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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This 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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has asked Jewsh Voice for Labour (JVL) to submit evidence of the Labour leadership’s antisemitic discrimination against leftwing Jews in the party. A number of JVL members have been suspended or expelled from Labour, including two who have since passed away. In many cases, they were singled out for comments on Israeli policy in occupied Palestine.
JVL has submitted twice to the EHRC before. But this is the first time it’s been asked to contribute. In the new submission, JVL aims to raise:
the continued unfair targeting of Jewish members of the Party and in particular Jewish members with particular beliefs set out in further detail below, which appears to be entirely contrary to the findings of the EHRC Report and the purpose of the Action Plan
And:
the unfair procedures the Party is continuing to follow in respect of disciplinary proceedings
against individual members, in breach of principles of fairness, natural justice and
recommendations made by both the EHRC, and by Baroness Shami Chakrabarti in her report
published on 30 June 2016, following her inquiry into antisemitism in the Party (the
“Chakrabarti Report”). [Original emphasis]
The submission also highlights how two members of the organisation have died without being able to clear their names:
Two JVL members, Riva Joffe under investigation, Mike Howard having received a punitive suspension for antisemitism, have recently died, tragically with these offensive and unfounded charges against them unresolved. In the case of Mike Howard, his appeal against his suspension remains unresolved since 12 April 2021
JVL says the Labour Party has failed to even understand antisemitism, with devastating effects for some:
As a preliminary point, JVL considers that the failure of the Party to introduce a fair process to tackle antisemitism has resulted from its failure to properly understand antisemitism.
JVL’s submission sets out what it means by antisemitism according to the key definitions:
The understanding of antisemitism on which this analysis is based reaffirms the traditional meaning of the term. This is important in the light of attempts to extend its meaning to apply to criticisms often made of the state of Israel, or to non-violent campaigns such as BDS. A charge of antisemitism carries exceptional moral force because of the negative connotations rightly attaching to the term. It is illegitimate to make such claims to discredit or deter criticism, or to achieve sectional advantage. To do so is to devalue the term. To be clear: conduct is antisemitic only if it manifests ‘prejudice, hostility or hatred against Jews as Jews.
And JVL cites the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, arguing this is a far more precise definition than that used by the Labour Party.
JVL also charges the Labour Party with using a confused framework for accusations. This, they write, has hindered those accused from responding to allegations:
In the majority of investigations into alleged antisemitism, the Party asserts that the member is guilty of conduct that “undermines the Party’s ability to campaign against antisemitism”. This is a vague accusation that does not provide the member with sufficient information to understand, or defend themselves against, the charge. It also gives the Party an effective carte-blanche to investigate members in relation to complaints that have no basis and to stifle any questioning of the Party by its members.
The submission also argues that Jewish Labour members have been accused of antisemitism at disproportionate rates. They point to Annex 11 of their submission:
which contains statistics on the number of investigations by the Party brought against Jewish members and in particular, anti-Zionist Jewish members. Annex 11 sets out that, as a population share, over five times more Jewish than non-Jewish Party members have been investigated in relation to allegations of antisemitism.
While Annex 17 looks at how the work of Jewish writers has been used as evidence of anti-Jewish racism without the author’s knowledge:
No attempt has been made by the Party to discuss the work with the respective authors; instead the Party proceeds on a misrepresentation that its interpretation is based on firm, legal evidence
The submission refers to Mike Howard, an accused JVL member. He passed away in 2021 having never had the chance to clear his name. The submission document tells part of his story:
JVL draws attention in particular to the case of the late Mike Howard, whose appeal against his unjust punitive suspension is set out in Annex 15. Prior to investigation, Mr Howard had an unblemished record as a Jewish Labour, trade union and anti-racist activist. He was therefore incredibly angered and distressed to find himself subject to investigation.
The submission continues:
His appeal was filed in March 2021, with further submissions made on 13 April 2021. Following that date, Mr Howard received neither any update on progress nor any substantive response from the Party. Tragically, Mr Howard died in November 2021, without even an acknowledgement of his appeal by the Party.
A video of Mike Howard’s full story is available on YouTube:
JVL’s Jenny Manson and Richard Kuper spoke to The Canary. Manson said said she was disappointed with the EHRC:
It’s disappointing that the EHRC have not agreed to open an investigation into the targeting of so many Jews by the Labour Party. They seem to consider that their Report in January 2021 had dealt with issues relating to antisemitism in the Party. We by contrast considered they got off on the wrong premises, made questionable findings and failed to expose both the politicisation of the Party’s procedures and the Party’ misinterpretation of antisemitism.
She said the EHRC had originally referred them to Labour’s antisemitism Action Plan. But reminded them that JVL’s nominees had originally been excluded from involvement:
So, after the EHRC referred us to the Action Plan we wrote back again and reminded them that JVL nominees and eg those put forward by John McDonnell including a Rabbi and two Jewish experts on the interpretation of antisemitism, were excluded from consultation or any involvement in the new Plans.
It now appears that evidence we have been providing of the increasing harsh treatment and targeting of our Jewish members has been of concern to the EHRC. It’s hard to believe it wouldn’t be. Looking at Annex 11, you will see that 41 Jewish individuals have faced investigations for antisemitism. Of the current eleven JVL exec committee, ten have been or are presently facing disciplinary action or investigations related to allegations of antisemitism.
We are very pleased that the EHRC have now taken account of our specific concerns about this Plan by asking for us to make further submissions to assist the EHRC’s monitoring exercise.
Incidentally, the EHRC did not endorse the IHRA definition of antisemitism and noticed as we did the Party’s use without publication till this year of the ‘NEC Code of Conduct; Antisemitism’ to try to explain the IHRA. This was unjust to members and hugely ironic given this NEC plan in 2018 was considered yet another sign of the scandalous. antisemitism of the Party’s leadership.
We believe that the evidence we have supplied and the arguments we have made will reinforce realisation the EHRC that these issues need to be taken into account in their monitoring of Labour’s actions. Doing so would be an important step in breaking the mainstream media’s radio silence on the harassment of Jews in the Party which is taking place under the aegis of the current leadership..
It can only be hoped that JVL members finally get a chance to be heard. And that the names of those who have passed away will now be cleared.
Featured image – Jewish Voice for Labour.
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Earlier, we shared the results of an investigation into allegations of antisemitism at The Canary and Skwawkbox. This confirmed that we have always upheld the IMPRESS Standards Code and have neither discriminated against Jewish people, nor incited hatred against this group, of which I am personally a part. The government report that sparked the investigation was just another tactic employed in a clumsy attempt to harm our reputation, destroy our business, and silence the socialist Left. It failed.
Many of you, our readers, have been with us from the start. We are so grateful to you for that support, which we continue to appreciate as we all deal with the emotional and financial impact of this sustained campaign of five and a half years and counting. For others, this might not be an issue you’re familiar with. Either way, I felt it important to lay out a brief history (there is actually way too much to include in a single article, but you can read our many articles on antisemitism, if you wish) and also acknowledge the impact that this has had on our business and the wellbeing of individual members of our team.
The Canary launched in October 2015 and already by February 2016, the Telegraph was calling us “the maddest Left-wing website in the world”. This was a beautiful example of the old trope of ‘no such thing as bad publicity’. Our traffic immediately spiked and we continued to grow our audience at a rapid rate. We were proud of our achievement and took this as an indication that our intention to be a disruptive force in the media landscape was being realised, and quickly. But we were about to enter the Twilight Zone.
Many will never believe that the coincidence of our launch and Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour Party was purely that – a coincidence. Either way, The Canary and Corbyn’s leadership were striving for many of the same socialist, environmentalist, and humanitarian goals for the UK and beyond: Then, and now, peace and justice for all. And that meant that if there were elements gunning for Corbyn, they were gunning for us too.
