DONATE: I’ve created a Facebook fundraiser to benefit this blog and my fiscal sponsor, Media Island. If you have a Facebook account, I’d be grateful if you’d donate there. 100% of gifts go to Media Island, which offers most of it back in support of the blog. This coming Tuesday, December 3rd, Facebook will double each donation for fundraisers active on its platform up to $7-million. Give big on Tuesday!
Today, an Islamist terrorist, Usman Khan, attacked an event hosted by Cambridge University’s Institute for Criminology. The conference, tragically entitled Learning Together, aimed to offer prisoners educational opportunities:
Khan was wearing an electronic tag and had reportedly been invited to attend a justice conference on prison rehabilitation at Fishmongers’ Hall, on the northern side of London Bridge,
For some twisted reason, he decided that no good deed should go unpunished–targeting activists and educators trying to improve the lives of ex-felons (of whom he was one). He stabbed several of the attendees and killed two. He then ran outside the event venue, where he was apprehended by civilian passersby. News reports say that one of the brave men who subdued him is a Polish immigrant. So much for the Tories hatred of immigrants.
After Khan exposed what he warned was a suicide vest wrapped around his waist, the Good Samaritans backed away from him. Police arriving at the scene, fearing the vest was real, shot and killed him. The vest was fake.
There have been a number of Islamist terror attacks in the UK in the past decade. Undoubtedly, the Tories, in the midst of a national election campaign, will showcase their vaunted Islamophobia by railing against UK Muslims. But it’s important to remember there have also been many murders committed by white supremacists, most notably the assassination of Labour MK, Jo Cox.
Misidentifying Jewish Enemies
You would think that UK Jews, most of whom vote Tory, would be joining in such Islamophobic triumphalism. But they and their leaders see their enemies even closer to home. The most dangerous enemies of the Jewish people, in the eyes of these communal leaders, are the Labour Party and its leader, Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, the chief rabbi, took the unprecedented step of penning an op-ed (paywall) in Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London. With the pitiable title, What Will Become of Jews in Britain…Mirvis launched into a shocking diatribe, citing the alleged anti-Semitic record of Corbyn and the Party as a whole.
This is nothing new. The UK Israel Lobby and the Israeli government itself have been engaged in a years-long attack on Labour for its purported anti-Israel bias. What is new is the naked political intervention in a national election by a national religious leader. Never before has any cleric of any denomination told its religious adherents who to vote for; or more specifically, who they must not vote for. Though it has a state religion, the Anglican Church, the UK has a long tradition of separating religion from politics. Mirvis threw a huge spanner in the works and deliberately sabotaged that precedent, to the detriment of English society as a whole.
The Times column is riddled with exaggerated claims and devoid of facts or evidence. From the beginning, he seeks to establish his bona fides in speaking on behalf of all the nation’s Jews:
…Just weeks before we go to the polls, the overwhelming majority of British Jews are gripped by anxiety.
During the past few years, on my travels through the UK and further afield, one concern has been expressed to me more than any other…What will become of Jews and Judaism in Britain if the Labour Party forms the next government?
This anxiety is justified.
How does Mirvis know what the “overwhelming majority of British Jews” feel? Undoubtedly, he rests his belief on the polls of the communal tabloid, the Jewish Chronicle, which regularly unfurls banner headlines claiming half of Jews plan to emigrate out of fear of anti-Semitism; that 90% believe Labour to be anti-Semitic. When you examine the alleged polls, their methodology, their questions, and the polling companies who conducted them, you find the surveys riddled with bias that would inexorably lead to the results the newspaper sought.
In the above passage, Mirvis clearly implies he knows what the majority of the nation’s Jews feel. But does he? Who does he represent? With the grand title of Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, you would think the Jewish community had recognized his leadership by acclamation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, he is designated as chief rabbi of a distinct minority of that community, the United Synagogue, known in the U.S. as the modern Orthodox. Mirvis isn’t even recognized as the leader of all Orthodox Jews in the UK, as the fastest-growing movement there is the ultra-Orthodox or Haredi, who do not recognize him.
