Ever since Jeremy Corbyn became a serious contender for Labour Party leader and later when he ran a surprisingly competitive national election campaign, the UK Israel Lobby has been sharpening the knives against him. He is insufficiently pliant to Israeli interests. He is not subservient to the Lobby in the way previous Labour Party leaders have been. In addition, UK Jews are overwhelmingly Tory voters, so the prospect of a genuinely left-wing Party leader has given them the willies. It has motivated the UK Lobby to escalate its efforts.
The accusations of anti-Semitism came right from the beginning, and they haven’t ceased for a second. They come in waves, all orchestrated by the Board of Deputies, the Israeli embassy, Bicom and their ancillary lobbying entities.
When one wave of accusations recedes, another one comes along. This campaign is readily facilitated by the UK press. Of Course the Tory tabloids and broadsheets like the Sun, Mirror, Mail and Telegraph offer screaming headlines about the fatal scent of anti Semitism in the ranks of Labour. Even supposedly liberal papers like the Guardian have lent their pages to the fulsome fusillades.
U.S. publications like the NY Times, not to be outdone, sic their pro Israel columnists on Corbyn’s alleged fatal flaw of Jew-hatred. We even witnessed the spectacle of an attack from resident pro Israel scribe, Bret Stephens. Bari Weiss can’t be far behind.
Among the latest charges: that several Corbyn insiders belong to a 2,000 member private Facebook group which has published anti-Semitic comments. So get this, several key figures in Corbyn’s circle either joined and were joined (depending on how your permissions are configured, sometimes Facebook Friends can sign you up for a group without your even approving it) were members of a group of 2,000 people among whom there were unspecified members who posted anti-Semitic material. Corbyn’s folks didn’t post these comments. In fact, we don’t even know if any of them posted even a single comment in the group. None of them commented upon, liked or approved of the anti-Semitic posts. So what exactly is the offense? That they didn’t take the offending member out and shoot him? Or that they didn’t denounce the rhetoric? How could they if they didn’t participate in the group? What does it mean that you are listed as a member of the social media group? That you are personally responsible for every word published there? Nonsense.
Corbyn’s attendance at the Jewdas seber reads as a blatant dismissal of the case made for tackling anti-Semitism in Labour. #EnoughisEnough
— angela smith (@angelasmithmp) April 2, 2018
The latest charge is a real doozy: after Corbyn asked to meet with the UK’s communal leadership, it refused unless he submitted to a series of conditions which were ridiculous and oppressive. Instead, Corbyn chose to spend the Passover seder with a group of far more congenial UK Jews, progressives as well. The members of Jewdas, a left-wing ant-Zionist group which opposes the mandarin Zionist leadership. Well, the Jewish Chronicle and Deputies got wind of this and went to town. They passed it on to the Blairites wing of the Labour Party and before you know it renegade MPs were denouncing Corbyn’s breaking matza with Jewish anti-Semites.
Guess what happened next? The UK Israel Lobby thought better of their shameless posturing and accepted Corbyn’s invitation to meet…with no conditions. Exactly the approach they should’ve adopted from the beginning. So Jeremy Corbyn and Jewdas taught the Lobby derech eretz, an ancient Jewish custom of showing decency to your fellow human being.
What especially irks me is hearing non-Jewish, non-progressive MPs telling Corbyn and the rest of us who are the good Jews and who are the bad. And using a yardstick that has nothing to do with Judaism or Jewishness and everything to do, not just with Israel, but with an ultra-nationalist Likudist vision of Israel. Excuse me, but Moses didn’t come down from Mt. Sinai with tablets on which the Zionist creed was inscribed. He came down with Ten Commandments, which taught us as Jews how to be decent, ethical human beings. Not good Zionists, but good humans. That’s Jewdas’ vision and mine as well. Maybe it’s yours too.
Strangely, though the charges are articulated in a fashion which assumes they pose a self evidently fatal blow to Corbyn, they aren’t. He bounces back as strong as ever. In fact, if anything, these scurrilous attacks ricochet and strike at the ones who launched them. Corbyn soldiers on, gaining support from quarters impervious to the traditional gutter snipe politicking of the tabloid press.
U.S. Israel Lobby Levels Anti-Semitism Charges Falsely at African-American Progressive Democrats
The Brits are not the only ones suffering from this ridiculous malady. Here in the U.S., our very own homegrown Israel Lobby and its media organs like the Algemeiner, Jewish Press, Washington Free Beacon, etc., stand like sentinels in the night protecting us from the anti Semites lurking among us.
