiracists like Jones. And, like West, Jones has a long history of antisemitic statements.
Elon Musk
On the other hand, struggling Twitter owner and self-appointed free speech warrior Elon Musk isn’t free from blame all this, either. Twitter appears to have suspended West’s account as of 2 December:
Kanye West’s Twitter account has been suspended
Elon Musk says it’s for incitement to violence pic.twitter.com/0PNBNeRzXV
— Culture Crave
(@CultureCrave) December 2, 2022
However, Musk, West, and Jones are bedfellows in their permissive attitudes to hate speech, albeit dressed up as a commitment to free speech – another common far-right trope.
As one Twitter user pointed out, Musk can backpedal all he wants, but the fact remains that he had long advocated to allow space online for rants just like West’s:
elon musk: twitter needs more free speech
[kanye west is online for 20 minutes]
elon musk: fuck. what the fuck
— slate (@PleaseBeGneiss) December 2, 2022
The ban came after West had posted an image of the Star of David merged with a swastika. The Guardian reported that after West’s ban, Musk said:
I tried my best. Despite that, he again violated our rule against incitement to violence. Account will be suspended.
Dark times
The likes of Musk, West, Jones, and even Donald Trump are part of the same reactionary milieu. They’re all super-rich right wing grifters who weaponise free speech to justify their need for power and attention. West’s obvious musical talents should not obscure what he is – a fascist. Nor should his clearly troubled mental health be used to explain away his affection for Hitler. It is, after all, perfectly possible to be mentally unwell and not a fascist, as millions of people demonstrate every day.
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Jamielandis101, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.
By Joe Glenton
-
THIS ARTICLE WAS UPDATED AT 8:50PM ON TUESDAY 27 SEPTEMBER TO REFLECT AL JAZEERA RELEASING THE FINAL EPISODE OF THE DOCUMENTARY.
Al Jazeera‘s The Labour Files has caused anger and uproar in much of the left wing of UK politics. The three-part documentary claims to have “the largest leak of documents in British political history”. Much of it covers the time Jeremy Corbyn was party leader. And yet so far, there has been negligible UK corporate media reporting on it. This is, of course, quite predictable – the press was complicit in much of what The Labour Files exposes. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera has run into problems – pulled part three twice from its schedule, finally releasing it late on Tuesday 27 September.
The Labour Files
Al Jazeera‘s Investigative Unit (I-Unit) has touted the documentary as:
exposing how unelected officials undermined democracy within the Labour Party.
The leaked data comprises 500 gigabytes of documents, emails, video and audio files from the Labour Party dating from 1998 to 2021…
The data reveals how the party’s bureaucrats, whose nominal function is to serve the interests of the party, attempted to undermine members supportive of Jeremy Corbyn
As of 12pm on Tuesday 27 September, Al Jazeera had released the first two episodes:
Al Jazeera was due to broadcast episode three on Monday 26 September. At first, it delayed it until Tuesday 27. Then, the Al Jazeera I-Unit pulled its tweets about the episode being broadcast. The Canary contacted the I-Unit for comment, but it had not responded at the time of publication.
At around 8:45pm on 27 September, the I-Unit finally released episode three. It seems there was an error in the documentary, as it tweeted the following:
CORRECTION: An earlier video in our tweet reported that some WhatsApp messages about MP Diane Abbot suffering illness came after she announced that she had diabetes. In fact, some of the messages were written before her condition became publicly known.
We have taken this down.— Al Jazeera Investigations (@AJIunit) September 27, 2022
‘Weaponising’ antisemitism
The series comes on top of the Forde Report – with both drawing similar conclusions in some areas. For example, Middle East Eye said that the Forde Report showed:
antisemitism was treated as a ‘factional weapon’ by both supporters and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn in senior party positions.
The Labour Files claimed similar, with Middle East Monitor reporting:
allegations of anti-Semitism were said to have been weaponised to undermine Corbyn. The plan, it seems, was to tarnish Corbyn’s image in the eyes of the British electorate by failing to build a functioning complaints and disciplinary process capable of dealing with allegations of racism.
But as Nasim Ahmed wrote, overall, The Labour Files showed that the “British establishment” led a:
campaign against… [Corbyn]… aided by the right-wing press, as well as self-styled left-wing publications like the Guardian and, most shocking of all, the Labour party itself which, it would later be revealed, sabotaged Corbyn’s chance of becoming Prime Minister.
Naturally, the corporate media appears to have been silent on The Labour Files except, bizarrely, the Express.
Fingers in ears for corporate media
Some corporate journalists have mentioned it on social media. For example, Michael Crick tweeted:
Every political journalist should watch the film & decide for themselves. I agree with Peter Oborne that the media – including us – should have looked into this far more. Trouble is every story in the saga was very complicated & disputed & it was hard to nail down the truth.
— Michael Crick (@MichaelLCrick) September 23, 2022
The Guardian‘s Owen Jones was shocked – saying The Labour Files’ claims about an infamous Panorama documentary on antisemitism in the Labour Party were “extremely serious”:
This is extremely serious and needs a full and complete response from @BBCPanorama pic.twitter.com/LtYmrCXC8Y
— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) September 25, 2022
However, former journalist Josh Funnell reminded him that he and The Canary exposed this over three years ago:
This is literally my story/investigation from July 2019. I spent a month investigating this. Basically everyone on the left ignored it because the Canary wasn’t considered cool enough. I even included the same recording. Really pisses me off.https://t.co/IWTbGQOMBK
— Josh Funnell (@Josh79227449) September 25, 2022
Of course, the story here is the same as it always is. Corbyn supporters and independent media like The Canary knew, and said, what was going on years ago. Now, the establishment lackeys feign shock – when they either turned a blind-eye previously, or actively colluded in the scandal.
So, it’s been left to independent UK media and international outlets to report on the story – again.
Independent media: The Labour Files
Inside Croydon ran several articles, noting the South London-based politicians implicated, including Labour’s general secretary David Evans. North East Bylines called The Labour Files “compelling”. Novara Media discussed the show in two episodes of Tysky Sour.
SKWAWKBOX gave perhaps the most coverage to The Labour Files. As it wrote:
We are not in a functioning democracy and the rest of the UK ‘mainstream’ media will either ignore, or actively collude in covering up, the vicious, racist, misogynist and blatantly anti-democratic behaviour of what is now the so-called ‘Labour’ regime
This is true. But what The Labour Files has also cemented is that the corporate media in the UK is broken. It is complicit in what the documentary revealed. And now it is actively trying to bury the revelations about its role. Fortunately, independent media in the UK is still alive and kicking – and it will not let the truth be forgotten.
Featured image via Al Jazeera English – YouTube
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on The Canary.
-
The University of Melbourne Student Union recently passed a motion condemning Israeli apartheid and urging support for the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions movement against the “settler colonial apartheid state”. Gideon Polya reports.
-
A Guardian commissioning editor has been accused of ‘defaming’ independent outlet Novara Media and one of its staff. In a series of tweets, the editor made baseless antisemitism slurs against Novara – and even attacked one of its Jewish team members.
Guardianista defames Novara
Siam Goorwich is a commissioning editor for Guardian Labs. This is the paid-partnership/branded content part of the Guardian‘s output. Goorwich currently has her Twitter account locked. Despite this, Novara Media has discovered that she tweeted some deeply unpleasant things about it back in March 2022.
As Novara co-founder Aaron Bastani tweeted:
When did it become acceptable for credentialed people in the media to talk like this, let alone be taken seriously? You’re an adult.
I’ll be raising this with the Guardian. Insane nonsense slandering our audience, staff and supporters. pic.twitter.com/dH3ef7cR23
— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) July 25, 2022
But there was more from Goorwich. As Another Angry Voice tweeted:
Gross defamation from a @guardian employee, especially in light of her own vile post about @RivkahBrown pic.twitter.com/KT9Rwu1Qq1
— Another Angry Voice (@Angry_Voice) July 25, 2022
Novara commissioning editor and reporter Rivkah Brown accused Goorwich of tweeting “defamatory” content:
Fortunately for me, I've lived in blissful ignorance of this highly defamatory tweet until today. Unfortunately for Siam, I've just written a piece on UK libel law, and have the numbers of a couple of good lawyers. In the meantime, my complaint's in your inbox, @guardian https://t.co/iF2ZQKysqC
— Rivkah Brown (@RivkahBrown) July 25, 2022
As of 2pm on Tuesday 26 July, Novara has not said if the Guardian has responded to Brown’s complaint.