It was never Telegraph readers who wanted to silence us (though Eric Pickles and Conservative Friends of Israel were somewhat complicit in what unfolded), it was the centrists whose interest was in maintaining a status quo that is beneficial to them, regardless of the impact on those who aren’t part of their in-crowd.
Our co-founder, former editor, and my wife, Kerry-Anne Mendoza, wrote in April 2016:
It appears that enemies of Jeremy Corbyn’s progressive plans for the Labour party have discovered some common ground. Blairites within the party and the media, along with their conservative peers and the pro-Israel lobby, all lose out if Corbyn succeeds. So, in short, they are seeking to take him out of play by hitting him where it is mutually beneficial – his long-standing criticism of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine.
And so it began. Early efforts in this campaign deliberately confused opposition to the actions of successive Israeli governments, which have systematically oppressed Palestinians, with antisemitic hatred of Jewish people. This has been a theme throughout, and, as I see it, the only way anyone could possibly say that The Canary is antisemitic; we have always been willing to criticise the Israeli government and military in their treatment of Palestinians and Jews of colour.
Because the creation of Israel in 1948 was the culmination of a Zionist project that began at the turn of the last century, but had been framed as reparation for the Shoah (the Hebrew name for the Holocaust), it was relatively easy to create and capitalise on confusion about whether criticising Israel is an example of antisemitism. Despite this, there was eventually, in 2018, a doubling down on this tactic, via the British Board of Deputies and the IHRA definition of antisemitism. This effort is ongoing, despite the fact that the author of the IHRA definition has warned that it is open to abuse.
Naz Shah’s social media comments, made prior to her election as an MP, were undoubtably offensive to many in the global Jewish community but her apology was thorough and effective and her resignation as Parliamentary Private Secretary for John McDonnell appropriate. Corbyn accepted both, and Shah was not suspended from the Labour Party.
The fact that these historic comments made front page news in April 2016 was, on the face of it, totally absurd. But the mainstream media had already joined the anti-socialist, anti-Corbyn campaign and was happy to oblige. Meanwhile they were ignoring what was actually going on in Israel and Palestine at the time, as well as endemic racism and Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.
Shortly after Shah’s vilification, came the suspension of Ken Livingstone for antisemitism. Say what you like about ‘Red Ken’ Livingstone – I don’t necessarily agree with the guy on everything – but he was the second victim of what was already, clearly, a McCarthy style witch hunt.
Livingstone had made a statement that gave a historical fact about Hitler’s early plans for European Jews and was immediately set upon. He may have shown poor judgement in raising this in the context of a media interview, but he was giving an accurate historical fact that ended in him being the witch hunt’s first really high profile victim.
In June of 2016, human rights activist, Shami Chakrabati published a report following her inquiry into racism in the party. The findings should have been good news for Corbyn, demonstrating that aside from a very small handful of repugnant individuals, there was no evidence of systemic racism – including antisemitism – in the party. Unfortunately the mainstream media managed to spin the report’s content into oblivion and continued to bash Corbyn with gay abandon.
The campaign against Corbyn and socialist members of the Labour Party has continued in earnest. Everywhere from the Oxford University Labour Club to the NEC elections, the Labour Party conference, and the Parliamentary Labour Party, there are people who have been affected.
In April 2017 a group of 145 predominantly Jewish Labour members wrote to Corbyn, warning of the dangers of silencing them as critics of Israel. This followed the expulsion of Jewish Labour member and former co-chair of Momentum, Jackie Walker, for supposed antisemitism.
This was the time that Corbyn should have stepped up to support Jews on the left of the party. After all, we had been supporting him from the moment he announced his leadership bid and had been fighting hard to counter all the misinformation, spin, and outright lies being put out by mainstream media, including our state-funded broadcaster, the BBC. In my mind, this was actually his single biggest mistake. Instead of joining with, and backing up those dedicated to getting him elected as prime minister, he attempted to appease the centrists who were hell bent on getting rid of him and apparently had no interest in the facts of the matter.
Since Keir Starmer took over the Labour Party leadership in 2020, the witch hunt has focused in on the left of the party again. Now it is clear that left wing Jews are no longer welcome in the party and that is probably the worst antisemitism we’ve ever seen from Labour. In today’s Labour Party there are the right kind of Jews – Zionists who support the Israeli government – and the wrong kind of Jews – people like Jackie Walker and Graham Bash, as well as me and The Canary‘s Senior Editor, Emily Apple, who are willing to speak out against the actions of Israel.
The extent of corruption and underhanded tactics employed from within the Labour Party and by supporters of Israel is astonishing. It’s so unbelievable that we are accused of being cranks and conspiracy theorists. But the thing is, the receipts are all there, whether it is the fake social media accounts set up to discredit Corbyn or the Israeli diplomat and UK civil servant working together to bring down anti-Israel politcians in the UK, and build up those who are supportive, there is evidence and it is solid.
Never in a million years did I think that the numbers woman from Countdown (Channel 4) would be trying to get my business shut down! But Rachel Riley was one of the most vocal supporters of a shady campaign calling themselves ‘Stop Funding Fake News’.
Stop Funding Fake News aimed to discredit The Canary and other left wing, pro-Palestinian outlets through bad faith claims that we had published so-called fake news. They also directly lobbied our advertisers to withdraw. To a degree they succeeded but continued to hide their funding and which individuals were actually running the campaign.
It took a lot of work but regular contributor and good friend of The Canary, John McEvoy, got to the bottom of Stop Funding Fake News, uncovering the campaign’s links to the right wing of the Labour Party. You can read the report of his investigation here.
There is the impact on our reputation. The smear campaign against us has succeeded in making The Canary synonymous with antisemitism in the minds of some. This is unjust and undeserved but also tells us that we have continued to punch vastly above our weight, as we have done since the word go. But it has really taken something for us to stand firm in the face of these attacks.
We run on a shoestring budget so there is no room for big PR campaigns or expensive legal battles. Our opponents have access to millions of pounds and some of the most effective spin doctors out there. They have mainstream media firmly on their side as well. Some might say it’s a bit of a David and Goliath situation.
Some of our advertisers decided we were too much of a risk for them and withdrew their adverts from our website. Thankfully, our readership responded by stepping up to fund the gap through a monthly membership scheme. Though, sadly, with the impact of Coronavirus and rising cost of living, we have lost a lot of those supporters in the past year and we find ourselves needing to make up a shortfall again (this is me shamelessly begging for your support if you can possibly afford to help us with as little as £3 per month).
Here at The Canary we are a team of people dedicated to fighting racism and fascism wherever it occurs. Most of us have literally put our bodies on the line to protect vulnerable and oppressed people at one time or another. So being accused of antisemitism is a big deal and it hits right at the core of our identities. That hurts us.
For those of us who are Jewish there is another layer to this, which is that we know what genuine antisemitism looks and feels like. I wrote about some of my experiences and how the witch hunt has only succeeded in diluting the impact of calling something out as antisemitic. Our senior editor, Emily Apple, has also written from her perspective as a Jewish person and called out the right-wing press for hijacking our lived experience for political gain.
Like Graham Bash – a Labour activist and 50+ year veteran member of the party who was recently expelled for antisemitism – who speaks about his early experiences in the following video, my early experiences of antisemitism are part of why I grew up to be an activist.
Listening to Graham’s account reminded me that my grandfather was beaten so badly by antisemitic bullies at school that he lost a testicle. To me, that hardly compares to calling out human rights abuses against Palestinians.
I know that our opponents want to break us down and make us back off because staying in the fight is intolerably painful, so I’m hesitant to admit that they have come close to succeeding with me. I live with Complex PTSD and I am autistic, both of which contribute to making me an extremely sensitive person. I’ve had a lifetime of bullying so all of this is massively triggering to me and I’ve been in a pretty much constant state of fight or flight throughout. This has exacerbated my chronic physical health conditions and to be honest my whole nervous system has basically been in meltdown.