The problem is that they always manage to dig up the usual suspects, and for some strange reason they’re always Democrats. Not just any Democrats, but progressive Democrats, least beholden to Israeli interests and the power of the Lobby. They are often African Americans, as well.
These attacks harken back to an era when Blacks and Jews first diverged from their mutual embrace of the civil rights agenda of the 1960s. Beginning in 1967, many Jews drew away from the Black struggle for justice and were drawn into Israel’s nationalist euphoria after its victory in what was called the Six Day War. This was also the era when Meir Kahane first developed his racist, nationalist platform, which is now triumphal within Israeli politics.
Ever since this period, pro Israel Jewish communal leaders have viewed the community’s interests as divergent from, and even inimical to the Black community’s. We saw this most clearly in the campaign by wealthy, white Jewush leaders to cast suspicion on Barack Obama’s bona fides as a supporter of Israel. He was called closet Muslim, anti Israel and even anti Semitic by some. The pages of the Jewish Forward were even filled with such false and provocative ads paid for by the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Nothing Obama did could assuage the naysayers and doomsayers. Though he was a traditional Democratic presidential candidate, captive to the Lobby, none of it did any good. The Lobby, under the influence of its Likud masters in Israel never warmed to him.
Even worse after Obama left office, Lobby groups like the ADL are suggesting he should apologize for being photographed in 2007, before he even ran for president, at a Congressional Black Caucus luncheon with Louis Farrakhan. Thankfully, Obama has ignored such nonsense.
Things are, if anything , worse with Bernie Sanders. A true populist, though with a strong pragmatic streak, he is seen as far too independent for the Lobby. His views on Israel, though calibrated in an extremely cautious fashion (long time lib-Zio DC operative, Matt Duss, manages his Israel messaging), elicited extreme fear and loathing from the Lobby.
But there is one major problem it has in attacking him: he is Jewish. Not religiously Jewish. But Jewish in the traditional cultural-political sense. He’s a liberal Democrat from New York. He sounds like us, looks like us, and thinks like us. So the usual attacks don’t stick. Sanders too, has been careful to manage his Israel messaging (and I don’t mean this as a compliment). Though it is distinctly to the left of Obama’s, he is careful not to rock the boat too heavily. After all, his main issues are domestic and economic. He is not a foreign policy wonk. That’s not where his passions lie. So Bernie is not prepared to die politically on a hill called Israel.
But Bernie has political allies who aren’t as insulated as he is from such attacks. Take Rep. Keith Ellison, who ran unsuccessfully for Democratic Party chair. The Lobby went into full attack mode then. They dredged up decade old comments he’d made praising Louis Farrakhan.
In 2009, I’d reported on secret Justice department wiretaps of the Israeli embassy which showed that the Minneapolus JCRC was tracking Ellison’s visit to Gaza with WA Rep. Brian Baird, after the 2012 Gaza war. The JCRC in turn passed this data on to the Israeli embassy, which also monitored Ellison’s activities, along with those of fellow African-American Muslim Rep. Andre Carson.,
Ellison is a proud progressive with a national profile. He is not beholden to the Lobby. Therefore, he poses a threat. That’s why its minions have dredged up an an old story that Ellison attended s 2009 dinner hosted by Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani. Farrakhan attended the same dinner which was falsely reported by the Forward as a “private dinner” with the three of them. In fact, 150 guests attended and Farrakhan was seated across the room from Ellison.
What do we learn from this? That the Israel lobby in both the UK and U.S. is threatened by true progressives. They prefer pliant, conservative politicians who do what they’re told without argument. We also learn that these two Lobbies are racist and Islamophobic. They they are anti populist and anti-democratic. They prefer Tories and Republicans. They prefer oligarchs and the white, monied classes. In short, they disapprove of everything many of the rest of us stand for. Even the Jews among us. Especially the (progressive) Jews among us.
Hi Richard.
Two years ago, the Labour Party felt the need to set up an Inquiry to investigate allegations of anti-Semitism within it’s own ranks. What resulted, was the Chakrabarti Report, which some have labeled, a ‘whitewash’.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/05/shami-chakrabarti-handed-peerage-weeks-after-suppressing-jeremy/
Hi Frank,
This is exactly the kind of nonsense from the Telegraph that Richard mentioned in his post. Have you read it? The report is called a white wash because it concluded that “the Labour party was not overrun by anti-Semites.” Any other conclusion than that was apparently unwanted. Quit playing the innocent here.