The Forde Report
It’s likely that Goorwich’s comment stems from her stance on Jeremy Corbyn. She wrote for both Grazia and Metro about her unhappiness with his leadership of Labour. For Metro, she wrote:
don’t you think it’s terrifying that in Britain in 2018, Jews feel that they can’t vote for a major political party because they believe there’s overwhelming evidence that the party’s leader is an anti-Semite? I certainly do.
Left-wing sites like Novara were supportive of Corbyn – and therefore, got caught up in these accusations too. But as we now know from the Forde Report, allegations like this about Corbyn and his leadership team are untrue. As Justin Schlosberg wrote for Novara:
For all the nuanced language of the long-awaited Forde report, there is one key finding that lays bare a carefully constructed lie. It was a lie that implicated not just the right of the Labour party but a great swathe of Britain’s political and media class. And it was a lie that underpinned much of the dominant narrative leading up to, during and since Labour’s disastrous performance in the 2019 general election.
Schlosberg points out that:
This lie was not that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn had a real and serious problem with antisemitism. The Forde Report is right to call out those on the left who sought to deny or downplay the existence of anti-Jewish prejudice within the party.
But crucially:
The Forde report is equally clear that the antisemitism issue was indeed weaponised by Corbyn’s ideological opponents.
Perpetuating the “lie”
Schlosberg continued by describing this actual “lie”:
In order to fatally undermine the Corbyn project, it had to be shown that Corbyn himself, or at least his office, was somehow complicit in the problem: that the leadership was the problem.
The Forde Report explicitly proves this was not the case. Yet, by attacking Novara, Goorwich was part of perpetuating this lie by continuing to implicate independent media outlets like Novara. As Brown said, this is potentially defamatory – and Novara would be right to take further action.
Featured image via Aaron Bastani – screengrab, Wikimedia and Wikipedia
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on The Canary.
-
For many on the Left, the Labour Party was always a bit of a joke. Then in 2015, a socialist was accidentally allowed to run for leader… In 2022, we’re right back where we started. How do we know? Well, the long-awaited Forde Report is out.
The report is meant to address the contents of a leaked document from 2020. That document contained WhatsApp messages which appeared to show, among other things, that right-wing staff members sabotaged the party’s left-wing leadership.
Both sides-ing
For the most part these claims seem to have been borne out by the evidence. Although, the authors of the Forde Report have been accused of “both sides-ing”:
The Forde report confirms many claims made by the left about the Corbyn years. But its biggest flaw is its desperation to "both sides" each point, as if an elected leadership with a mandate, and unelected staff resisting that mandate, are equally culpable for factional conflict.>
— Alex Nunns (@alexnunns) July 19, 2022
And, the usual collection of tired Blairite hacks have been accused of selectively citing Forde findings to fit their own elite worldview:
Look how despicably this quote from Forde is cut short by Waugh to make it look like it's attacking the authors of the leaked report rather than praising them.
We can see what you're doing @paulwaugh and it isn't journalism. https://t.co/ZolN6FmWKZ pic.twitter.com/3A7FoGgWMM
— Alex Nunns (@alexnunns) July 19, 2022
And here:
The far left’s own stab-in-the-back myth. https://t.co/F8mCz2sW3l
— David Aaronovitch (@DAaronovitch) July 21, 2022
The Clown Party
But the truth is that people can, and will, argue over the report and the entire Corbyn moment as much as they want. But it’s time to accept that the Labour Party, clown-show that it is, is not, and was never going to be a vehicle for working class power.
For example, as former trade union leader Len McCluskey tweeted yesterday, it collapses the argument by anti-Corbyn saboteurs who now dominate the party, that Corbyn staff interfered with anti-Semitism allegations:
The Forde report deals a devastating blow to the accuracy of the 2019 Panorama programme into antisemitism in Labour.
It rejects the "narrative" that Corbyn's staff imposed themselves on disciplinary processes, Panorama's central claim.
There are questions for the BBC and Keir. pic.twitter.com/HlphZYcdvU
— Len McCluskey (@LenMcCluskey) July 20, 2022
McCluskey also reminds us that Keir Starmer actually paid out money to some of those accused of wrecking Labour’s electoral hopes:
Keir's decision to pay out fortunes to the ex-staff featured in Panorama in court—against Labour's barrister's advice—was an abuse of members' money that I criticised at the time.
After Forde, with Labour struggling to stay afloat financially, we see what a poor decision it was. pic.twitter.com/1ziQmcKMDn
— Len McCluskey (@LenMcCluskey) July 20, 2022
Targeted posts
Political poet Lowkey reminds us that some of the same group appear to have used a form of information warfare to dupe the Labour leader that they were doing their jobs:
The Forde Report has reminded me of this story: Labour officials deceived Corbyn during the 2017 election by targeting Facebook posts so they were seen only by him and not the public, following his request that calls for voter registration be boosted.
Passive aggression central pic.twitter.com/E6dBSm0NHB
— Lowkey (@Lowkey0nline) July 21, 2022
As John McDonnell, who was shadow chancellor under Corbyn, point outs, party officials diverted funds meant to win the 2017 election as well as a range of other outrageous behaviour:
Shockingly Forde report findings confirm what was suspected. That party officials secretly diverted election funds in 2017, prevented supporters of Jeremy Corbyn from having a vote in the leadership election & used discriminatory abuse. To move on lessons need to be learnt.
— John McDonnell MP (@johnmcdonnellMP) July 19, 2022
Jeremy Corbyn himself pointed out that the party’s (often unelected) right-wing faction simply could not come to terms with the idea of basic democracy:
Despite overwhelming support from members and affiliates, powerful groups in the party found that change hard to come to terms with.
This led to a conflict in Labour that created a toxic environment, which the Forde Report lays bare.
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) July 19, 2022
Labour is done.
It is not just that the party’s ruling class wrecked two elections and kept the Tories in power. It is that they did so successfully. Clearly there were also other strategic reasons – some self-inflicted – that the Corbyn moment came to nothing. But let’s be honest. Apart from a flurry of projects after World War 2 (and some good but doomed intentions between 2015 and 2019) the party belongs, as it always has, to capital.
If there is a parliamentary route to power for the left and the working class, it definitely isn’t Labour. And anyone still flogging that dead horse in 2022 needs to take a long hard look at themselves.
Featured image by Wikimedia Commons/Rwendland, via CC 4.0, resized to 770×403
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
-
A Klezmer band had just begun to play for the crowd at the Highland Park, Illinois, July 4 parade when the all-too-familiar sound of automatic rifle fire ripped the day in half. A man on a rooftop poured shot after shot into the fleeing crowd, leaving six dead and dozens wounded. One victim was disemboweled by the power of the rifle used, and a 76-year-old man was killed in his wheelchair.
The Klezmer music was not out of place; Highland Park, a Chicago suburb with a population of about 30,000 residents, has been a proud Jewish enclave for generations. The demographic makeup of Highland Park is no secret: The streets are lined with kosher delis and synagogues. The Maxwell Street Klezmer Band, who played the parade until the shots rang out, is described by the Cleveland Jewish News as, “Chicago’s preeminent Jewish music group.”
The alleged shooter, Robert Crimo, opened fire in Highland Park. Whether or not he intended his action to be antisemitic violence, he was shooting up a community that was well-known to be heavily Jewish in broad daylight.
“Michla Schanowitz, co-director of North Suburban Lubavitch Chabad — Central Avenue Synagogue, was outside her Chabad center at the heart of the parade’s route, just four blocks away from the shooting, when she saw crowds running toward her…. She began rushing people to safety inside her Chabad center immediately,” Chabad News reports. “‘Come inside, it’s a synagogue,’ she shouted to the stunned passersby…. The July 4th parade annually has a strong Jewish presence, with Chabad running a float complete with a giant menorah and providing other Jewish experiences for participants.”
At this moment, no one knows precisely what Crimo was thinking when he climbed that ladder to the roof. Details of his life and motivations are still coalescing, but the picture coming together is of a meagerly popular lo-fi YouTube and Spotify rapper who calls himself “Awake” and favors violent imagery in his videos. He was administrator of a Discord, a premier platform for neo-Nazis and other far right posters, that was titled “SS.” The channel has since been taken down, along with his videos on other platforms. “On most of Crimo’s social-media pages, and embedded in several of his videos, is a symbol that roughly resembles that used by Suomen Sisu, a far-right Finnish organization,” reports The Daily Beast.