Wikipedia’s demographic analysis of UK’s Jewish community indicates that nearly 50% are secular. That is, they belong to no religious denomination. Of the other half, 65% are Orthodox (which includes both modern and ultra-Orthodox). The bottom line: Mirvis represents less than half of the one-half of UK Jews who identify with any religious denomination (and there are others including Liberal, Reform, Masorti and Sephardi Jews who do not recognize him)
Noted British Jewish public intellectual, Antony Lerman, tweeted that in his estimation Mirvis represented perhaps 20% of UK Jews. That should put the claims of his Times column in some perspective:
Membership of @chiefrabbi Mirvis’s denomonation, the United Synagogue, constitutes less than 20% of estimated UK Jewish population. He has no authority to speak on behalf of all Jews. @bbcr4today bias in unleashing attacks on @UKLabour and @jeremycorbyn is disgraceful 2/2
— Antony Lerman (@tonylerman) November 26, 2019
Countering Mirvis
Below you’ll find my point-by-point rebuttal of Mirvis’ argument. He begins his attack with the plaintive refrain of a reluctant truth-teller:
Raising concerns about anti-Jewish racism in the context of a general election ranks among the most painful moments I have experienced since taking office.
But is it? Mirvis has a long history of not only animus toward Labour, but fulsome praise of the Tories. Here you see him pictured with current PM Boris Johnson, delivering an encomium about Conservative rule:
Mirvis’ embrace of right-wing politics is something bred in the bone. Though he was raised in South Africa to parents who valiantly fought apartheid, he turned toward not just Orthodoxy, but rampant religious triumphalism at Yeshivat Har Etzion, a settler seminary which also produced Trump bankruptcy lawyer and recently-resigned Middle East ‘peace expert,’ Jason Greenblatt. There, Mirvis earned his rabbinic degree. His endorsement of Tory politics is of a piece with his embrace of settler Judeo-supremacy.
Apart from this, Mirvis has voiced some particularly appalling views both toward Muslim immigrants and toward Jewish Holocaust victims :
“In the same way, Jews in Germany in the 1930s declared ‘Deutschland über alles’ – regardless of what might transpire to us we express a natural loyalty towards the country of which we are proudly a part.”
Does any Jew in their right mind believe that German Jews sang the Nazi anthem with anything other than antipathy and fear, if they sang it at all? And is Mirvis really making even a tacit claim that if the UK is preparing to send Muslims to the ovens, that they should be singing ‘God Save the Queen’ with gusto and conviction? The very notion is appalling.
Then there’s Mirvis’ invocation of a wretched Tory “loyalty test” which measured the purported trustworthiness of UK Muslim immigrants by whether they rooted for England or their native countries in cricket matches:
“A large proportion of Britain’s Asian population fail to pass the cricket test, Which side do they cheer for?…Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?”
One could easily turn this around and throw it back in Mirvis’ face: who are the Board of Deputies and UK Jewish leaders ‘rooting for?’ England or Israel? I’d say in many cases their loyalties are far stronger to the latter than the former. Of course, they believe that loyalty to one is the same as loyalty to the other. Which is a spurious, ludicrous belief.
The Rabbi’s distrust, even revulsion against Palestinians, has aroused his animus against any figure or political movement supporting their national rights. That is the reason Mirvis hates Corbyn. Not because he is anti-Semitic. Not because he hates Jews in the UK. But because he embraces a political vision in which Israeli Jews and Palestinian each realize their national rights. In the views of the settlers from whence the chief rabbi sprang, there can be no Palestinian rights that do not annihilate Israeli Jewish rights. That’s what makes Corbyn Mirvis’ sworn enemy.