Hello Elisabeth,
Yes I’ve read Richard’s article, and since he omitted mention of the Chakrabrati Report, I thought I’d bring it up.
Elisabeth, have you read the Telegraph article I linked?
Ms Chakrabrati’s nomination for a peerage weeks after her report was published raises ‘the appearance of bias’, and, her omitting her interview with Party Leader Corbyn from the report, is also suspicious.
She had interviewed Corbyn regarding his calling Hezbollah and Hamas, his ‘friends’.
Yes I read it. What he said about Hamas or Hezbollah was that he regretted using the term ‘friends’. Corbin bought her a peerage to keep that out of her report? Makes no sense, but by all means keep insinuating.
Yep, the peerage was definitely for whitewashing the issue in her report. I mean, that’s clearly obvious, as it’s not like she has any history of distinguished public service in some high-profile role… oh, hold on.
Hi Elisabeth,
I relish the opportunity to have a ‘snark free’ exchange of views.
I believe what some people in Britain are saying, is that the peerage was a reward for soft peddling Labour Party anti-Semitism in her report. At the very least the peerage nomination was poorly timed.
Ms Chakrabrati’s own remarks also raise eyebrows, and serve as fodder for her detractors.
Per the Telegraph, Ms Chakrabarti was asked if she had been promised a peerage, and she replied: “You can ask the question but I am going to evade it at this point.”
@ Frank: I don’t think you know what anyone in Britain is saying. Jeremy Corbyn is the most egalitarian, grassroots, non-royalist politician imaginable. The idea that he would reward anyone with a peerage for anything is ridiculous. It’s like saying it’s likely Donald Trump will abandon all his businesses and move to India to cater to the poor.
Nor do I believe that your alleged quotation is accurate. No sensible person would use the language attributed to her & I doubt very much she did. The Telegraph is Tory paper and severely prejudiced against Labour and anything reeking of the world “Palestinian.”
Frank, you simply repeated your earlier insinuation, without adding any more credibility to it. What is the use of that? And you keep mentioning that ‘some people’ are saying something. Does that lend any credibility to anything? You can always find ‘some people’ to say the most crazy things. I have even heard that ‘some people’ used to say you need the blood of babies to make matzos. Now you tell me, does that lend any credibility to it?
At the end of the day, the Israel lobby has reached the point where the only position it will accept from a political leader is one of groveling, unconditional support for Israel, no matter what crimes it is committing at the moment.
…and it gets its wish! At least when it comes to America.
Ellison was barred from the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee and replaced with the colorless and pliant Tom Perez. Bernie Sanders won’t ever be president.
Now they’re trying to impose the same straitjacket on Britain — but the Zionists are much less powerful there. Jews make up less than one-half of a percent of Britain’s population. Although Britain has quite a history with Palestine, at the moment, she’s simply not a significant player in the region. It’s not like here in the US, where every year, we send still more money, and every year, we talk about going to war somewhere on Israel’s behalf, and every year, we bar any effective international action to force her to obey international law and her own treaty commitments.
Here, we’ve been brought to heel, and we serve Israel. In Britain, the concept is simply absurd. Britain just doesn’t have much to do with Israel. The equivalent would be something like demanding that the US take up the cudgel on behalf of the Romani.
? There are hardly any gypsies in the US. What would such an issue have to do with us?
Hopefully, ditto for this campaign to force Britain to begin serving Israel. It’s going to fail out of sheer absurdity. It’s a distraction; Corbyn has to frame a few carefully-worded statements, and then he can move on.
Of course even here in America, the term ‘anti-semite’ has been cheapened by the fact that it tends to be used as an epithet to abuse those hostile to Israel. For example, I have been labelled an ‘anti-semite’ at least twice — but not because I refused to rent my mountain cabin to Richard. It’s obviously been because of my frank and voluble hostility towards the Zionist entity.
Naturally, the reality of life is that the presence of any perceptible racial, ethnic, or religious group implies a corresponding contingent of people who are bigoted against them. I know people who rant about Mormons. There are inarguably some virulent anti-semites out there.