As usual, the trope of the “angry young (white) loner” has begun to coalesce around Crimo. One of his posts shows him wrapped in a Trump flag, while others reflect positively on President Biden. The Washington Post describes him as “a troubled young man,” a “weird dude” who was “immersed in fringe internet culture” and is depicted by friends as “consistently apolitical.” His uncle, Paul Crimo, told the Post, “He doesn’t express himself, he just sits down on his computer.”
This dovetails seamlessly with the NRA-peddled defense of the indefensible — “It’s all about mental health!” — and never mind that the weapon used was purchased legally, according to Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering. “I think at some point,” Rotering told NBC’s Today,“this nation needs to have a conversation about these weekly events involving the murder of dozens of people with legally obtained guns. If that’s what our laws stand for, we need to re-examine the laws.”
A grocery store, a church, an elementary school and now a July 4 parade, all shot to bloody splinters in a matter of weeks. Regardless of whether there was a fascist motivation behind Crimo’s attack, it still serves that wretched cause. Law professor Heidi Li Feldman notes on Twitter, “There is a direct connection between destroying opportunities for safe public gatherings and menacing American democracy.”
Jewish people and other community members were attacked yesterday in Highland Park, but we are all victims of this tidal wave of very American gun violence. As our safe spaces dwindle and our fears rise, fascism finds an ever-growing foothold.
Also of note: Crimo was apprehended unharmed by law enforcement officials after an intense six-hour manhunt, just days after Akron, Ohio police shot and killed unarmed, fleeing Jayland Walker 60 or more times. One of these two men is Black, and one is not. Three guesses which, but you should only need one. This is not to say that anyone should be killed by police; it’s to say that no one should.
You see, the killing of Walker, too, was very American.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
-
Gideon Polya writes that free speech faltered and falsehood triumphed at the University of Melbourne, after the student union was forced to withdraw a motion condemning apartheid Israel.
This post was originally published on Green Left.
-
The the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition blurs the distinction between anti-Jewish racism and criticism of Israel, argues Jake Lynch.
This post was originally published on Green Left.
-
Keen observers have long noted that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is essentially a xenophobic Israel-advocacy organization masquerading as a Jewish civil rights organization. If there was ever any doubt, this became abundantly clear at the ADL’s National Leadership Summit on May 1, when CEO Jonathan Greenblatt delivered a prerecorded speech, ostensibly to discuss the mission of the organization in light of its just-released 2021 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents. Instead, Greenblatt spent the majority of his time denouncing anti-Zionism (i.e., legitimate opposition to an ideology that promotes an exclusively Jewish state in historic Palestine) as antisemitism. In his speech, he specifically vilified three Palestine solidarity groups — Students for Justice in Palestine, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Jewish Voice for Peace — terming them “hateful” and “extremist.”
Greenblatt’s doubling down was particularly notable because his message represented a change from the ADL’s official statement that “anti-Zionism isn’t always antisemitic.” Indeed, it was difficult to not be struck by the sheer amount of time he spent on the subject — and the vehemence with which he pressed his talking points:
To those who still cling to the idea that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism — let me clarify this for you as clearly as I can — anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
Anti-Zionism as an ideology is rooted in rage. It is predicated on one concept: the negation of another people, a concept as alien to the modern discourse as white supremacy. It requires a willful denial of even a superficial history of Judaism and the vast history of the Jewish people. And, when an idea is born out of such shocking intolerance, it leads to, well, shocking acts.
Greenblatt’s claims were particularly cynical because they actually flew directly in the face of the ADL’s own 2021 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, which found that of the 2,717 incidents it recorded last year, 345 (just over 12 percent) involved “references to Israel or Zionism” (and of these, “68 took the form of propaganda efforts by white supremacist groups.”) Though he actually opened his speech by invoking his report, Greenblatt actively misrepresented its findings, choosing instead to vilify three organizations that actively protest against Israel’s human rights abuse of Palestinians. Most outrageously, he actually equated anti-Zionists with “white supremacists and alt-right ilk who murder Jews,” as if the rhetoric of Palestine solidarity activists could in any way be comparable to the mass murder of Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue.
By singling out these Palestine solidarity groups, Greenblatt was clearly employing a familiar strategy utilized by the Israeli government and its supporters: blaming the current rise in antisemitism on Muslims, Palestinians, and those who dare to stand in solidarity with them. The “anti-Zionism is antisemitism trope” has also been the favored political tactic of liberal and conservative politicians alike. It is most typically invoked to attack supporters of the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Pro-Palestinian activists well know there is no better way to silence and vilify their activism than to raise the specter of antisemitism.
As journalist Peter Beinart has put it, “It is a bewildering and alarming time to be a Jew, both because antisemitism is rising and because so many politicians are responding to it not by protecting Jews but by victimizing Palestinians.” Of course, the rise in antisemitism is alarming, but as ever, the greatest threat to Jews comes from far-right nationalists and white supremacists — not Palestinians and those who stand with them. It is particularly sobering to contemplate that this definition essentially defines all Palestinians as antisemitic if they dare to oppose Zionism. But what else can Palestinians be expected to do, given that Zionism resulted in their collective dispossession, forcing them from their homes and lands and subjecting them to a crushing military occupation?
The growing crackdown on anti-Zionism can also be understood as a conscious effort to stem the growing number of Jews in the U.S. — particularly young Jews — who do not identify with the state of Israel and openly identify as anti-Zionist. The backlash against this phenomenon has been fierce — at times perversely so. In a widely discussed 2021 essay, Natan Sharansky and Gil Troy lamented the growth of anti-Zionist Jews, by labeling them as “un-Jews.” Last May, immediately following Israel’s military onslaught on Gaza, a Chicago-area Reform rabbi gave a sermon in which she called anti-Zionist Jews “Jews in name only” who must be “kept out of the Jewish tent.”
Beyond these extreme protestations, it bears noting that there has always been principled Jewish opposition to Zionism. While there are certainly individual anti-Zionists who are anti-Semites, it is disingenuous to claim that opposition to Zionism is fundamentally antisemitic. Judaism (a centuries-old religious peoplehood) is not synonymous with Zionism (a modern nationalist ideology that is not exclusively Jewish).
My congregation, Tzedek Chicago, recently amended our core values statement to say that we are “anti-Zionist, openly acknowledging that the creation of an ethnic Jewish nation state in historic Palestine resulted in an injustice against the Palestinian people — an injustice that continues to this day.” Our decision to articulate anti-Zionism as a value came after months of congregational deliberation, followed by a membership vote. As the Tzedek Chicago board explained our decision:
Zionism, the movement to establish a sovereign Jewish nation state in historic Palestine, is dependent upon the maintenance of a demographic Jewish majority in the land. Since its establishment, Israel has sought to maintain this majority by systematically dispossessing Palestinians from their homes through a variety of means, including military expulsion, home demolition, land expropriation and revocation of residency rights, among others.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to deny the fundamental injustice at the core of Zionism. In a 2021 report, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem concluded that Israel is an “apartheid state,” describing it as “a regime of Jewish supremacy from the river to the sea.” In the same year, Human Rights Watch released a similar report, stating Israel’s “deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”
Given the reality of this historic and ongoing injustice, we have concluded that it is not enough to describe ourselves as “non-Zionist.” We believe this neutral term fails to honor the central anti-racist premise that structures of oppression cannot be simply ignored — on the contrary, they must be transformed. As political activist Angela Davis has famously written, “In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist.”
While we are the first progressive synagogue to openly embrace anti-Zionism, there is every reason to believe we will not be the only one. At the very least, we hope our decision will widen the boundaries of what is considered acceptable discourse on the subject in the Jewish community. As Shaul Magid recently — and astutely — wrote:
[Israel is] a country stuck with an ideology that impedes equality, justice, and fairness. Maybe the true messianic move is not to defend Zionism, but to let it go. Maybe the anti-Zionists are on to something, if we only allow ourselves to listen.
Whether or not organizations such as the ADL succeed in their efforts to falsely conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism depends largely on the response of the liberal and centrist quarters of the Jewish community. Indeed, Greenblatt’s doubling down on anti-Zionism may well reflect a political strategy seeking to drive a wedge in the Jewish community between liberal Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews. Jewish establishment organizations, such as the ADL and American Jewish Committee view this moment as an opportunity to broaden their political influence, with the support of right-wing Democrats and Christian Zionists. The end game of this growing political coalition: an impenetrable firewall of unceasing political/financial/diplomatic support for Israel in Washington, D.C.