I asked our Senior Editor, Emily Apple, to tell me about her experience throughout the witch hunt and this is what she said: “There’s always a price when you successfully take on the establishment. Previously in my life this has manifested itself in police violence and repression – threats of serious charges and prison.
“But in the case of The Canary and pro-Palestinian elements of the radical left more generally, in recent years, it has been the accusation of antisemitism.
“The first protest I went to that turned into a riot was the Anti-Nazi league demo in Welling against a BNP bookshop when I was a teenager; I’ve spent years on the streets opposing the far-right and was proudly Antifa many years before it became a household name.
“I’m not saying this to impress with my anti-racist credentials. I’m saying it because militant anti-fascism is deeply ingrained in me. Like many people on the left, it is a core part of who I am.
“And it’s why this attack has had a massive impact on my mental health and on the mental health of many others who’ve been targeted by this witch hunt. It is an attack on what fundamentally defines us.
“It’s also why I cried when I read the IMPRESS report. I know I’m not publishing and writing hate speech. But having that backed up by our regulator is a massive step in countering the absurd accusations made by John Mann in his blatant vendetta against us.
“Like many people targeted by the witchhunt, I’m Jewish. I have family members who are Zionists. And it’s one of the reasons why I’ve always felt a real need to campaign on behalf of the Palestinian struggle – I feel a duty to say ‘not in my name’.
“I also find it particularly frightening that these attacks have happened at a time when we’ve seen the biggest shift to the far right in generations. Both in the UK, US and across Europe, genuine fascism is on the rise. In the UK, a combination of bills, including the policing bill, are taking away our fundamental rights. Now more than ever we need to fight the threat of fascism before it’s too late. Smearing those who are at the forefront of this battle is disgraceful and utterly unforgivable.”
Many of you will already know that my wife, Kerry-Anne, who was, until recently, our Editor-in-Chief, had to resign to tend to her mental health. The disgusting campaign against her invitation to give the NUJ’s annual Claudia Jones Memorial Lecture was what eventually pushed her into a breakdown, in 2018, which she is still recovering from. When it comes to PTSD, in Kerry-Anne’s case there are numerous other factors, but having to go to battle virtually every time she set foot in the office has not helped.
It really has been good for us to see that IMPRESS have only confirmed what we already know – The Canary does not, and never will discriminate against or incite hatred of Jewish people. As human beings, we sometimes need that kind of validation.
I hope that for any readers who have had doubts about our credibility as an anti-racist and anti-fascist outlet, you can now feel more sure that we are who we say we are.
We know the witch hunt is not going away, at least not any time soon, and we will continue to stand in solidarity with those who have been unfairly treated and accused of antisemitism because they are willing to criticise Israel.
This little yellow bird continues to be a thorn in the side of the establishment. We will stand strong against these bad faith, politically driven misinformation campaigns for as long as our readership needs us to stand for them.
Solidarity to you all, and a thousand thanks for sticking with us.
Featured Image: Roger Harris/The Canary
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Earlier this year, our regulator IMPRESS launched an investigation into concerns about antisemitism at The Canary and Skwawkbox. IMPRESS is the only independent press regulator in the UK and the only regulator to be recognised by the UK government’s Press Recognition Panel.
Their investigation was launched in response to a report by Kings College London, commissioned by Lord Mann, the government’s antisemitism tzar. The IMPRESS investigation is now available. It concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination against Jewish people, that further investigation would not be justified and dismissed the matter.
Drew Rose, Editor-in-Chief, The Canary said: “We are pleased to have confirmation of what we have known all along – that we have adhered to the high journalistic standards set out in the IMPRESS Standards Code. In particular, we have upheld the code with respect to discrimination against Jewish people. As ever, we are grateful to our regulator, IMPRESS, for ensuring that our readership has opportunities to hold us to account.
“Earlier this year, allegations against The Canary were made in a government-funded report by Kings College London, figure-headed by Lord Mann as the government’s antisemitism tzar. It was right that IMPRESS conducted a preliminary investigation, even though the authors of the report had declined to make any formal complaint against us. IMPRESS examined the evidence cited by the report and found no breach of the relevant clause. This demonstrates the importance of truly independent press regulation.
”We hope that the findings of this investigation draw a line, once and for all, under the cynical campaign of disinformation waged against The Canary. We are, have always been, and will continue to be, an avowedly antiracist and antifascist news organisation.”
Nancy Mendoza, Chief Operations Officer, The Canary added: “This is welcome news following the impacts of a sustained witch hunt against socialists, which has been disingenuously framed as an effort to tackle antisemitism. As a Jewish person who has experienced genuine antisemitism, this has been a very upsetting and difficult experience. We have experienced a smear campaign that sought to harm our reputation and destroy our business. Beyond that, seeing so many socialist Jews being expelled from the Labour Party has been heartbreaking. The irony is that the harm the witch hunt has done to individual Jews likely far outweighs any success it may have had in tackling antisemitism.
“Throughout the witch hunt, there are numerous examples where we have been misrepresented; Lord Mann himself is certainly guilty of this. In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, published 27 January, he implied that our readers do not have ‘a clear right of recourse to defend themselves’. Of course, as an independently and voluntarily regulated news outlet, this right existed long before Lord Mann’s report on antisemitism in alternative media was conceived. At best this suggests he is ignorant of the facts and at worst he has engaged in cynically misleading audiences – we may never know which it is.
“I, and I can speak for colleagues too, hope that this will reassure our readership that we remain committed to tackling racism and discrimination against any oppressed group.”
Emily Apple, Senior Editor, The Canary said: “The witch hunt has had a massive impact on my mental health and on the mental health of many others who’ve been targeted. It is an attack on what fundamentally defines us. It’s also why I cried when I read the IMPRESS report. I know I’m not publishing and writing hate speech. But having that backed up by our regulator is a massive step in countering the absurd accusations made by John Mann in his blatant vendetta against us. Like many people targeted by the witchhunt, I’m Jewish. I have family members who are Zionists. And it’s one of the reasons why I’ve always felt a real need to campaign on behalf of the Palestinian struggle – I feel a duty to say ‘not in my name’.”
We hope that our readers will join us in welcoming the IMPRESS report.
Featured image via The Canary
This post was originally published on The Canary.
On 9 November, students from the London School of Economics (LSE) protested a debate hosting Israeli Ambassador to the United Kingdom Tzipi Hotovely on campus. As British Jews Against Occupation have set out, Hotovely has an “appalling record of racist and inflammatory behaviour”. In spite of this, the university – as well as Tory and Labour politicians – rushed to denounce the peaceful protest. Police have launched an investigation.
People took to Twitter to highlight the hypocrisy of those defending Hotovely’s right to free speech while denouncing the actions of peaceful pro-Palestinian protestors.
Ahead of an LSE Students’ Union Debate Society event hosting Hotovely, LSE for Palestine shared plans to protest the platforming of the reported anti-Palestinian racist and Islamophobe. The student group planned a peaceful protest to take place outside the event in a display of solidarity with Palestine, and an attempt to disrupt and discredit the Israeli ambassador’s fascist ideology.
Hotovely is an ambassador of the apartheid Israeli state. She has a track record of spreading Israeli settler colonialism propaganda, Islamophobic rhetoric, and anti-Palestinian racist hate. She has described the Nakba – the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the Israeli state – as an “Arab lie”. Hotovely also called for further Israeli occupation of Palestine through annexation. And she has denied the very existence of Palestinian people. Protesters also highlighted that she has espoused Islamophobic rhetoric, and is openly against relationships between Jewish and Arab people.
Ahead of the debate, the LSE Students’ Union Palestine Society shared a statement reading:
There is no room for such bigoted and racist rhetoric on our LSE campus. There is no room for the denial of Palestinian existence on our LSE campus. There is no room for colonial apologism on our LSE campus.
While protesters chanted outside the building in which the debate was taking place, Hotovely retained her platform for the duration of the event. During that time, she denied the Nakba again. The only disruption inside the building was a group of students walking out in protest.