Here Mirvis continues in the guise of the poor soul forced to do what he had no will to do. And it’s all the fault of the sheer enormity of Labour’s anti-Jewish perfidy:
Convention dictates that the Chief Rabbi stays well away from party politics — and rightly so. However, challenging racism is not a matter of politics, it goes well beyond that. Wherever there is evidence of it, including in any of our political parties, it must be swiftly rooted out.
The claim here is that “racism” transcends politics. Therefore he, as a religious figure, is obligated to violate political norms to call out so-called evil for what it is. It sounds good on paper, till you examine on what basis he rests these claims. Here is one:
…Supporters of the Labour leadership have hounded parliamentarians, members and even staff out of the party for challenging anti-Jewish racism.
That is an outright lie. Those Jewish Labour MPs who have attacked their own Party and abandoned it were not “hounded” or driven out. On the contrary, they made dramatic shows of their disgust and themselves elected to leave. And they did so in ways designed to do maximize damage to the Party. These were not Party leaders who left reluctantly, or in disappointment. They did so vindictively and viciously. Further, the number of Jewish Labour MPs who left is tiny: two MPs and three peers. Three Jewish MPs remain in Labour.
Nor were Jewish MPs the only ones who left. In fact, of the eight prominent parliamentarians who left, most were not Jewish and their departure had nothing to do with claims of anti-Semitism. The truth is that the Labour Party has been moving to the Left since before Corbyn became leader. This has partly been a reaction to the stodgy corporatist politics of the Blair years. Those leaving were Blairites who rejected the swing to the left. They have sought, with little success, to strike out on their own with an independent party. When that didn’t work, some became absorbed into the centrist Liberal Democrats.
Next, Mirvis mischaracterizes the IHRA anti-Semitism definition forced down the Party’s throat:
We have endured quibbling and prevarication over whether the party should adopt the most widely accepted definition of antisemitism.
No, there wasn’t “quibbling” or “prevarication.” There was legitimate debate about the deeply-flawed so-called anti-Semitism definition. Further, the IHRA is NOT the “most widely accepted definition.” It is the most widely disputed definition. In fact, it isn’t even a definition. It is a set of rules that restrict legitimate speech about Israel and its racist apartheid policies. IHRA conflates Israel with Judaism and tries to cloak criticism of Israel in the ancient, deep-seated hatred of Jews. But contrary to Mirvis’ tacit claim, Judaism is a religion and Israel is a nation. They are not the same. But the extent to which figures like the chief rabbi transform Israel into a religious theocracy, guarantees the continued flourishing of real anti-Semitism.
Mirvis next attempts to set Labour apart from the British nation with the spurious claim that its values are alien to it:
The way in which the leadership has dealt with anti-Jewish racism is incompatible with the British values of which we are so proud — of dignity and respect for all people.
While it may be arguable that the “values” of the British Empire for centuries represented “dignity and respect for all people,” even if we accept it for argument’s sake, Mirvis’ claims still are wanting. Labour has indeed affirmed the dignity and respect of all people: that is, both Israel and Palestinian peoples. It is the good Rabbi who denied respect and dignity to the latter. And that is the crux of this debate: one he deliberately obfuscates. You will never hear the word “Palestinian” from his mouth. Either they don’t exist; or if he deigns to admit they do, it is only as the bete noire of the Jewish people: the sworn enemy of Israel.
The claims that the party is “doing everything” it reasonably can to tackle anti-Jewish racism and that it has “investigated every single case”, are a mendacious fiction. According to the Jewish Labour Movement, there are at least 130 outstanding cases before the party, some dating back years, and thousands more have been reported but remain unresolved.
Note that Mirvis bases his claims on the group called the “Jewish Labour Movement.” This is a Blairite group that represents the interests of the Board of Deputies far more than those of the Party. In fact, it announced to great fanfare that it was withdrawing its election support from the Party. How does it have any right to use the word “Labour” in its name? It has been infiltrated by figures who’ve cloaked their past affiliations with the Israeli embassy and other Israel Lobby outfits.