In the end, of course, the success or failure of this destructive tactic will ultimately depend on the readiness of Jews and non-Jews alike to publicly stand down Israeli apartheid and ethnonationalism — and to advocate a vision of justice for all who live between the river and the sea.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
-
Palestinian societies (PalSoc) at universities nationwide have issued an open letter condemning the “smear campaign” against incoming National Union of Students (NUS) president Shaima Dallali. They are also urging the NUS to call off its investigation into allegations of antisemitism against Dallali.
A ‘smear campaign’
On 13 April, the NUS announced plans to open an investigation into allegations of antisemitism against the union and Dallali, who is due to take up her post in July. This was in response to an onslaught of complaints by the Union of Jewish Students (UJS), some former NUS presidents and political figures following Dallali’s election.
The issues raised included a comment Dallali made as a teenager, which she apologised for. She also welcomed the NUS investigation, and reaffirmed her commitment to working in solidarity with Jewish students.
However, the coalition of Palestinian societies argues that the backlash against Dallali’s election is due to her condemnation of Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism, which human rights body Amnesty International has called “a crime against humanity”.
A coalition of PalSocs from universities across the UK have issued an open letter in solidarity with the union’s incoming elected president, saying:
We reject the smear campaign and harassment of Shaima Dallali and wish to make it clear that Shaima, as a dedicated and committed anti-racist organiser, has our full confidence to fulfil her duties as NUS President.
Underlining the danger and inaccuracy of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, the coalition states:
the liberation of Palestine is not at odds with the safety of Jewish students in the UK.
Fears for her safety
In April, Dallali – a young Black Muslim woman – spoke out about being subjected to racist and Islamophobic abuse online as a result of the pile-on. Violent threats resulted in the young activist fearing for her safety, and harmed her mental and physical wellbeing.
Dallali told the Guardian:
Unfortunately, as a black Muslim woman, it is something that I expected because I’ve seen it happen to other black Muslim women when they take up positions in the student union or the NUS, where they are attacked based on their political beliefs or their pro-Palestinian stance.
Indeed, Malia Bouattia faced similar backlash in 2016. Bouattia was the first Black Muslim woman to become NUS president, and was vocal about her pro-Palestinian stance
Denouncing the NUS’ decision to investigate Dallali, the PalSoc coalition says:
To continue with this investigation into a President who has continuously been outspoken on Israeli Apartheid is a direct decision to exclude those who stand for justice in Palestine and to ignore the grave concerns that Shaima Dallali has over her own personal safety and wellbeing.
Hypocrisy
Questioning the veracity of the UJS’ statement against Dallali, the PalSoc coalition highlights claims that a number of its signatories didn’t actually sign the letter, and don’t endorse its message. It also points to an open letter written by Jewish students denouncing the UJS’ response to Dallali’s election, stating that its views don’t represent the UK’s entire Jewish student body.
The letter in support of Dallali states that launching an investigation based on an unreliable source such as this “sets a deeply troubling precedent”.
Furthermore, the Palestine solidarity coalition calls out the “hypocrisy” of the UJS’ “call for inclusion” while openly endorsing and defending Israeli settler-colonialism, and promoting inflammatory, Islamophobic views.
It states:
Quite simply, the UJS’ position to promote Zionism and claim to oppose racism is an untenable stance.
Hostile environment
The open letter defending Dallali also calls attention to the fact that university campuses are increasingly unsafe places for those who condemn Israeli apartheid, occupation, and genocide.
Reflecting on this, the group says:
Investigations launched across UK universities against students and academics have intensified a culture of surveillance, which combined with the expansive presence of the Prevent agenda within education, seeks to silence our voices against global injustices.
Indeed, the University of Bristol sacked former sociology professor David Miller following a smear campaign in 2021. Sheffield Hallam academic Shahd Abusalama was subject to a similar campaign in January.
When London School of Economics (LSE) students protested their university hosting Israeli ambassador and Islamophobe Tzipi Hotovely, home secretary Priti Patel backed calls to criminalise those involved.
Meanwhile, the UK government is trying to make boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) – a tactic once used against South African apartheid – illegal.
In April, former prime minister David Cameron praised an Islamophobic report targeting Muslim activists who oppose Prevent – the UK’s discriminatory counterterrorism policy. The policing bill – which is now law – will usher in further securitisation of university campuses. This will no doubt disproportionately harm marginalised students, particularly those who take a stand against injustices.
A united front
Denouncing the union’s failure to support victimised students, the PalSoc coalition states:
the NUS has been routinely silent when students have most needed support from institutions that claim to stand for equality, freedom of speech and anti-racism.
It adds:
An NUS that cannot protect its own President from the external pressures of groups who openly side with Apartheid is an NUS that has failed those who it seeks to represent.
The coalition invites student societies to sign the open letter in support of its statement urging the NUS to call off the investigation, saying:
We believe firmly in tackling all forms of discrimination and racism through a united front and call all student societies to support us in challenging an increased dependence on a culture of investigations and surveillance.
If the NUS seeks to live its anti-racist values, it must take a stand against Islamophobia, white supremacy, settler-colonialism, and apartheid, and also must support students who vocally defend Palestinians’ right to live free from Israeli occupation.
Featured image via Ömer Yıldız/Unsplash resized 770 x 403 pxThis post was originally published on The Canary.
-
People are standing in solidarity with rapper Lowkey after he became the latest target for a pro-Israeli group. We Believe in Israel is trying to get the performer banned from Spotify.
But it isn’t going well for the pro-Zionist group, because people are showing they will not be silenced in their support for Lowkey and the Palestinian struggle.
In particular, the group has highlighted Lowkey’s 2010 track, Long Live Palestine Part 2 as “problematic”:
Lowkey is a passionate and eloquent defender of Palestinian rights, and is well versed in the history of the region. This video shows him speaking at the Oxford Union in 2019:
“Let’s take a second to stop and rewind”
Spoken word artist Potent Whisper released a video about what’s happening with Lowkey. He sums up the situation:
This group of people are British based lobbyists. They use their influence to support Israel. Lowkey is a rapper who talks about the wrongs they do. He isn’t scared to speak about the things they won’t put on the news. Now they want to get revenge because he gets a lot of views. They want to lobby Spotify to try and get his songs removed.
He continues:
Israel drops bombs on streets but wants to call his songs extreme. I mean, I guess in a way you can kind of see why. Like if you were them, you’d be extremely worried. The people were exposing your killing of civilians – that’s why you spend so much on the MPs you lobby, so you can try legitimising killing Palestinians.
And as he asserts:
But ultimately what it comes down to is this: if they’re alleging that his music is violent, that defending Palestine is hateful incitement, they should have to prove it facts before they can remove his tracks. If they can’t, then it proves they just want him silenced.
Solidarity
Across Twitter, people have expressed their solidarity with Lowkey. Declassified’s Matt Kennard tweeted:
The apartheid regime’s counter-measures are increasingly desperate. They know the game is up.
Long live @Lowkey0nlinehttps://t.co/g2mJzP7FI1
— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) March 25, 2022
Academic and writer Rizwaan Sabir also voiced support:
Solidarity with @Lowkey0nline who's facing sustained attacks by Israeli lobby groups who are trying to get his music cancelled on Spotify. Keep spitting the truth, brother. #LongLivePalestine https://t.co/vD5moeQ8KG
— Dr Rizwaan Sabir (@RizwaanSabir) March 26, 2022
And former UN special rapporteur Leilani Farha encouraged others to follow Lowkey on Twitter:
I follow @Lowkey0nline on @Spotify – maybe you should too!
Some folks are trying to have him removed because his art talks powerfully and frankly about the occupation of the Palestinian territories. https://t.co/ds7m4ShMgF
— Leilani Farha (@leilanifarha) March 25, 2022
Ex-Labour MP Laura Pidcock also expressed her solidarity. It’s just a pity that solidarity didn’t come from current Labour MPs:
#Solidarity with @Lowkey0nline. His music continues to inspire thousands and thousands of people every day, awakening us to the system we live in – with his powerful lyrics and incredible talent.