Student protestors booed as Hotovely left the building. In video footage, one protester can be heard asking “aren’t you ashamed” while security bundles the ambassador into a car. It appears that the protest was disruptive, raucous and passionate, but never violent. However, police allegedly assaulted students on their own university campus.
Maintaining that “Palestinian human rights are not up for debate”, LSE for Palestine posted:
We must keep this momentum going &make sure events like these never happen again.
Palestinian human rights are not up for debate and we will never stop resisting & agitating for a free Palestine and the liberation of Palestinians from the settler-colonial israeli apartheid regime— LSE for Palestine (@LSEforPalestine) November 9, 2021
Speaking out in support of student protestors, Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Ben Jamal tweeted:
Tzipi Hotovely is the Ambassador of a state rightly defined as practising apartheid. She is also a virulent racist with a confirmed record of anti Psalestinian discourse.⁸She should be met with protest in any arena she visits.
— Ben Jamal (@BenJamalpsc) November 10, 2021
However, LSE published a statement insinuating protestors engaged in “intimidation and threats of violence”. The university stated that it is prepared to take action against student protesters.
One Twitter user responded with:
For all the talk of “SU democracy” students will be harassed, surveilled & repressed by uni managemrnt for opposing racism, colonialism, Apartheid & their universities complicity in them.
The only option for resistance & liberation i ongoing demonstrations & direct action.
— negating the negation (@decolonialcommi) November 10, 2021
In the wake of the protest, Hotovely soon garnered the support of right wing UK government officials. Home secretary Priti Patel posted a tweet saying that she was “disgusted” by the peaceful protest. And Middle East minister James Cleverly characterised protesters as “aggressive and threatening“.
Netpol responded to the home secretary’s support for the police investigation into the peaceful protest with:
Home Secretary Priti Patel again showing her contempt for freedom to protest https://t.co/45TR7ok6T5
— Netpol (@netpol) November 10, 2021
Reminding us where Patel stands on Palestinians’ right to live free from Israeli settler-colonialism, rapper Lowkey tweeted:
When Priti Patel seeks to criminalise pro-Palestinian protest by students, remember that she had 13 secret meetings with Israeli gov figures (inc Netanyahu) without the knowledge of the gov she represents, in which they discussed sending DFID funds to the Israeli Occupation Army.
— Lowkey (@Lowkey0nline) November 11, 2021
Labour’s Israel apologists chip in
Soon, even Labour MPs spoke out against the peaceful student protest. Leader of the opposition Keir Starmer and shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy called the protest “unacceptable“. People were quick to call out the absurdity of members of the opposition vehemently supporting an out and proud fascist.
Responding to Starmer’s denouncement of student protesters, writer, journalist and broadcaster Aaron Bastani tweeted:
They were booing someone who represents a country credibly accused of war crimes after she had spoken for 90 minutes.
God help civil liberties in this country if Keir Starmer becomes PM. https://t.co/kieGcbpp44
— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) November 10, 2021
Labour councillor Aydin Dikerdem said:
I’m so so angry today. The most basic principles of not just solidarity but fairness seem totally violated at the moment. Those kids did nothing wrong.
— Aydin Dikerdem (@AydinDikerdem) November 11, 2021
And campaign group Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Socialists shared:
Tzipi should feel unwelcome in this entire country given the beliefs and political stances she holds.
In fact all genocidal maniacs should feel unwelcome here… https://t.co/lNDj0eBDQp
— GRTSocialists #SaveSheikhJarrah (@GRTSocialists) November 11, 2021
In spite of backlash from LSE, the government and the mainstream media, many have spoken out in defence of the student protesters. Pro-Palestinian student societies from the School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) and King’s College London (KCL) spoke out in solidarity with LSE protesters, setting out that proponents of apartheid are not welcome on their campuses either.
Moved by this display of inter-institution solidarity, City, University of London Students’ Union president Shaima Dallali tweeted:
There's something so inspiring about students coming together for a common cause. A huge shout out to the different Palsocs across London who showed up for @LSEforPalestine to say apartheid off campus!
@SOAS_Palestine @CityFOP_ @kcl_sjp @uclsjp @QMULPalSoc & others
— Shaima Dallali (@ShaimaDallali) November 10, 2021
Journalist Robert Carter, who reported from the protest, shared:
Unlike all the shameless Labour and Conservative MPs rushing to board the "every student's an anti-Semite" bandwagon, I was actually there reporting at LSE the night of the protest.
The only racist I saw that day was Israel's Ambassador Tzipi Hotovely.
— Robert Carter (@Bob_cart124) November 11, 2021
Al Jazeera producer Linah Alsaafin shared:
Says a lot about this British government crying wolf and jumping to defend a racist Islamophobe like far-right Tzipi Hotovely, who has consistently denied the existence of Palestinians and is a strong supporter of illegal settlements.
— لينة (@LinahAlsaafin) November 10, 2021
Speaking to the suppression of marginalised voices in the name of ‘free speech’, Ana Oppenheim shared:
Both major parties calling for a *police investigation* because some students organised a pro-Palestine protest on their campus is really, really chilling.
Why is it always about protecting the free speech of the famous and powerful but denying it to everyone else?
— Ana Oppenheim
(@AnaOpp) November 10, 2021
Responding to LSE for Palestine’s statement defending the protest, Palestinian writer and journalist Mohammed El-Kurd said:
Great. There should be no place indeed for Nakba deniers and anti-Palestinian racists on campus.
https://t.co/yQcsCzffwk
— Mohammed El-Kurd (@m7mdkurd) November 10, 2021
Urging people to speak up in defence of Palestine, assistant professor at LSE Sara Salem tweeted:
Solidarity with @LSEforPalestine. In light of disturbing media and government responses to the right of students to protest on campus, it's so important we defend spaces of solidarity with Palestine https://t.co/OECzft4pnJ
— Sara Salem (@saramsalem) November 11, 2021
And co-director of LSE’s centre for human rights Ayça Çubukçu said:
Solidarity with @LSEforPalestine students now. Beyond the prospects of democratic protest on LSE's campus, this is an affair that concerns the future of Palestine solidarity activism in the UK, even beyond. Time to speak up. #DecoloniseLSE
— Ayça Çubukçu (@ayca_cu) November 11, 2021
Bringing attention back to the violent reality of Israeli occupation, one Twitter user shared:
mohammed daadas, a 13 year old child, was recently shot and killed by israeli occupation forces during demonstrations against their apartheid. meanwhile you've got people like nandy talking about 'freedom of speech' wrt demonstratrstions against tzipi hotovely
— pez (@periuspb) November 10, 2021
Arguments denouncing the peaceful student protest while crying wolf about the Israeli ambassador’s right to free speech beg the questions: ‘free from what?’ and ‘free for whom?’. Palestinians’ right to live free from Israeli occupation, apartheid and ethnic cleansing should certainly never be up for debate. The state and its institutions may be coming after student protesters, but the protesters stand firmly on the right side of history.
Featured image via Ömer Yıldız/Unsplash
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Jackie Walker and Graham Bash are Jewish anti-racist activists who spent years in the Labour Party yet were accused of antisemitism for standing up for the rights of Palestinians and People of Colour. Now, Bash has been expelled from the party, after Walker was too in 2019. In this interview with Canary co-founder Kerry-Anne Mendoza they speak candidly about how devastating this has been and what we all need to do to stand up against bullying and racism. .
This post was originally published on The Canary.
As The Canary extensively reported, throughout Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, the corporate-owned press, Tories, and the Labour right alike targeted him with a vicious and protracted smear campaign. This campaign employed bogus accusations of antisemitism to try to derail his radical political project. This was one of the factors that led to Labour’s defeat in the 2019 UK general election, which in turn led to Corbyn’s resignation as party leader. But even now that he’s stepped down, the antisemitism smear campaign shows no signs of abating. Indeed, it has now morphed into a wider movement to attack the left more broadly. This includes, in particular, critics of Israel’s crimes against Palestinians.