As to the charges he raises: they are misleading at best. Note that Mirvis offers no links or documents supporting his claims. That leaves it to the reader to either do the research the Rabbi should have done, or to throw up his/her hands in despair at the shoddiness of this enterprise.
But there are some pertinent facts which Mirvis conveniently omits: of the cases investigated less than 0.1% have been found to be justified. 40% of all cases brought were not even found to be attributable to the Party itself. Instead of vacuous pre-programmed junk, let’s review some actual facts about anti-Semitism in the UK. A Pew Research poll of Britons showed that 7% were anti-Semitic, amongst the lowest percentage in the EU (similar to Scandinavian countries). The Institute for Jewish Policy Research found 3.6% of the far left harbored anti-Semitic views as compared with 13% on the far right. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (a pro-Israel organization) reported that antisemitism had declined since Corbyn became leader in 2015. A British Social Attitudes report said antisemitism in the Labour Party generally is a mere 0.08% of members as opposed to 3.6% in the ‘far left.’
Here Mirvis attempts to shear the Party from its progressive roots by claiming its embrace of anti-racism is a fraud:
Many members of the Jewish community can hardly believe that this is the same party that they called their political home for more than a century. It can no longer claim to be the party of equality and anti-racism.
There is much self-serving nonsense here. First, UK Jews began abandoning the Labour Party long before Jeremy Corbyn came on the scene. And they did not do so because of anti-Semitism. They did so because of economic, class and religious-nationalist reasons. As they became wealthier, the class consciousness of the Labour Party became anathema to them. The Orthodox community, the fastest-growing segment of the Jewish population, became increasingly Judeo-nationalist in its views of Israeli politics. It viewed its natural allies as the Tories, because they were closest ideologically to the Israeli religious nationalist parties and ruling Likud. That’s why UK Jews vote Tory. That’s why they left Labour.
The other noxious element of this passage is the notion that Labour’s advocacy for Palestinian ‘equality’ and its rejection of Israeli ‘racism,’ means it has somehow abandoned its commitment to all equality and anti-racism, but especially the rights of Israeli Jews. What really bothers Mirvis is that Labour does not uphold the primacy of Israeli Jewish rights. In the rabbi’s view, Israeli rights are the only ones that matter. If you infringe in any way on them, then you are denying them entirely. The breathtaking presumption of this claim is patently obvious.
How far is too far? How complicit in prejudice would a leader of Her Majesty’s opposition have to be to be considered unfit for office? Would associations with those who have incited hatred against Jews be enough? Would describing as “friends” those who endorse the murder of Jews be enough? It seems not.
Once again, the charges are so oblique as to be meaningless. But Mirvis’ media minions shilling for the Israel Lobby have already fleshed them out, so we know to what he’s referring. Corbyn once visited a cemetery in Tunis commemorating the deaths of 60 Tunisians and PLO leaders murdered in a 1985 Israeli revenge attack. The attack was itself condemned by the UN Security Council at the time and by then-PM Margaret Thatcher.
The accompanying claim that Corbyn was honoring the Munich terrorists buried there is false. Those individuals are not buried in the cemetery attended by Corbyn. They are buried in Libya. There are two individuals buried in a different part of the Tunis cemetery than the part visited by Corbyn, who Israel claims were associated with the Munich attack. Their involvement has never been proven, nor has any evidence been offered to support the Israeli claim.
Others have claimed that Corbyn laid a wreath on the grave of the most important PLO leader murdered in the Tunis attack, who is also buried there: Salah Khalaf whose nom de guerre was Abu Iyad. Once again, the Palestinian’s grave is in an entirely different part of the cemetery and Corbyn paid no attention to it.
The last part of the Mirvis passage alleging “association” with “those inciting hatred of Jews” is another misleading charge. Jeremy Corbyn has always advocated a stance toward Hamas that, while controversial in some quarters, is endorsed by numerous Middle East analysts and academics.