— Laura Pidcock (@LauraPidcock) March 25, 2022
Meanwhile Palestinian academic Shahd Abusalama, who recently won a massive victory after she was targeted by antisemitism smears at Sheffield Hallam University, tweeted her support:
As long as I've known @Lowkey0nline, he's been consistently singing and speaking up for antiracist issues, for freedom and justice in Palestine. Don't let the Zionists silence this brilliant asset for the movement
! #DontSilencePalestine #InSupportOfShahd https://t.co/wCRdIn4eM8
— ShahdAbusalama (@ShahdAbusalama) March 25, 2022
And direct action campaign group Palestine Action highlighted the “time & dedication” Lowkey devotes to the “fight for an end to injustice”:
Lowkey rapped outside the now closed Israeli arms factory in Oldham, whilst we scaled the building. No other rapper puts in the time & dedication to fight for an end to injustice. Now it's time to reject the Israel lobby & stand with @Lowkey0nline! pic.twitter.com/Y47G1QQsOQ
— Palestine Action (@Pal_action) March 25, 2022
We will not be silenced
Responding in Middle East Eye to threats to ban his music, Lowkey stated:
This coordinated campaign is an extension of the brutalisation of the Palestinians. Palestinians are routinely arrested by Israel for posts on social media, even children. Dareen Tatour spent almost a year in occupation jail for posting a poem to her Facebook.
He continued:
Artists and musicians should never have to fear threats to their livelihood or person for the music they make. We will not be silenced on Palestine, not now, not ever.
The response on social media has shown that Lowkey is right. We will not be silenced. We will continue speaking out against the apartheid Israeli state. And we will unapologetically continue to defend the lives of Palestinian people.
In the words of Lowkey:
Long live Palestine, long live Gaza.
Featured image via Youtube screengrab
By Emily Apple
This post was originally published on The Canary.
-
Greek Orthodox Bishop Seraphim of Piraeus. Two activists were found to have falsely accused him of hate speech by a Greek court on Tuesday. Credit: Ewiki/Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY-SA 3.0 Several newspapers (here Anna Wichmann for GreekReporter of 16 February 2022) commented on the rather surprising ruling by a Greek court that two human rights activists falsely accused a Greek Orthodox bishop of hate speech and sentenced them to year-long prison sentences that were suspended for three years.
Bishop Seraphim, who is the Metropolitan of Piraeus, was acquitted on charges of hate speech. The bishop has made what many believe are both coded and explicit references to antisemitic tropes many times. For example when Greece introduced new legislation to expand rights for gay and lesbian couples in 2015, he claimed that an “international Zionist monster” was behind the bill.
He also claimed that Jews themselves funded and planned the Holocaust and charged that they were the reason for Greece’s financial troubles on Greek television five years ago. After his statement about the Holocaust began to garner controversy, the Greek Orthodox Bishop clarified that it was his own opinion and not that of the Greek Orthodox Church.
These comments were seen as extremely troubling in a country whose once vibrant Jewish community was nearly wiped out during the Holocaust, and antisemitic rhetoric and attacks, usually in the form of vandalism, are still a major problem.
The accused brought a formal complaint against the Bishop in 2017 in which they claimed he fueled hatred and incited violence against Greece’ Jewish minority with his inflammatory statements about Jews and the Holocaust. They also claimed that he had abused his office.
The prosecutor dismissed the activists’ complaint in 2019, but the Bishop decided to file his own motion against the activists for falsely accusing him of hate speech, and the prosecutor subsequently formally charged the accused in November.
Greece passed Law No. 4285/2014 in 2014, which criminalized hate speech — particularly speech which incites violence — and genocide denial. The law reads “Anyone, who publicly incites, provokes, or stirs, either orally or through the press, the Internet, or any other means, acts of violence or hatred against a person or group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in a manner that endangers the public order and exposes the life, physical integrity, and freedom of persons defined above to danger, will be punished by imprisonment of from three months to three years and a fine of €5,000 to €20,000.”
Human rights groups around the world paid careful attention to the case; many believed that bringing the activists to trial alone was a sign of an alarming shift of the judicial system’s role in the country as a force against activists.
Amnesty International stated on social media that “The ruling poses a direct threat to the right to freedom of expression and has a chilling effect on human rights defenders advocating against racism and hate speech.”
Andrea Gilbert, one of the accused, who works for the Greek Helsinki Monitor rights group, expressed her outrage at the verdict to The Guardian: “Today’s outrageous verdict is representative of the institutionalized antisemitism that exists in Greece…We have immediately appealed and will fight it all the way.”
Activists and people who work for NGOs argue that the trial epitomizes how difficult it is for them to work in Greece.
“Human rights defenders (in Greece) are consistently targeted for their legitimate work…(They) face different types of attacks, including surveillance, judicial harassment, arbitrary arrests, detentions, ill-treatment, entry bans and expulsions,” the international secretariat of the World Organization Against Torture stated to The Guardian.
Although not included in the activists’ initial complaint of hate speech against Greek Orthodox Bishop Seraphim, he is also known to express what many believe are homophobic sentiments.
He has claimed that homosexuality brings about disease and can be “carcinogenic.” He has also called homosexuality an issue of “psychopathology” rather than sexuality.
In 2021, when Greece was hit with catastrophic wildfires that destroyed vast swaths of land and thousands of houses, Seraphim released a statement in which he hinted that the fires were a punishment for Greece adopting legislation that expanded the rights of gay people, writing:
“With love I would say to our leaders that when they show off the subversion of human ontology and human nature and institutionalize it as a “human right,” despite the fact that it doesn’t have any relationship with human nature, and they view it as a plus on their CV for advancement in their position of authority, they don’t understand that this is hubris, and each instance of hubris requires purification and ‘just repayment.’”
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
-
Human rights groups said the verdict was part of a troubling trend in Greece’s criminal justice system
An Athens court has handed two prominent human rights defenders prison sentences, suspended for three years, after finding the pair guilty of “falsely accusing” a Greek Orthodox bishop of racist hate speech.
The three-member tribunal sentenced the activists to 12-month jail terms after acquitting the bishop, Seraphim, the Metropolitan of Piraeus, of antisemitic rhetoric.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
-
Palestinian academic Shahd Abusalama, a PhD student and associate lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), was suspended from her role following accusations of antisemitism. However, Abusalama completely rejects these accusations and says they’re “malicious and motivated in bad faith”.
On 27 January, Abusalama said she’d been reinstated to her teaching – although she still hadn’t seen the allegations against her. She said:
I am accused of antisemitism. Because I dare to speak up against power, and I dare to demand freedom, justice, and equality for my people
She added that SHU announced an investigation without her knowledge. Moreover, she told The Canary she’s completely in the dark about the content and timeframe of this investigation.
So even if her reinstatement is welcome news, it’s certainly not the last we’ll hear of this. Because Abusalama demands people take action against censorship of Palestinian voices and against the university’s handling of this matter.
Censoring Palestinian “pro-justice” voices
Abusalama told The Canary she first became aware just before the 2021 Christmas break that something like this might happen. She said someone at the Jewish News contacted her for a statement claiming SHU was about to investigate her tweets for antisemitic content. The outlet published an article on it on 24 December 2021.
Then Abusalama said that in January:
I was going to meet my students for a second time on Friday for my scheduled seminars… I received this sudden email from my university saying that I cannot resume teaching and that I’m under investigation following a complaint. Everything was vague. Nothing was mentioned of the nature of the complaint or why I was suspended. They also notified me that they would tell the students that my classes were cancelled until further notice.
Her suspension was compared to that of University of Bristol professor David Miller who was fired from his position in 2021. The case against him was also based on allegations of antisemitism in response to his academic work linking Zionism to Islamophobia. Miller said he was speaking out against anti-Muslim racism in the UK. While Miller was cleared of “anti-Jewish bigotry”, the university didn’t reinstate him.
Abusalama now wants people to write to the university to demand it drops its investigation. She also wants it to issue a public apology and ensure Palestinian justice activists are not subject to “malicious censorship” again:
I am reinstated, which shows how powerful our voices are when they are joined together. Yet, it's not over.
We need to continue to stand #InSupportOfShahd. Here's how
#Thread
— ShahdAbusalama (@ShahdAbusalama) January 29, 2022
She additionally wants the university to drop its adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Because while this definition does apply to antisemitism and other forms of racism, it also conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel.