The latest instalment in this sorry saga is a column in a right-wing US newspaper penned by a British comedian. It both represents a new low and highlights how the left will be the continual target of false accusations of antisemitism for the foreseeable future. We must continue to stand up to these pathetic and spurious attacks if we have any chance of rebuilding a movement for radical change.
On 18 September, the New York Post published a column about the left’s purported antisemitism problem by David Baddiel. Baddiel is a US-born British-Jewish comedian who is perhaps best known for his stand-up comedy and television work alongside TV personalities such as Frank Skinner. The article is preposterously titled, The progressive left now sees antisemitism as an ‘acceptable’ racism.
This should come as no surprise given that the New York Post is a right-wing tabloid owned by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Naturally, it has an editorial style and political orientation similar to Murdoch’s major paper in the UK, the Sun. Like its British counterpart, it has frequently courted controversy with incendiary headlines and sensationalist reporting.
The article actually starts off well enough, stating:
some… think that Jews and Israel are basically the same thing. They aren’t, and to assume so is racist.
This is certainly true. And as The Canary has argued previously, assuming that all Jews support Israel is not just racist but factually false and even defamatory. In fact, some of Israel’s major critics are themselves Jewish. They include academic experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict Ilan Pappé and Norman Finkelstein.
Sadly, however, after making this worthwhile point, the article takes a sharp turn for the worse. Baddiel claims that: “The conversation around the Middle East and antisemitism has changed of late, and disturbingly so”. And to support this argument, he employs a steady string of emotive anecdotes such as cases of pro-Palestinian protesters holding antisemitic signs or shouting antisemitic slogans.
Certainly, antisemitism should always be condemned. But as The Canary has argued before, taking the actions of a small fringe of protesters and then falsely presenting them as representative of Palestinian solidarity activists as whole is a highly dishonest tactic. It slanders the vast majority of pro-Palestinian activists who are not motivated by antisemitism but rather by outrage at Israel’s actions.
And as The Canary has also argued, the fact that participants in the antisemitism smear campaign feel the need to engage in this deceitful tactic is itself revealing. Because it shines a light onto how desperate they are to defend Israel and/or smear friends of the Palestinian people like Jeremy Corbyn. It also demonstrates how little they have in substantive criticism of pro-Palestinian campaigners’ actual arguments.
Baddiel then continues:
As I describe in my new book, “Jews Don’t Count,” antisemitism is elusive: It often unfolds in unconscious codes and tropes and assumptions. One of my readers on Twitter said he was surprised by how much he had fallen into some of the traps my book outlines, commenting, “It’s the racism that sneaks past you.” But that placard doesn’t sneak past you.
There are two important things to note with this paragraph. First, the title of his book makes an outrageous generalisation. He’s essentially saying that the left as a whole doesn’t see antisemitism as real racism. This is obviously absurd given the many Jewish supporters of Corbyn’s leadership. In February 2019, the BBC reported: “A network of Jewish Labour members has backed Jeremy Corbyn over claims the party has become “institutionally anti-Semitic” under his leadership”. And second, he relies solely on an anecdote about a (conveniently unnamed and therefore unverifiable) Twitter user to support his argument.
But moreover, the reality is that research has shown that antisemitism is in fact much more prevalent on the political right than the left. This reality is also evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of antisemitic crimes in the US have been committed by far-right extremists. In parts of Europe, meanwhile, it has overwhelmingly been far-right populist/nationalist figures like Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban who have made antisemitism mainstream again.
Speaking of Orban, in May he met with British prime minister Boris Johnson. And as The Canary argued at the time, whereas Corbyn would surely have been pilloried by the corporate-owned media had he done so, Johnson largely got a free pass when he welcomed Orban into 10 Downing Street. And this reality fits within a much larger pattern within British media.
During the 2019 UK general election campaign, for example, Johnson again largely got a free pass on this issue just as the antisemitism smear campaign against Corbyn went into overdrive. This is despite Johnson having written a novel with some suspiciously antisemitic-seeming tropes. The media also largely ignored the fact that Tory figures, including Johnson and then-prime minister Theresa May, took part in the unveiling of a statue of Nancy Astor, who was openly antisemitic. (Needless to say, had Corbyn done any of these things we surely would have never heard the end of it from the major British media outlets.)
And as if this weren’t enough, some of these very same Tory figures have made flagrantly Islamophobic remarks with practically zero consequence. Johnson for example, described Islamophobia as a “natural reaction” and said that “Islam is the problem”. He also once quipped that Muslim women who wear burkas “look like letter boxes”. In November 2019, meanwhile, the Guardian reported:
Twenty-five sitting and former Conservative councillors have been exposed for posting Islamophobic and racist material on social media, according to a dossier obtained by the Guardian that intensifies the row over anti-Muslim sentiment in the party.
In short, whereas the left gets pelted with often spurious accusations of antisemitism, Islamophobia appears to take place in the Conservative Party in an atmosphere of near total impunity. And this in turn highlights the incredible hypocrisy and venality of those who orchestrated the antisemitism smear campaign against Corbyn.
Toward the end of the piece, Baddiel concluded the following about his motley assortment of unverifiable anecdotes:
Thus, huge increases in hate crimes against Jews during the period of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict — a 600 percent rise in incidents in the UK alone — have been met with a shrugging sense that there’s something appropriate about that. Attacks on Jews during these conflicts are seen not just as understandable, but excusable.
Somewhere in the hive mind, certainly as you can hear it buzzing on Twitter, is the sense that Jews who experiencing violent pushback, wherever they are, whatever their views, is fitting.
Notice the vague language such as “met with a shrugging sense” and “somewhere in the hive mind… is the sense”. He talks a lot, in other words, about what he ‘senses’. And I believe this is deliberate. It serves to manipulate his readers by smearing a deliberately loosely-defined left without naming anyone specifically. Notice also the use of the passive voice: “Attacks on Jews during these conflicts are seen not just as understandable, but excusable”. (Seen by who, exactly?)
Together, these duplicitous and cowardly rhetorical sleights of hand have a double benefit. First, they allow him to subtly communicate the notion that large sections of the left are antisemitic without saying it quite so directly. And second, they provide him with a degree of plausible deniability should any specific individual complain at having been characterized this way.
We shouldn’t be surprised, though. This kind of intellectual dishonesty is neither new nor clever. It’s just another garden variety version of an underhanded smear to attack the left and provide cover for Israel’s ongoing crimes. With such tactics evidently not going away, we must redouble our efforts to fight back against this shameless, politically-motivated smear campaign.
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons and Flickr – Marco Verch
By Peter Bolton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has confirmed it will be attending the Labour Party conference. The announcement came after some confusion. It’s a situation that shows the hostility towards the group in some parts of the party, as well as the effects of showing solidarity with the Palestinian people.
On 31 August, it emerged that Labour had tried to ban the PSC from speaking at an event with Young Labour. The rumours came from Young Labour chair Jessica Barnard. She posted on Twitter that the group had experienced problems with the party over its own event at the Labour conference. She also noted that Young Labour had had no communication from Keir Starmer or his team. Barnard also said that:
The most concrete information I have been given is that anyone from Palestine Solidarity Campaign will be refused as a speaker, as will Jeremy Corbyn. I’ve requested this in writing with reasoning. Appalled that PSC who have had a space at conference for years would be silenced.
Barnard’s tweet set off a chain reaction of events.
On Wednesday 1 September, The World Transformed (TWT) festival – which is running at the same time as the Labour Party Conference – made moves. It quickly put out that it was hosting Young Labour and the PSC together for an event called Youth rising for Palestine.
Then, the PSC itself confirmed Barnard’s claim. It tweeted that while it would still be at the conference:
it is also correct that an official within the Party has told Young Labour not to have a PSC speaker at a proposed event.