Here is a statement he delivered a decade ago at a political rally which included Hamas representatives. Keep in mind, that when he delivered these words, some of which even I would consider naive, he was not even Opposition leader. He was a junior back-bencher:
“…the idea that an organisation that is dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about peace and social justice and political justice should be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the British government is a big, big historical mistake…”
Of course, his views have evolved over time. He would never say today what he said then about Hamas. It is only Mirvis’ implacable hatred which has not changed and will never do so, no matter what Corbyn does or says.
The fact of the matter is that continuing to label Hamas a terrorist organization and refusing to talk to its leaders and include them in peace negotiations, renders the prospect of resolving the conflict impossible. Hamas is a genuine representative of the Palestinian people; it plays a crucial political role in Palestinian society; any solution of the conflict must include Hamas at the table for it to be comprehensive and legitimate.
Remember as well, that Yitzhak Shamir was responsible for the assassination of UN peace negotiator, Count von Bernadotte. Menachem Begin was the author of the King David Hotel bombing which killed 97 people. Would Mirvis say that these former terrorists should never be eligible to play a political role in determining the future of the State of Israel, as he’s claiming about both Corbyn and Hamas? If he held the same views of Begin and Shamir that he holds of Corby and Hamas, then at least I could say he was consistent. But of course, he is not. Israeli terrorists are on the side of the angels. While Palestinians and all who support them are of the devil.
Now comes the most disingenuous statement in Mirvis’ entire diatribe:
It is not my place to tell any person how they should vote.
Really. You spent hundreds of words screaming bloody murder that Corbyn is a liar, alien to British society and values, untrustworthy, an anti-Semite, etc. and you have the gall to deny what anyone with eyes in their head could see? What does he take us for? Fools and idiots?
I recommend reading several important statements by Israeli and UK Jews rebutting Mirvis’ position. They are a refreshing antidote to his hate and cant masquerading as spiritual truth-telling.
How devastating can a rebuttal be? Well, read this Silversteins rebuttal of Mirvis letter, and you will know forever.
British liberal Jew here. This piece has some errors.
First of all, even before the Orthodox Chief Rabbi publicy warned people to vote with their concience, the Rabbi Romain, the former head of UK REform Judaism (to which I belong) had warned of the same. Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain has written to his congregation urging to them to vote tactically to keep Labour out of power. He said he was taking the unprecedented step because the hard-left boss had allowed vile anti-Semitic hate infect his party.
31 Oct 2019
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10255515/rabbi-corbyn-labour-danger-jewish-life/
Second, you mentioned that most British Jews were secular, which is true but if you go to a United Synagogue congregation you will see that most Jews there are secular. Same in Israel. Even though most Israelis are secular they go to Orthodox synagogues rather than join the liberal Judaism. Most British Jews belong to cross denomination synagogues. I to to Reform mostly, but also belong to United Synagogue because of family.
Third, most British Jews regardless of affiliation find Labour (under Corbyn) has attracted far left and extremist Muslim antisemites. They not only oppose the two state solution which most of us support but they want Israel gone.
Have you seen this video in which Corbyn is telling Iranian TV that the BBC of being ‘biased towards’ saying that ‘Israel has a right to exist’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7738205/Corbyn-says-BBC-biased-saying-Israel-right-exist.html
Jeremy Corbyn accused of anti-Semitism over shocking 2011 video in which he questions Israel’s right to exist and says the BBC is ‘biased’ in favour of the Jewish state
He spoke to Tehran-backed Press TV - since banned from operating in the UK
He attacks the British broadcaster's coverage of issues in the Middle East
He said: 'I think there is a bias towards saying ... that Israel has a right to exist'
@ Elena:
You are not a “liberal” Jew. Perhaps you mean that you are a “Liberal” Jew. But those are two different things as your extremist Islamophobic views make clear.
As for Rabbi Romain’s views, I never said that UK Jewish leaders don’t hold the same misguided views as Mirvis. In fact, the leadership is part of the Israel Lobby and it’s not surprising they would all hold similar views. But even if you add Romain’s small Jewish denomination to Mirvis’ you still don’t get a majority of UK Jews.