…but that can only be a reality to the extent that the ‘hated one’ is actually present. I doubt if many in Britain care about Mormons — and given that Britain only has a Jewish population of one half of one percent, the possibility of authentic anti-semitism is correspondingly reduced. Even at 2%, anti-semitism in America starts to fail for lack of a target. I know people who are simply unaware of the fact that Bernie Sanders is a Jew. ‘Jew’ isn’t a meaningful category to them.
They CAN’T be anti-semites. Not because of innate goodness, but simply because they lack the necessary mental vocabulary. It’d be like me acquiring a ferocious dislike of the Ainu. How could I?
Britain and the British obviously move towards that category. In Britain, ‘anti-semitism’ must be overwhelmingly what it usually is even here — a device to vilify those who are hostile towards Israel. Of course, hostility towards Israel is no more evidence of anti-semitism now than hostility towards Nazism eighty years ago would have demonstrated that one was bigoted against Germans.
Especially in Britain, ‘anti-semitism’ is essentially a canard, an intellectually dishonest attempt to disable criticism of the otherwise indefensible.
Mr Colin Wright,
When a drunken Mel Gibson called Winona Ryder an ‘oven dodger’, you can bet that the State of Israel wasn’t on Mel’s mind. In fact, alt-Right anti-Semites like Richard Spencer love the State of Israel. That’s where Spencer and his ilk want to ship American Jews when the alt-Right start their purification of America.
Aa you well know, anti-Semitism has been around a lot longer than the State of Israel, and it is absurd for anyone to suggest that an anti-Zionist can’t be an anti Semite as well.
Personally, I am deeply suspicious of people who support Armenia for Armenians and the Czech Republic for Czechs, but won’t allow Israel for Jews; and BTW, one half of world Jewry now lives in Israel.
Colin. What you can’t seem to get your head around, is that most Americans support Israel, and therefore, you really can’t fault their Representatives in Congress for supporting Israel as well.
Lobbying is as American as apple pie, and if the pro-Israel lobby is smarter, richer and more sophisticated than the Palestinian lobby, than who’s fault is that?
Consider also that American Jews excel in the Sciences, in Finance, in Entertainment and Industry. Consider as well, that Jews are disproportionate Nobel Prize winners.
That said, why are you so shocked that American Jews have a strong influence on the United States government?
Jeez!
‘Mr Colin Wright,
When a drunken Mel Gibson…’
I don’t think one thing you said directly addressed anything that was in my post.
amira hass from haaretz.com apparently attended the famous seder and posted an item (couldnt read it) describing what went down. perhaps someone can read it and post an open link to get another opinion, biased or not , depends
so anyone
You start to tire me out, with all these lengthy posts, I must say. I do want to react though, to your claim that a low percentage of Jews in a country means there can be no anti-semitism. That is nonsense. In Europe for instance, islamophobia is often highest in areas with hardly any Muslims. Just compare the percentages of each in former east and west Germany.
‘I do want to react though, to your claim that a low percentage of Jews in a country means there can be no anti-semitism. ‘
I suppose that theory is flawed. However, the main point is that I don’t think anti-semitism in Britain is much of a problem. The accusation is usually little more than a device to intimidate critics of Israel.
You flood us with posts, and between all the verbiage there are often remarks that are questionable, such as characterizing what happened lat week as “Jews shooting Palestinians” or something like that. That should have been “Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians”. Words matter.
‘…there are often remarks that are questionable, such as characterizing what happened lat week as “Jews shooting Palestinians” or something like that. That should have been “Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians”. Words matter.’
Indeed. Words do matter. I object to the use of the term ‘Israeli’ in this way. A fifth of the Israelis are Palestinians themselves. Were any of the officers ordering this butchery Palestinian? Were any of the politicians applauding Palestinians? If polled, how many of Israel’s Palestinians would approve of the murders?
‘Israeli,’ in this case is indeed an inaccurate euphemism. It would be nice if the situation were otherwise, but the fact is that we are talking about not all Israelis, but the Jews of Israel.
So ‘Israeli’ is to some extent a polite lie. Sometimes I use ‘Zionist’ — but since it’s questionable if the majority of the Jews who have found themselves in Palestine are there because of an active choice to adopt that creed, that term as well is problematical.