So it seemed that Labour was trying to block the PSC. But then, clearly something happened behind the scenes in Labour.
On Thursday 2 September, PSC put out a statement. It confirmed that someone in the party had told Young Labour that it couldn’t sit on a panel with PSC. But, as its statement noted, this “message” was a “mistake” and “was quickly reversed after interventions”. Other parts of the PSC statement were revealing about what potentially had gone on.
It said that the alleged issue from a “high ranking official” in the Labour machinery was because its:
support for the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) might violate the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
And the PSC went further.
While PSC noted that it didn’t want to “exaggerate” the situation, it questioned why someone wanted it banned in the first place. The PSC’s conclusion was that:
The answer of course lies in the significant efforts made over a long period of time by the Israeli state and its allies to delegitimise the global campaign for Palestinian rights, most particularly by conflating that campaign with antisemitism. This programme of delegitimisation has sought to prevent the description of the oppression experienced by Palestinians as a form of apartheid, to avoid discussion of the history of ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their lands, and to block support for the Palestinian call for a programme of BDS which would continue until Israel ceases its violations of Palestinian rights.
It also said that at the heart of this was the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.
As professor Mark Muhannad Ayyash wrote for Al Jazeera, one of the issues with the IHRA definition is that it conflates antisemitism:
with critiques of Israel. Even though the IHRA insists that it does not wish to censor criticism of Israel, the effect of adopting this definition and its examples is certainly to police and censor the Palestinian critique of Israel.
The PSC said it warned Labour about this in 2018. Specifically, it noted that:
The effect [of the IHRA definition] is to create a cloud of suspicion around raising the cause of Palestine, which leads to a chilling effect. It leads directly to a climate within which a senior official in the Labour Party can conclude that it is ‘safer’ not to invite PSC lest the charge of antisemitism arise.
But Labour didn’t listen, and adopted the IHRA definition anyway – albeit with some caveats at the time.
The PSC noted that it was not the only group warning of the problems with the IHRA definition. As it noted, over 200 Jewish academics produced an alternative description of antisemitism. The Jerusalem Declaration:
includes a preamble, definition, and a set of 15 guidelines that provide detailed guidance for those seeking to recognize antisemitism in order to craft responses. It was developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to meet what has become a growing challenge: providing clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression.
Yet so far, little in the Labour Party has changed. The PSC noted that it and other groups have:
made numerous attempts to meet with Keir Starmer and with David Evans to discuss these concerns. We are now pushing again for this meeting to take place in the aftermath of this latest incident. The key item we wish to discuss is the action the leadership will be taking to ensure that the space to discuss the oppression faced by Palestinians and the necessary action to address it is fully protected in the Labour Party.
So will the party listen to the PSC’s concerns? That remains to be seen. But what we already know is that hostility exists towards support for the Palestinian people.
The PSC is asking Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) to debate a new motion and then take it to conference. It’s in support of the Palestinian people. You can read the full text here. But in a climate where the party is purging left-wing members and groups – and where Israel, Palestine and Gaza are still contentious issues – Labour as a whole will likely continue to regress further from progressive policy positions.
Featured image via The Canary, Sky News – YouTube and the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign – screengrab
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Throughout his time as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn was subjected to a vicious, politically motivated smear campaign. This was based in large part on the claim that Labour had seen a dramatic increase in antisemitism amongst its membership during Corbyn’s leadership.
However, as The Canary has previously argued, of the respective leaders of the UK’s two major political parties during the 2019 general election, it was in fact Boris Johnson that had far more to answer for in terms of antisemitism. Now, that reality has been confirmed by Johnson’s latest guest at Downing Street. And this, in turn, raises the question of whether Jeremy Corbyn should be given another chance to face Johnson at the next general election.
On 28 May, Viktor Orbán arrived in London to meet with the British prime minister. The visit was ostensibly to discuss UK-Hungary relations following the UK’s exit from the European Union. Government ministers have defended the meeting as a legitimate exercise in relationship-building following Brexit. Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, for example, described it as “completely reasonable”.
But others have been quick to point out that hosting Orbán lends credibility to his far-right agenda and controversial stances. In particular, his characterization of migrants as “a poison” and comments about so-called “Muslim invaders” have drawn criticism. Orbán has been widely characterized as far-right. And along with other Eastern European leaders such as Poland’s Mateusz Morawiecki, he’s part of an emerging ultra-nationalist political trend. One that that arguably borders on fascism.
But from a UK perspective, Orbán’s most salient characteristic is his well-documented antisemitism. According to Politico, during Hungary’s 2017 parliamentary elections Orbán “promoted anti-Semitic imagery of powerful Jewish financiers scheming to control the world”. It added that his government’s “anti-migrant rhetoric endangers all minorities, including Jews, and its comparisons with the 1930s are unmistakable”. Orbán has also been accused of attempting to minimize Hungary’s role in the Nazi Holocaust.
The fact that the Conservatives are presumably willing to overlook all of this reveals how their and their backers’ charge of antisemitism against Corbyn was a cynical ploy all along. After all, if Corbyn had met with an actual antisemite, we would have never heard the end of it. But because of the UK media’s well-documented right-wing slant, Johnson largely gets a free pass.
And it’s far form the first time he has either. As The Canary has previously reported, before becoming prime minister Johnson wrote a novel with some suspiciously antisemitic tropes. He was also part of a group of MPs who were present at the unveiling of a statue of Nancy Astor. Astor was an MP who openly held antisemitic beliefs.
Clearly, this is another flagrant example of the double standards the UK media and establishment apply to political figures according to their ideological orientation. As academic Norman Finkelstein explained to The Canary in an exclusive interview in 2019:
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.
Perhaps it’s time the Labour membership came to terms with the fact that the 2019 election wasn’t a clean fight. And that Corbyn should be reinstated as Labour leader.
Featured image via YouTube
By Peter Bolton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Over the past several weeks, the world has witnessed Palestinians continuing to resist forced displacement, apartheid and brutal military occupation. There have been outcries around the world calling for solidarity and to hold the Israeli government accountable. Missing in a lot of the circulating narratives, however, is the indisputable role that the powerful Christian Zionist movement plays, both now and in the long and bloody history of the colonization of Palestine.
Christian Zionists are leading the call for the U.S. to unconditionally support Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians in Jerusalem and Israel’s bombing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Christian Zionist leaders regularly caricature Palestinian resistance to their displacement as “Jew hatred,” appropriating antisemitism to hinder Palestinian rights. Recently, John Hagee, the chairman and founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest pro-Israel lobby group in the U.S., tweeted that Jerusalem and Israel belong to the Jewish people, and encouraged Christians to “take a stand against evil” and show “unconditional love and support for Israel.”
Christian Zionism is by far the largest movement supporting authoritarian policies in the Israeli government outside of Israel, and an essential bloc within the larger U.S. Christian Right. The most politically active Christian Zionist movements are motivated primarily by the belief that Jews taking control over the biblical land of Israel will bring about Jesus’ second coming and the end of the world, when Christians will reach salvation and non-Christians — including Muslims and Jews — will be annihilated.
These End Times theologies have roots in 16th-century Protestantism in Europe, and reflect the colonial context in which they were formed. Christian Zionism as a political movement gained traction as part of the 19th century “Fundamentalist Movement” in Britain and the U.S. when figures, such as Lord Shaftesbury, John Nelson Darby and William Blackstone, began proselytizing the End Times prophecy and conjuring up ideas of a Jewish homeland in Palestine decades before prominent Jewish Zionists called for the same. Britain’s Arthur Balfour, whose Balfour Declaration promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was himself a noted Christian Zionist, as was President Woodrow Wilson, who co-signed the Declaration at the encouragement of Jewish Zionist Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis.