Ignoring Israel’s crimes
Her suspension comes at a time when Israel continues to expel Palestinians from the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood in East Jerusalem. This is a move which a spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for Human Rights had previously said was “prohibited under international humanitarian law and may amount to a war crime”. It also comes at a time when Palestinians hold “Global Days of Action for Palestine”. On these days of action, Palestinians intensified:
protests against Israel’s dramatic escalation of violence and ethnic cleansing across Historic Palestine.
Abusalama spoke to The Canary at a protest in Sheffield in May 2021. She called on the world to act as Israel besieged Gaza. Israel bombed Gaza from land, sea, and air and killed over 130 Palestinians on that occasion, the majority of whom were civilians. She told The Canary:
Reporting from the ground what is happening, the repression of Israeli military and settler extremist groups is beyond description, and no one is safe in their homes. It is indiscriminate repression. …
The inherent recent racist character of the supremacist ideology of Zionism, that that is basically dictating the policies and practices of dehumanisation against the Palestinians.
We are counting one massacre after the other, one victim after the other. And it’s just non stop. And we don’t want more condemnation or declarations. We don’t want to hear calls for de-escalation. We want Israel to be held accountable. And it’s long overdue, that justice is served for the Palestinians. It is long overdue that Palestinian refugees like me, return to their home. It’s wrong; it’s morally disturbing that Jews anywhere in the world, in the US, can go and claim a right to return to Palestine when I, the indigenous people of Palestine, cannot return.
They allegedly targeted her
Abusalama believes Jewish News, which she described as “Zionist press”, protested her appointment as associate lecturer at the university and could have targeted her. She also said:
that people who lead the campaign against antisemitism are also people who are chairs of the Jewish National Fund, who has been leading Zionist settler colonial expansion on our lands since early 20th century. And until now, they are contributing to the dispossession of the Palestinians in Jerusalem, in Hebron, in Beita… everywhere
She believes her case is part of a coordinated attempt by Zionist organisations to take down pro-Palestinian academics. She provided examples of this to The Canary.
These include an allegation that a criminal attorney in Vienna accused her of writing an antisemitic article in Al Jazeera. This was an attempt to damage her reputation and position at the University.
Then in August 2019, David Collier published a report called The Labour Party, obsession and radicalisation. The report included a case study on Sheffield. In that report, he accused Abusalama of spreading “hard-core antisemitism”. She also claims the Jewish Chronicle smeared her because of her 2019 Boycott Eurovision Campaign. That was the year the competition took place in Israel.
Additionally, she believes this campaign is part of a “historical pattern” where people prioritise the colonial narrative over the narrative of the colonised people. Moreover, she says the university has done nothing to protect her well-being, her rights, or her academic freedom. She says the university continues to:
engage with the Zionist press, confirming to them that they have adopted the political tool of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, while continuing to be dismissive of their own students’ education, my story and my life
The Canary contacted SHU for comment but received no response.
Solidarity with Shahd Abusalama
This is why, according to Abusalama, resistance against such attacks is crucial. There was an outpouring of support for Abusalama across social media and in public which she believes helped her in this struggle:
Palestinian academic at Sheffield Hallam University @ShahdAbusalama, who was suspended following a smear campaign by supporters of 'Israel', has been reinstated in her role, following protests over her suspension. (1/2)#InSupportOfShahd pic.twitter.com/n85Up00BGX
— PALESTINE ONLINE
(@OnlinePalEng) January 29, 2022
Students at Uni of Liverpool @SwssLvp stand in solidarity with @ShahdAbusalama#FreePalestine #InSupportOfShahd pic.twitter.com/qiVg248LSN
— Socialist Worker Student Society (@SWSSNews) January 27, 2022
Abusalama said she’s very grateful for the support she has received so far. She says it’s “keeping me grounded and what is keeping me carrying on”. The “overwhelming” support has come from students, others at the university, her trade union, and people all over the world.
She also thanked “alternative press” for its support and for “shifting the narrative and [equalising] the gap in this power imbalance”. This latest alleged attempt by the Zionist lobby to silence criticism of Israel’s crimes is not going unanswered.
Featured image via 5Pillars – YouTube Screengrab
This post was originally published on The Canary.
-
Prominent Jewish Labour members say their complaints about a centrist Labour MP’s antisemitic tweet is being stonewalled by the Labour Party. In July 2021, Neil Coyle MP approvingly quote-tweeted an article about four left-wing groups being purged by the party’s National Executive Council at the direction of Keir Starmer. Coyle said this didn’t go far enough, adding that 350 Jewish members of the Labour Party who are members of Jewish Voice for Labour are “Communists” and should also be expelled en masse from the Party.
Not far enough. JVL should be gone too. And other outright Communists who have their own political party/ies they can ruin. https://t.co/sLRk33dv17
— Neil Coyle (@coyleneil) July 17, 2021
The groups named in the article were Resist, Labour Against the Witchhunt, Labour In Exile and the Socialist Appeal. The Daily Mirror article reported that members of these groups would be expelled from Labour if they were also members of the party.
Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, Professor Avi Shlaim and Harold Immanuel lodged complaints with Labour in September 2021 about what they argue is a clearly antisemitic comment from Coyle. But the trio said that four months later nothing has come of their complaints despite the Labour Party’s obligations to complainants.
Bindman is a British solicitor specialising in human rights law. He founded the human rights law firm Bindmans LLP and served as Chair of the British Institute of Human Rights. Additionally, he is a visiting professor of law at University College London and London South Bank University.
Shlaim is an Oxford professor of history and author of several books on Israel and Palestine.
Judeo-Bolshevism
In his complaint, Harold Immanuel detailed Coyle’s tweet before stating:
I am a Jewish member of the Labour Party. His call for the mass expulsion of Jewish members of the Labour Party who are also part of JVL (Jewish Voice for Labour) is an antisemitic slur on Jewish members of the Party.
Immanuel highlighted the particular rule he claims Coyle broke:
It breaches Labour Party rule 2.1.8 which requires the NEC to regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race religion or belief as conduct prejudicial to the Party. In my submission no other view is credible.
“Antisemitic lexicon”
Immanuel said that Coyle’s tweet drew on a long-standing antisemitic conspiracy theory that conflates communism, Judaism and other anti-Jewish tropes.
The antisemitic character of Mr Coyle’s tweet is reinforced by its identification of JVL members as “outright Communists”. As you know, this is a well authenticated antisemitic trope or slur rehearsing the myth of “Judaeo-Bolshevism” (Judaeo-Communism for the uninitiated) which dates at least from the Russian revolution of 1917 and has been a central part of the antisemitic lexicon ever since.
Oppression
Immanuel said this form of conspiracy theory went beyond simply framing Jews as part of a plutocratic (wealthy) plot by combining different anti-Jewish tropes. And that these became fundamental to the oppression suffered by Jews in the 20th Century:
It is not simply on a par with accusing Jews of being manipulative financiers and plutocrats but forms an equal part of the same conspiracy theory which is that Jews are both communists and plutocrats at the same time, two ways by which they seek a single objective of world domination. The trope played a fundamental role in the justification of the most murderous atrocities committed against Jews in the 20th century. In short, Mr Coyle’s tweet comes directly out of the world Jewish conspiracy playbook.
He did not find it credible that Coyle was unaware of the meaning and history of such language:
It is simply not credible that Mr Coyle didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews is antisemitic; or that he didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews by alleging that a whole group of them are communists is antisemitic; or that he didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews because they are allegedly communists is a classic antisemitic trope.
Open and shut?
Professor Avi Shlaim’s complaint said this was a “crystal-clear” case of “racism”. He felt Coyle’s expulsion should follow as a result of the tweet. He said Coyle’s “diatribe against Jewish members” was “outrageous hate speech by any standards”:
This is surely an open and shut case of racism which calls for the severest censure. If this is not a crystal-clear case of racist antisemitism, I don’t know what is. Just compare what Mr Coyle said with the comments that led to Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension from the Labour Party. There is no comparison.
The only appropriate censure in my view is expulsion from the Labour Party.
Shlaim said that he was entitled to updates about the progress of his complaint:
Finally, as a victim of this complaint, I assert my right to updates on the progress of your investigation. Please note that data protection and confidentiality do not cancel this right.
He added that the comments were “disgustingly anti-semitic” and were the kind of thing said about Jews in Nazi Germany:
Mr Coyle’s call for the mass expulsion of all JVL members from the Labour Party is unmistakably, crudely, and disgustingly anti-semitic. By calling me and my JVL colleagues “outright Communist”, Mr Coyle adds insult to injury. This is the kind of thing that was said about Jews in Nazi Germany. It is shocking to hear it in this day and age and in the Labour Party of all places.