Referring to the perpetrators as ‘the Jews who are in Palestine’ may rub your fur the wrong way, but it is the only formulation I can think of that’s accurate. After all, they are indubitably in Palestine, and it’s overwhelmingly the Jews who are the perpetrators of the crimes in question. Can you suggest a better term?
@ Colin Wright: I do NOT accept use of the term “Jew” as a substitute for “Israeli” or “Israeli Jew.” If you persist in doing this I will consider it a comment rule violation and act accordingly. There are rules here and they are for a reason. You may not like or agree with the reason, but I make them, not you. So respect them.
A term for them, referring to their ethnicity or religion? How about (in order of percentage): Jews/Druze/Muslim-Bedouin/Christians? Oh hell, let’ just call them Israeli soldiers shall we?
@ Colin Wright: In fact it’s important to note that Israel is quite good at co-opting non-Jewish citizens into doing the state’s dirty work. So there are a great many Israeli soldiers who are Druze and Bedouin who serve and kill along with their Jewish brethren. There are of course numerous reasons why they serve that have to do with the nature of the state and its rewards for service. But serve they do. We shouldn’t ignore this by saying only Israeli Jews do bad things in military or police service.
@ Elisabeth: I’ve asked Colin politely to restrain himself. He’s flooding the comment section and monopolizing it. I do not permit others to do this. I should not permit him to. I’m hoping Colin can exercise more self-restrain and comment a bit less and focus those comments more.
As for the claims about anti-Semitism. There is a famous saying “anti-Semitism without Jews.” There are many countries in which anti-Semitism flourishes which have few or no Jews. As you say, the same holds true about Islamophobia.
At the risk of provoking Richard into simply deleting my posts, let me further clarify something: I am not slipping in ‘Jews’ in the place of ‘Israelis’ in the hope no one will notice or something.
I am consciously if somewhat reluctantly choosing the term. Sometimes, to type ‘Israeli’ is simply to lie. The ‘Israelis’ — not all of them — are not the ones committing these crimes. It is dishonest to imply that they are. It is in fact the Jews of that state that are. That’s an unpleasant fact, but a fact nevertheless. To deny it is to begin participating in that edifice of lies and half-truths that Israel relies on for its ideological defense.
Simply start telling the truth, and Israel becomes a ghastly absurdity. Part of that truth is naming the killers — unpalatable as that may be.
‘@ Colin Wright: I do NOT accept use of the term “Jew” as a substitute for “Israeli” or “Israeli Jew.” If you persist in doing this I will consider it a comment rule violation and act accordingly. There are rules here and they are for a reason. You may not like or agree with the reason, but I make them, not you. So respect them.’
Although I wasn’t aware it was a rule, I believe I have always conformed to this. Unless I am referring to Jews elsewhere, I have always tried to specify that I am talking about ‘Israeli Jews,’ or ‘Jews in Palestine,’ or sometimes ‘Zionists.’ Have I ever attributed the actions of Israeli Jews to all Jews?
@ Colin Wright: Your criticisms of Israeli behavior and policies appear to favor using the term “Jew” either alone or accompanied by a suitable adjective. I disfavor using such a religious term in referring to Israelis who are Jewish unless religion plays a particularly important role in the criticism, or unless you are distinguishing them from Israelis who are not Jewish.
‘Your criticisms of Israel appear to favor using the term “Jew” alone…’
Actually, I don’t think that’s so. Could you point me to the instance? It’s POSSIBLE I did, but I’ve tried to be scrupulous about this.
‘…or unless you are distinguishing them from Israelis who are not Jewish.’
But that’s exactly my point. I do wish to distinguish those Israelis who are Jewish from those who are not. It’s absurd to associate the Palestinians of Israel with the crimes of that state. Whatever their shortcomings, they bear no culpability for those. In this context, ‘Israeli’ becomes a distortion, an evasion of the truth. It is NOT all Israelis who carry out and applaud these crimes. I get tired of reading and writing ‘Israeli’ when what is meant for all intents and purposes is ‘Israeli Jew.’ As I say, that may be unpleasant, but it is the truth.
…and I will note that you yourself agreed (see above) that ‘Israeli Jew’ is acceptable. You merely objected to the notion that these crimes should be attributed to all Jews.
…and before yet another self-appointed expert decides to abuse me for my imagined ignorance, yes I am aware of the Druze and Bedouin who serve in the IDF.
Now, I’m no more interested in continuing to post at the moment than you profess to desire more posts from me. However, I do have to answer these accusations.