Jewish Zionism is a newer development than Christian Zionism, but alliances were formed between the majority Ashkenazi Jewish Zionists in Europe seeking a Jewish state and the Christian Zionists who were located in the highest offices in the U.S. and British governments. Indeed, it was Christian Zionists who had the imperial and military power necessary to occupy and colonize Palestine at the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and it was the League of Nations, led by Western Christian-majority powers, who ultimately partitioned Palestine and Israel. No doubt, Christian Zionist leaders viewed the displacement of Jews out of Europe into Palestine as a convenient solution to the “Jewish question,” whereby the Jewish State would serve as a proxy for Western imperial interests in a geopolitically strategic region, and Jewish bodies used as a sword and shield against a centuries-old Muslim enemy. The colonization of Palestine is rooted in, and largely continues to serve, Western Christian imperialist interests at the expense of Palestinians, Muslims and Jews.
Many Christian Zionists today view the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel, which created the Nakba — or expulsion of about 750,000 Palestinians — as a fulfilment of biblical End Times prophecy. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights beginning in 1967 similarly is interpreted as a sign that God is blessing Israel and paving the way for Jesus’ return. Subsequent wars, invasions and offensives have been seen as escalating measures that foreshadow the End Times that will bring Christians into salvation and annihilate non-Christians. In other words, Christian Zionism responds positively to conflict, in particular Israeli State aggression toward Palestinians. Regard for Palestinian land and life — including Palestinian Christians — is absent from Christian Zionism since Jewish rule over Palestine is key to unlocking the End Times.
Today, Christian Zionists are estimated to number at least in the tens of millions, far greater than the population of world Jewry. In the U.S., Christian Zionists are the most numerous and most right-wing voting bloc for Israel. The largest Christian Zionist organization, CUFI, boasts 10 million members, far eclipsing the 100,000 members belonging to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC, the much more famous pro-Israel lobbying organization. One out of every four adults in the United States identifies as Evangelical Christian, and 80 percent of Evangelical Christians, or 20 percent of the U.S. population, reportedly believe the gathering of millions of Jews by the State of Israel signifies the nearing of Jesus’ second coming. The power of Christian Zionism in the U.S. is summed up in a recent interview with Ron Dermer, a close ally of Israeli right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a former Israeli ambassador to the United States:
The backbone of Israel’s support in the United States is the evangelical Christians. It’s true because of numbers, and also because of their passionate and unequivocal support for Israel…. About 25% of Americans — some people think more — are Evangelical Christians. Less than 2% of Americans are Jews…. If you look just at numbers, you should be spending a lot more time doing outreach to Evangelical Christians than you would to Jews. But also look at the passionate support. For most Evangelicals in the United States, certainly for many of them, Israel is one of the most important issues to them. For some it’s number one. For others, it may be number two or number three…. It’s very rare to hear Evangelicals criticize Israel.
Many of the most egregious and anti-Palestinian policies by the United States are led by Christian Zionists. Former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy on Israel was largely appeasing his Evangelical Christian base who voted for him at a margin of 4:1 (on the other hand, a much smaller number of American Jews — somewhere between 21 percent and 30 percent –voted for Trump). Christian Zionists occupied the highest offices of the Trump administration, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Vice President Mike Pence, and Trump’s four years in office saw dramatic right-wing shifts in U.S. policy on Israel, including the cutting of U.S. funding to the UNRWA — the agency responsible for supporting Palestinian refugees — recognizing Israel’s illegitimate claims to the Golan Heights, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu’s right-wing government had wanted to institute some of these changes for years, but it was only because of the Trump administration and its Christian Zionist base that Netanyahu was finally able to do so. While most Christian Zionist money flows through churches and is therefore difficult to track, Christian Zionist funding sends millions of dollars annually to Israel, including to support Jewish immigration to Israel and right-wing Israeli organizations and settlements in service of their goals of “regathering” the Jews, Palestinian displacement, and greater Israeli control.
While CUFI does not constitute President Biden’s base of support, Christian Zionism is shifting the U.S. conversation on Palestine as the movement continues to grow. The Biden administration restored funding to the UNRWA, but will not reverse many of Trump’s other Christian-Zionist influenced policies, including the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem, despite having been major departures from decades of U.S. foreign policy. CUFI has grown to 10 million members from just 2 million in 2015, and Christian Evangelicalism is believed to be one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, forming an ever larger base of U.S. and global political and financial support for Israel’s right wing. Current Israeli aggression toward Palestinians is an outgrowth of long-held Israeli policies that privilege Jews, especially wealthy Ashkenazim, over Palestinians, but tens of millions of Christian Zionists constitute the global movement supporting, instigating and pushing the expansion of Israeli State control over the “holy land” at whatever cost.
While Christian Zionist movements largely outpace Jewish Zionist movements in their numbers as well as in their extremist, authoritarian views, the two movements continue to use one another for their own gain. As many Jewish Zionists hail Balfour, an avid antisemite, as a hero, they are very happy to overlook the antisemitism of Christian Zionists to bolster the shared vision of an apartheid Jewish supremacist state in historic Palestine. For example, even when U.S. politicians distanced themselves from John Hagee for his overtly antisemitic views, the Anti-Defamation League remained silent. The alignment of establishment Jewish organizations with right-wing antisemitic Christian organizations for the benefit of the Israeli right wing is dangerous for progressive movements in Palestine, the United States and around the world.
Indeed, Christian Zionism must be challenged as a powerful threat to a larger progressive agenda. Because Christian Zionism is predicated on Christian salvation coinciding with the end of the world and annihilation of non-Christians, Christian Zionism is at its core anti-Muslim and antisemitic. The anti-Muslim sentiments of many Christian Zionist leaders are often overt and indisputable: prominent figures such as John Hagee, Chuck Pierce and Pat Robertson have referred to Islam as satanic and the devil, and are key actors in the U.S. anti-Muslim industry. On the other hand, Christian Zionists use their unwavering support of the State of Israel rooted in philosemitism — the fetishization and objectification of Jews — to make it seem that they care for Jews while using Jews as pawns in their End Times drama and believing Jews are ultimately “damned to hell.” More broadly, many Christian Zionist communities adhere to a larger Christian Right agenda fighting against abortion and LGBTQ rights, contradicting any claims that they care for peace and freedom.
To overlook the impact of Christian Zionism on the ongoing colonization of Palestine is to overlook the original and largest worldwide movement seeking full Jewish control in Palestine — and one of the largest and most consequential anti-Muslim, antisemitic and antidemocratic movements of our time. Christian Zionism has informed Western policy on Palestine since at least the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and continues to be the backbone of global support for ongoing occupation, apartheid and displacement. Progressives committed to Palestinian rights and liberation — as well as Muslim and Jewish safety — will be limited as long as they fail to directly challenge this behemoth of a movement.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
God works in mysterious ways — and so do Jewish voters. To see a perfect illustration of this, look no further than the Jewish community’s complex relationship with Harry S. Truman, the antisemitic president who helped Israel come into existence.
If you know anything about Israel, you almost certainly know that the Jewish nation relies on the United States for economic and military support. This is in no small part because the U.S. has the largest Jewish population of any nation outside Israel and because American politicians of both parties hope to win over Jewish voters (and Jewish political donors) by taking Israel’s side. When Israel is accused of human rights violations, it can usually rely on American presidents and other major political leaders to have its back. (In that respect, even Donald Trump and Joe Biden are united.) This reality has long frustrated advocates for the Palestinian cause, especially at a moment like this, when the Israeli government is effectively waging war against Palestinians in Gaza.
Let’s consider Truman, the first president to have Israel’s back. Growing up as an American Jew in the 1990s, I was taught to view Truman as an icon, a hero for the Jewish people, the brave president who opposed his own State Department and became the first world leader to recognize Israel after it declared itself to be a new nation. In religious school I was regaled with the story of how the Chief Rabbi of Israel later told the president, “God put you in your mother’s womb so you would be the instrument to bring the rebirth of Israel.” Truman was said to have wept with joy.