It’s quite instructive the media sources you use to prove that Corbyn is an anti-Semite: the Sun and the Daily Fail. Why not add Torygraph too? And Jewish Chronicle for good measure. THen you’d have only part of the media cabal out to destroy Labour. My point being that you can tell a commenter by the sources she quotes. And you’ve just given yourself away.
I have attended Orthodox synagogues in many countries including Ireland and the UK. In fact, I attended Mirvis’ shul in Dublin. The vast majority of worshippers in these shuls are Orthodox, not secular. Are there some secular Jews in these places? Of course. Would a secular Jew attend a synagogue perhaps on the High Holidays or for a wedding, funeral or Bar Mitzvah? Sure. But the entire point about being a secular Jew is that you generally do not attend a synagogue. That is why you don’t affiliate with any denominaton.
False. Most British Jews don’t vote Labour. That is all you can say on the matter. You don’t know why they don’t vote Labour. But I enumerated most of the reasons in my post which you conveniently ignored. THose reasons do not include the belief you enumerate. And a Jewish Chronicle poll saying otherwise isn’t worth a brass farthing.
You have claimed “extremist Muslim anti-Semites in the Labour Party oppose a 2 state solution and want Israel gone.” I dare you to name a single Labour MP, whether Muslim or of any other faith, who holds those views. And if you claim there is one, you will offer a credible source to authenticate your claim. If you cannot do so I will call you a liar and offer you two choices: either admit you lied or I will ban you from this commenting here for violating a cardinal comment rule demanding that commenters support their claims with credible sources. You have 24 hours to do so before I take any action.
I’ve read thousands of comments by people like you. I know all the tricks you use. One of them is to place quotation marks around snippets of phrases that are almost meaningles in terms of telling what someone actually said. Not only that, but your statement above is barely passable English. So even if Corbyn said anything close to what you wrote above, he certainly didn’t articulate it as you did. If you want to be believed here you will offer a full quotation without any elisions and you will offer a credible source for whatever you’re quoting. In this case, your source is the Daily Fail which is an #epicfail here.
I know people like you don’t like facts to spoil your Islamophobic reverie. But I offer them nevertheless:
A Pew Research poll of Britons showed that 7% were anti-Semitic, amongst the lowest percentage in the EU (similar to Scandinavian countries). The Institute for Jewish Policy Research found 3.6% of the far left harbored anti-Semitic views as compared with 13% on the far right. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (a pro-Israel organization) reported that antisemitism had declined since Corbyn became leader in 2015. A British Social Attitudes report said antisemitism in the Labour Party generally is a mere 0.08% of members as opposed to 3.6% in the ‘far left.’
The Hindu and Sikh Council also backed Rabbi Mirvis. Labour has an antisemitism problem. Most importantly, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury backs chief rabbi after Labour antisemitism remarks. Also The chief rabbi’s comments were also supported by the rabbi Julia Neuberger, a crossbench peer and a female Reform Rabbi, who said the Jewish community had been gripped by anxiety. The Guardian explains it here:
Archbishop says Ephraim Mirvis’s comments highlight fear felt by many British Jews
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/26/justin-welby-chief-rabbi-labour-antisemitism
Richard, on your ‘rules’ page you say that you consider it unacceptable to question Israel’s right to exist or to call Israel ‘Nazi’ or ‘Zio’, but that is what the extremists in the labour party (mainly atheist marxists) say and believe, those that are not holding hardline Islamist beliefs.
@ Adrian:
Hinduvta extremists have endorsed Mirvis’ Red-scare pandering and his pro-Israel pandering. Why am I not surprised? Hinduvta and Likudniks like Mirvis have much in common (cf. Kashmir).