Procedural failures
The complainants say they have heard nothing back since they submitted. Harold Immanuel detailed what he felt were Labour’s failings in terms of their own complaints procedure. And he said that the Party claims it will keep complainants updated if they are the victims. And that matters will be dealt with “in a prompt, transparent and fair manner”.
Immanuel told The Canary:
Since none of us have heard anything in over four months, it follows that they have been neither prompt nor transparent. Nor, by any reasonable measure, have they been fair to the complainants.
The hope is that the Labour party will now take disciplinary action against Coyle. Then, maybe, this would be a step towards Labour becoming the safe, respectful place for Jewish members that the party claims it wants to be.
However, JVL Co-Chair Jenny Manson highlights a recent article by Rachel Reeves MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that article, according to Manson:
Reeves applauds the reduction in membership, including the many who have left horrified by the unjust investigation of false allegations of antisemitism; these investigations have involved at least 44 Jews. At the same time, a sitting Labour MP who has called for the expulsion of a Jewish organisation and has aligned Jews with communists, a long-standing and very threatening form of antisemitic abuse, has faced no action by the Party.
Neil Coyle MP and the Labour Party were contacted for comment but did not respond.
Featured images via Wikimedia Commons/Chris McAndrew cropped to 770 x 403, licenced via CC BY 3.0 and Jewish Voice for Labour website, cropped to 770 x 403.
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
-
Prominent Jewish Labour members say their complaints about a centrist Labour MP’s antisemitic tweet is being stonewalled by the Labour Party. In July 2021, Neil Coyle MP approvingly quote-tweeted an article about four left-wing groups being purged by the party’s National Executive Council at the direction of Keir Starmer. Coyle said this didn’t go far enough, adding that 350 Jewish members of the Labour Party who are members of Jewish Voice for Labour are “Communists” and should also be expelled en masse from the Party.
Not far enough. JVL should be gone too. And other outright Communists who have their own political party/ies they can ruin. https://t.co/sLRk33dv17
— Neil Coyle (@coyleneil) July 17, 2021
The groups named in the article were Resist, Labour Against the Witchhunt, Labour In Exile and the Socialist Appeal. The Daily Mirror article reported that members of these groups would be expelled from Labour if they were also members of the party.
Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, Professor Avi Shlaim and Harold Immanuel lodged complaints with Labour in September 2021 about what they argue is a clearly antisemitic comment from Coyle. But the trio said that four months later nothing has come of their complaints despite the Labour Party’s obligations to complainants.
Bindman is a British solicitor specialising in human rights law. He founded the human rights law firm Bindmans LLP and served as Chair of the British Institute of Human Rights. Additionally, he is a visiting professor of law at University College London and London South Bank University.
Shlaim is an Oxford professor of history and author of several books on Israel and Palestine.
Judeo-Bolshevism
In his complaint, Harold Immanuel detailed Coyle’s tweet before stating:
I am a Jewish member of the Labour Party. His call for the mass expulsion of Jewish members of the Labour Party who are also part of JVL (Jewish Voice for Labour) is an antisemitic slur on Jewish members of the Party.
Immanuel highlighted the particular rule he claims Coyle broke:
It breaches Labour Party rule 2.1.8 which requires the NEC to regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race religion or belief as conduct prejudicial to the Party. In my submission no other view is credible.
“Antisemitic lexicon”
Immanuel said that Coyle’s tweet drew on a long-standing antisemitic conspiracy theory that conflates communism, Judaism and other anti-Jewish tropes.
The antisemitic character of Mr Coyle’s tweet is reinforced by its identification of JVL members as “outright Communists”. As you know, this is a well authenticated antisemitic trope or slur rehearsing the myth of “Judaeo-Bolshevism” (Judaeo-Communism for the uninitiated) which dates at least from the Russian revolution of 1917 and has been a central part of the antisemitic lexicon ever since.
Oppression
Immanuel said this form of conspiracy theory went beyond simply framing Jews as part of a plutocratic (wealthy) plot by combining different anti-Jewish tropes. And that these became fundamental to the oppression suffered by Jews in the 20th Century:
It is not simply on a par with accusing Jews of being manipulative financiers and plutocrats but forms an equal part of the same conspiracy theory which is that Jews are both communists and plutocrats at the same time, two ways by which they seek a single objective of world domination. The trope played a fundamental role in the justification of the most murderous atrocities committed against Jews in the 20th century. In short, Mr Coyle’s tweet comes directly out of the world Jewish conspiracy playbook.
He did not find it credible that Coyle was unaware of the meaning and history of such language:
It is simply not credible that Mr Coyle didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews is antisemitic; or that he didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews by alleging that a whole group of them are communists is antisemitic; or that he didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews because they are allegedly communists is a classic antisemitic trope.
Open and shut?
Professor Avi Shlaim’s complaint said this was a “crystal-clear” case of “racism”. He felt Coyle’s expulsion should follow as a result of the tweet. He said Coyle’s “diatribe against Jewish members” was “outrageous hate speech by any standards”:
This is surely an open and shut case of racism which calls for the severest censure. If this is not a crystal-clear case of racist antisemitism, I don’t know what is. Just compare what Mr Coyle said with the comments that led to Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension from the Labour Party. There is no comparison.
The only appropriate censure in my view is expulsion from the Labour Party.
Shlaim said that he was entitled to updates about the progress of his complaint:
Finally, as a victim of this complaint, I assert my right to updates on the progress of your investigation. Please note that data protection and confidentiality do not cancel this right.
He added that the comments were “disgustingly anti-semitic” and were the kind of thing said about Jews in Nazi Germany:
Mr Coyle’s call for the mass expulsion of all JVL members from the Labour Party is unmistakably, crudely, and disgustingly anti-semitic. By calling me and my JVL colleagues “outright Communist”, Mr Coyle adds insult to injury. This is the kind of thing that was said about Jews in Nazi Germany. It is shocking to hear it in this day and age and in the Labour Party of all places.
Procedural failures
The complainants say they have heard nothing back since they submitted. Harold Immanuel detailed what he felt were Labour’s failings in terms of their own complaints procedure. And he said that the Party claims it will keep complainants updated if they are the victims. And that matters will be dealt with “in a prompt, transparent and fair manner”.
Immanuel told The Canary:
Since none of us have heard anything in over four months, it follows that they have been neither prompt nor transparent. Nor, by any reasonable measure, have they been fair to the complainants.
The hope is that the Labour party will now take disciplinary action against Coyle. Then, maybe, this would be a step towards Labour becoming the safe, respectful place for Jewish members that the party claims it wants to be.
However, JVL Co-Chair Jenny Manson highlights a recent article by Rachel Reeves MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that article, according to Manson:
Reeves applauds the reduction in membership, including the many who have left horrified by the unjust investigation of false allegations of antisemitism; these investigations have involved at least 44 Jews. At the same time, a sitting Labour MP who has called for the expulsion of a Jewish organisation and has aligned Jews with communists, a long-standing and very threatening form of antisemitic abuse, has faced no action by the Party.
Neil Coyle MP and the Labour Party were contacted for comment but did not respond.
Featured images via Wikimedia Commons/Chris McAndrew cropped to 770 x 403, licenced via CC BY 3.0 and Jewish Voice for Labour website, cropped to 770 x 403.
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
-
The centrists are at it again! Right-wing Labour MPs love twisting the findings of a key report on antisemitism in the Labour Party. This time it was Rachel Reeves, during an interview on the BBC. The main discussion was the arrival in Labour of Tory defector Christian Wakeford MP.
For some, a Tory joining your party might cause concern. Not Reeves though – she was “pleased” that Conservatives were joining Labour. She was then challenged on why an actual Tory was allowed in to Labour when former leader Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t.
A flustered Reeves said:
It’s very clear what Jeremy Corbyn needs to do. He needs to apologise for his response to the [EHRC] on the Labour Party, which found institutional antisemitism and mistakes made under his leadership.
The facts
Corbyn is not currently allowed to serve as a Labour MP. His suspension followed a statement he made after a major report on antisemitism in Labour was published:
One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.
To many people this is stating the obvious. But Keir Starmer quickly suspended Corbyn. Many feel this move was less about antisemitism and more about purging the Labour left’s figurehead.