Maybe that’s how Truman is viewed by Jews in retrospect. When he ran for president in 1948, however, he had the worst showing among Jewish voters of any Democratic candidate in 20 years.
Jews have voted predominantly Democratic in national elections since the 1920s, but even by that standard Franklin D. Roosevelt was beloved by Jewish voters. FDR never got less than 82% of the Jewish vote, and topped 90% in his last two campaigns, in 1940 and 1944 (elections that happened while Adolf Hitler was actively trying to wipe out the Jewish population of Europe). But in 1948, Jewish support for Truman fell by one-sixth, to 75% — although it wasn’t Republican nominee Thomas Dewey who benefited.
Truman’s Jewish support, in fact, was siphoned off by former Vice President Henry Wallace, running on the left as the Progressive Party candidate. Wallace only received 3% of the national popular vote, but won 15% of the Jewish vote — running in the year Israel was created and against the president given credit for helping to make that happen. Despite the antisemitic stereotype that Jewish voters only care about Israel, quite a few of them were so dissatisfied with Truman that they went for an actual left-wing alternative. You could almost hear the Wallace voters saying, “Israel Shmisrael!”
That was no anomaly. Jews have tended to support leftist and progressive causes throughout their history, whether that meant the labor movement, the civil rights movement, anti-war movements, feminism, LGBTQ rights and many more. It is difficult to state decisively why this is true, but the large number of prominent Jewish people involved with left-wing movements and American Jews’ century-long voting patterns make it undeniable.
And despite what antisemites may believe, relatively few Jews are “Israel first” voters. Polls old and new alike consistently find that the percentage of Jewish voters who consider Israel a paramount issue is usually in the single digits. A number of polls find that a majority of American Jews are critical of Israel’s policies, with only one-third in a recent survey saying they believe Israel sincerely wants peace with the Palestinians. And that’s true in spite of the fact that a growing number of Jewish Americans are increasingly concerned about antisemitism, a strong indication that they view the two issues independent of each other.
In other words, ever since the first time an American president stuck his neck out for Israel, American Jews have repeatedly proved that they are not a monolith. They do not have dual loyalties, as Donald Trump implied during his presidency, and they cannot be won over by bribing them with support for Israel.
There is another lesson in Harry Truman’s story, namely that people who do good things for Israel are not necessarily true friends of Jews. Indeed, if American Jews in 1948 had known more about how President Truman perceived them, he might have received an even lower share of the Jewish vote.
“Truman had an uglier side to his personality and sometimes that side that was prejudiced,” Randy Sowell, an archivist at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library & Museum, told Salon. “I don’t deny that at all.”
As Sowell recounted, Truman private bigotry was complicated, as is so often true at the individual level. He used familiar ethnic slurs to refer to Jews in general, even though one of his closest friends, Eddie Jacobson, was Jewish. (Truman apparently believed that Jacobson’s success in business stemmed from his ethnic background.) Reportedly at his wife’s request, Truman didn’t allow Jewish people in his home. He described Jews as “very, very selfish” and claimed that “neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.” (Truman also made racist or bigoted comments about other marginalized groups, including Black people and Asians.)
At the same time, as Sowell explained, Truman’s public actions are difficult to square with his prejudices. As a senator from Missouri, he wrote letters to his wife that brimmed with contempt for Jews, while also using his platform to advocate helping save Jewish people from Hitler and the Nazis. Even before the Holocaust was over, Truman became persuaded that the Jews’ Biblical homeland would be a fitting place for the survivors to build a new nation. When Secretary of State George C. Marshall, whom Truman deeply admired, urged the president not to recognize Israel because he feared the political tension blowback from Arab nations, Truman did so anyway.
Yet even in this story of humanitarian impulses overcoming antisemitic prejudice, there are some sour notes. Truman helped legitimized the new Jewish state by being the first world leader to recognize it, but did very little to help the native Palestinians who were being persecuted or driven into exile. When Truman at one point refused to meet with a Zionist activist to discuss Israel, his longtime friend Eddie Jacobson stunned him as he burst into tears, ultimately changing his mind. During this conversation, Jacobson compared the Zionist activist to one of Truman’s personal heroes, Andrew Jackson. Neither man, it seems, realized the cruel irony in linking the issue of Israel’s existence to a president widely reviled today for his racist and genocidal policies.
The moral here is that just as Jewish voters work in mysterious ways, so do the politicians they depend upon to protect their interests. Harry Truman was a bigot who wouldn’t let Jews enter his home yet felt compassion for the millions terrorized and murdered by a fascist dictator. We’ve seen a more recent president, Donald Trump, tell Israel it may do whatever it wants while still indulging his supporters’ overt antisemitism. Politicians on the Christian right may support Israel, but largely because of a half-baked prophecy holding that once Israel is a Jewish nation again, the messiah will return and Jews will either convert or go to hell.
Similarly, while leftist or progressive politicians may make some Jews uncomfortable when they criticize Israel, it is important to listen closely to what they say. Of course it’s contemptible to traffic in stereotypes about Jews being greedy or secretly controlling the world — the kinds of stereotypes Harry Truman quite likely believed — and anyone who exploits those beliefs in criticizing Israel deserves to be condemned. But criticism of Israel, or any other nation, that is rooted in facts and evidence is quite another matter. The lesson we can draw from the antisemitic president who helped create Israel is perhaps a lesson about challenging our assumptions and looking past them, and about learning to live with complexity and contradiction.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Talking about what’s happening in Israel-Palestine is vital, now and always.
But: we have to do it without falling back on antisemitic and anti-Muslim tropes and speech.
Think before you post!
1. Be clear about what you mean when using labels:
2. Do not hold Jews responsible for the decisions of the Israeli leaders, or Muslims responsible for the decisions of the Palestinian leaders
3. Do not demand that Jews or Muslims must take a certain political position on the issue
4. Do not assume that all Palestinians or Israelis support the actions of their governments
5. Anti-Zionism is not always antisemitic (for example if someone is generally anti-nationalism and believes in abolishing nation-states)
However, it can be, for example if criticism of Israel goes beyond that of its government policies and uses antisemitic tropes
6. Do not state that Muslims should leave Palestine because they have the whole of the rest of the Middle East or that Israeli Jews should ‘go back to where they came from’
7. Israel is not a conspiracy to take over the Middle East or the World, and Palestine is not a conspiracy to enforce a Caliphate on Israel/Europe/the World
These are two national identities who both want to exist on the same piece of land
8. Israel is not Nazi Germany. Palestine is not Daesh
9. Israelis and Palestinians are human beings, celebrating their suffering and death is not acceptable
10. Be sensitive towards people who are pro-Israel or pro-Palestine at this time
They may have friends/family involved in the situation, or Israel/Palestine may represent something important to them such as their own sense of struggle or a place of safety in times of persecution
Solidarity with one side or the other is not a crime, they can be pro-Israel/pro-Palestine and still be pro-solution
If you want any advice, contact us at Solutions Not Sides. If you’re a teacher or school leader and want to know more about discussing this issue with your students, you can find out more here.
Credits:
This blog was written and first published by Solutions Not Sides (May 2021). Tweet was later added by Voice of Salam (May 2021).
Solutions Not Sides is an education programme that exists to provide humanising encounters, diverse narratives and critical-thinking tools in order to empower young people with the knowledge, empathy and skills to promote dialogue and conflict resolution, and to challenge prejudice in the UK.
The views expressed in this blog are solely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of Voice of Salam.
This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.
By Elizabeth Arif-Fear
Here in Europe, whilst we should be sympathetic to the plight of refugees and asylum seekers and promote diversity and inclusion, anti-refugee and xenophobic sentiment has however long reared its ugly head.
Anti-refugee and anti-migrant narratives and misconceptions around the numbers and location of refugees and asylum seekers continue to enter conversations, television screens and newspaper spreads. This sadly spreads fear, misinformation and distrust of those who’ve been forced from their homes in search of safety and security.
To read more, click here.
This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.