The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite? Shocking. Since when did the Archbishop of Canterbury ever vote for a socialist or hold any sympathy for the working man or woman? He is part and parcel of the same elitist, snobbish, classist clan which has ruled the British establishment for ages. Why does he have any more credibility speaking on political affairs than Mirvis? THey are cut from the same stodgy cloth.
Thank you for telling me what you think my “rules” are. But as people like you usually do, you’ve got it wrong. You have given the actual rules I wrote your own ideological gloss and in the process, gotten them wrong. Go and re-read them. Then if you want to claim what the rules are you quote them precisely and exactly as I wrote them, which you haven’t done here. I actually banned two specific terms: “Zionazi” & “Ziohell.” I also banned a number of terms used by far right people like you. But you’ve conveniently ignored those.
I do indeed permit some Israeli policies to be compared to those of Nazism (especially since the rise of Likudist Judeo-fascism) because in many ways they increasingly have become so. What I don’t permit is sloganeering that is devoid of substance or analysis, whether far left or far right (or in the middle).
You actually have the idiotic impudence to claim that Labour harbors “hardline Marxists” with “hardline Islamist beliefs.” Really? Like whom?
I’m about to ban your ass not merely for insufferable insulting stupidity (which unfortunately isn’t a comment rule violation), but for racism and Islamophobia. Say anything like what you’ve written above and I’dd do it in a heartbeat. And it will give me the greatest pleasure.
[comment deleted: are you best the UK Jewry has produced? Stupidity, hate-filled, ignorant. An embarrassment to the Jewish people. You are disgusting…and banned.]
Richard, have you spoken to many British Jews and asked whether they feel Labour is anti-Semitic?
Personal communication with British Jews might be a more reliable indicator than tweets and polls.
@ Jack:
I cited multiple sources of UK Jews who reject Mirvis’ claims. I’ve written about the faux anti-Semitism campaign against Labour for over a year both here and at Middle East Eye. How do you think I arrive at my conclusions? In the ether? In a vacuum? Without contact with the subjects I’m writing about?
For you to imply I have not spoken to many British Jews or that I’ve had no personal communication with them makes you not only presumptuous, but a fool.
Of course Jack. Science is fake. A scientifically sound, duly randomized sample is producing far less reliable results, than the personal network of the chief rabbi. And the reason for that is clear: divine intervention!
“I dare you to name a single Labour MP, whether Muslim or of any other faith, who holds those views”
“MP Naz Shah suspended from Labour”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36148704
While Naz Shah may be the only MP suspected of anti-Semitism, Labour has similarly suspended three councillors over alleged antisemitic remarks.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/02/labour-suspends-two-councillors-alleged-antisemitism
And Labour is removing or dropping Party candidates for anti-Semitism, as well.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50585278
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-42009240
@ Jack: As usual you have offered your version of reality and have not read or followed the terms I laid out earlier. The false claim made was the following:
Instead of offering any names of any MKs (which I explicitly cited in my challenge, not “councillors”) you’ve offered claims of anti-Semitism. And you’ve said the individuals you’re citing are anti-Semites without offering any evidence they are. And none of the sources you’ve cited actually prove the accused were anti-Semites. An accusation by the Jewish Chronicle and its ilk is not proof of truth. In fact, just the opposite.
You, along with all of your ilk have absolutely no understanding of what anti Semtism is. Is it not criticism of Israel. That’s what you’re calling anti-Semitism. And it’s not only wrong, but a lie.
But that isn’t even the point: I asked for proof that anyone in Labour “rejects a 2 state solution or wants Israel gone.” You still haven’t provided any. You lose.
Richard says, “extremist Muslim anti-Semites in the Labour Party oppose a 2 state solution and want Israel gone.”
I reply, with cite, “Labour MP Naz Shah apologises for backing ‘relocate Israel to North America’ plan”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-naz-shah-apologises-for-backing-relocate-israel-to-north-america-plan-a7001406.html
Richard says, “You lose”.
I reply. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
@Jack: Absolutely nothing about that statement is either anti Semitic or says Israel should not exist. You’ve apparently lost your sense of irony as many pro Israel Misanthropes like you do.