“Flat-out lying”
One twitter user tweeted the exchange. They accused Reeves of “flat-out lying” to distract from letting a literal Tory into the party:
Nothing says 'I take antisemitism seriously' like flat-out lying about the EHRC report to get around awkward questions about why Labour is welcoming a racist Tory, huh @RachelReevesMP ? pic.twitter.com/COsIq2lpzR
— I (@zObscurantist) January 20, 2022
The findings of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report are hotly debated. And Reeves’ claim drew immediate criticism on social media.
Incorrect
Some people accused Reeves of vastly exaggerating “the scale of antisemitism for political purposes”:
By falsely claiming the EHRC found Labour guilty of "institutional antisemitism" and implying 200,000 former Labour Party members are "antisemitic", Rachel Reeves has proved Jeremy Corbyn 100% correct.
She's massively exaggerated the scale of antisemitism for political reasons.
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush
(@WarmongerHodges) January 20, 2022
As someone pointed out, Reeves once highlighted the first woman MP Mary Astor’s political successes without once mentioning her rabid antisemitism In fact, as The Canary reported previously, many centrist figures lauded Astor despite her well-documented far-right political views:
Rachel Reeves who gave a glowing endorsement of known antisemite Nancy Astor lied this morning on R4 and claimed that EHRC found Labour institutionally antisemitic under Corbyn’s leadership. They did not. LIE. Meanwhile Starmer has suspended more Jews than any leader in history
— Teri
(@MettlesomeTeri) January 20, 2022
Revisiting
Whether or not Reeves is ‘lying’ depends on how you interpret the findings of the EHRC report. It did find that:
there were unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination for which the Labour Party is responsible.
However, as Electronic Intifada reported:
But despite its 17-month investigation, the EHRC failed to find Labour guilty of “institutional anti-Semitism,” despite being asked to do so by two pro-Israel groups – the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” and the Jewish Labour Movement.
But the bigger issue in Reeves weaponising the report in this way is the serious shortcomings with the report in its methods and motivations.
As The Canary’s Emily Apple wrote in October 2020,
Any and all allegations of antisemitism must be taken seriously. And if the Labour Party is responsible for “harassment and discrimination” then this must be addressed. But here’s where there’s a fatal flaw. Because the report includes, quite rightly, “using antisemitic tropes” as an issue. But it then adds “suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears” as an issue in its own right.
And she added:
This is hugely problematic and a massive Catch-22
Accepted uncritically
She explains many of the other key issues with the report. And she argues that with Corbyn’s suspension:
any whiff of this critical evaluation has been drowned out. The report’s headline findings are accepted uncritically and broadcast as fact, without nuance and closer examination. It’s marred by interference from the very lobby that the report says is antisemitic to accuse of involvement. This argument wouldn’t stand if the report had evidenced other examples of antisemitic behaviour. But it doesn’t.
And this is the key point. There seems to be no space, or effort, to evaluate the EHRC report or its outcomes. The truth is this lack of critical thought does nothing to fight the very real threat of antisemitism. And it’s high time Labour MPs stopped weaponising the EHRC report for their own goals.
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/BahrainRevolutionMC, cropped to 770 x 440, licenced under CY BB 3.0.
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
-
As The Canary extensively reported during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, figures from the Conservative Party, the Labour right, and the establishment media orchestrated a transparently politically-motivated smear campaign against him. Their weapon of choice was employing a litany of bogus accusations of antisemitism to paint the lifelong anti-racism campaigner as some kind of bigot.
The purpose of the campaign was straightforward – they sought to derail his chances of becoming prime minister and distract attention from his (widely popular) policy proposals. Their motive was equally straightforward – they rightly feared the threat that a Corbyn-led government would pose to the status quo and their own political and economic interests. Now, one of the major players in this campaign has admitted that its whole underlying premise was false all along.
From name-calling to contorted attempts to tar by association
Canary readers will hardly need reminding that Corbyn’s time as leader as of the Labour Party saw him and his supporters come under a relentless attack from all the usual suspects. This included all the predictable childish name-calling about Corbyn belonging to the so-called ‘loony left’, taking part in ‘student union‘ politics, and acting like an ‘armchair revolutionary‘. It also involved desperate attempts to tie him to controversial organisations such as Hamas and the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
All of these smears were transparently preposterous and easy to debunk. But they nonetheless pail in comparison to the prime weapon used to besmirch him. Namely, political opponents latched on to a tried and trusted tactic for attacking friends of the Palestinian people – the risible notion that those who criticize Israel’s human rights abuses are usually motivated by hatred of Jews.
As would be expected, the right-wing gutter tabloid press played a leading role in utilizing this false premise to smear Corbyn. Again, these attempts, from the wreath laying controversy to the ‘muralgate‘ scandal (which even the nominally progressive Guardian joined in on), have been roundly debunked by journalists and scholars. But nonetheless, the antisemitism smear campaign has continued apace and, indeed, morphed into an all-encompassing attempt to attack anyone on the left more broadly.
A stunning admission
But now, in early 2022, over two years since the peddlers of the campaign succeeded in derailing Corbyn’s chances of becoming prime minister, one of the most flagrant offenders of all has now essentially admitted that the whole thing was a farce all along. Astonishingly, during a radio broadcast of BBC 5 Live, presenter Rachel Burden said matter-of-factly:
there is absolutely no evidence that the leader of the Labour Party at that time [in 2019], Jeremy Corbyn, was or is antisemitic.
Burden made the comments to clarify some of the comments made during an interview early in the show with the Conservative Party donor and ‘Phones4U’ billionaire John Caudwell. She acknowledged that Cauldwell had described Corbyn “as being an antisemite and a Marxist.” She added:
I redirected him back on to the conversation, which was all about Boris Johnson. That’s what I wanted him to talk about. But I should have challenged him on the particular allegation of antisemite [sic].
She reiterated:
I apologize for not challenging that more directly, should have done, and I want to emphasize there is no evidence for that at all.
An allegation that’s absurd to its core
Burden’s apology should be welcomed (though it’s all rather a case of ‘too little, too late’). But the bigger point is that this admission exposes how the central underlying premise behind the smear campaign as a whole is, and always has been, completely false. As The Canary has argued on many occasions, the idea that most or even many critics of Israel are antisemitic is patently absurd. Indeed, many of Israel’s fiercest critics are themselves Jewish. This includes political scientist and expert on the conflict in Palestine Norman Finkelstein, who is himself not only Jewish but the son of Holocaust survivors, and Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, whose father fled from Nazi occupied Europe to Palestine.
Finkelstein explained to The Canary during an exclusive interview how the British ruling establishment cynically and enthusiastically went along with, and indeed actively participated in, the antisemitism smear campaign because they had a common enemy in the form of Jeremy Corbyn. He said:
The British elites suddenly discovered ‘we can use the antisemitism card in order to try to stifle genuine… leftist insurgencies among the population’. And so what used to be a kind of sectarian issue waged by Jewish organisations faithful to the party line emanating from Israel vs critics of Israel, now it’s no longer sectarian because the whole British elite has decided they’re going to use this antisemitism card to stop Jeremy Corbyn and the political insurgency he represents.
Finkelstein went on to liken the smear campaign against Corbyn to the Salem Witch Hunts. He said:
Except when you take the classic examples, the anti-communist hysteria, the Salem Witch Hunt hysteria, you really can’t come up with parallels.
Another shot at Number 10?
Such an admission from the BBC demonstrates perhaps better than anything else just how cynical the smear campaign was all along. It also raises some serious questions about the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2019 general election, and, indeed, the legitimacy of British democracy more broadly. After all, if one party leader was getting constantly attacked with false allegations then he can hardly be characterized as having had a fair shake at striving for the UK’s top job.
This raises the question of whether Corbyn should be given another shot. And it seems that many in the public now think so. According to one poll, reported in the Express of all places, “Jeremy Corbyn is the preferred choice of Red Wall voters for Labour leader if Sir Keir Starmer was to step down.” Though Starmer’s position seems to have been saved for the time being by improved polling for Labour (likely due mostly to increasing dissatisfaction with the Tories), this might not even end up mattering.
There are rumors swirling around social media that Corbyn might be on the brink of establishing a new party. This, of course, would free him from the ossified internal structures of the Labour Party, not to mention the constant backstabbing from the Labour right he experienced as leader. Perhaps there will soon be an opportunity to challenge the status quo and bring about radical change once more.
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons and Flickr – Elliott Brown
By Peter Bolton
This post was originally published on The Canary.