But I’ll make you a deal: if you label Herzl’s initial plan to locate the Zionist state in Uganda or Argentina as anti semitic: or the chief rabbi’s plan to relocate Palestine to the Sinai as Palestinophobic, then I Might consider your claim. What say you??
@Richard
Naz Shah begs to differ, she says her words were anti-Semitic.
Naz Shah: “My words were anti-Semitic”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-36802075
So, that’s that.
@Jack: She’s as brainwashed by the Lobby as you are. It’s NOT anti Semitic. Unless Herzl was an anti-Semite. Oh wait, he was!
I’m still waiting for that proof that Labour MKs reject a 2 state solution and favor eliminating Israel. You seem to have conveniently pivoted away from my Original challenge when you couldn’t find any evidence to support that lie.
You are done in this thread. No More comments here.
[comment deleted: you have once again espoused Islamophobic canards. Islamophobia, like anti-Semtism, is prohibited in this blog. You are now moderated. Read the comment rules if you wish to comment here in future. If you cannnot follow them, those future comments will not be approved for publication.]
Richard
Your characterisation of Justin Welby in your comment to the poster called ‘Adrian’ does not reflect reality. Welby recently acknowledged the English Church’s role in British antisemitism which does not really relate to what you said but is nevertheless a welcome development for British Jews.
What is important and relevant though is that Welby’s stance on poverty in Britain flies in the face of your claim that he is part of the ‘snobbish elite’ who doesn’t care for the working man. Or that his support for the Chief Rabbi was politically convenient. In actual fact his comments of poverty, Universal Credit and the big tech companies paying little tax in the UK has angered the Conservatives at times. Some proof follows:
Archbishop of Canterbury calls for halt of Universal Credit rollout as he calls exploitation of workers ‘reincarnation of ancient evil’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/universal-credit-zero-hours-contracts-archbishop-canterbury-justin-welby-benefits-amazon-tuc-dwp-a8534136.html
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby criticised Universal Credit – and Tories are angry
Justin Welby told the Trades Union Congress that Universal Credit had left many people ‘worse off’
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/archbishop-of-canterbury-justin-welby-speech-universal-credit-tories-507692
https://www.anglicannews.org/news/2018/09/archbishop-of-canterbury-calls-for-fundamental-reform-of-britains-economy.aspx
Archbishop of Canterbury calls for “fundamental reform” of Britain’s economy
Posted on: September 5, 2018
@ Elena:
I don’t care what Welby says about anything. I care about the record of oppression and injustice the Church of England has inflicted on the poor and working class not just in Britain, but wherever the Empire flew its flag and brought the CHurch along with it. Words are just that, words. Deeds are what matters. The Church has always been part of the Establishment and bolstered the noxious class structure of British society. And it still plays the same role today.
But one thing I’ll tell you Welby would never do: he would never tell his followers that Labour was evil and should be shunned in the polls.
You are done in this thread. And I’m invoking another comment rule: do not publish more than three comments in any 24 hours period. I do not allow pro-Israel apologists to monopolize the comment threads as you and others have done in this thread.
Was Usman Khan an Islamist or just a nut?
@ Peter Dahu: I think often there is little distinction. Mental health issues (if that’s what you mean by “nut”) often play a part in motivating radical violence, whether left or right, religious or secular. To be clear, I am not saying at all that the mentally ill are all terrorists or prone to violence.
But clearly, Khan was radicalized and an Islamist extremist regardless of whether or not there were mental health issues at play.
You can download a good study on the subject here:
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4508-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party
@ Elisabeth: I’d seen the book. But your comment gave me the idea to add it to the post itself, which I’ve done. Thanks.
[comment deleted: read my comment rules carefully if you ever comment here again. Comments must be your own ideas and words. A comment which consists entirely of an extended quotation of someone else’s words is not appropriate.]
Done! An excellent cause Richard. Was a challenge as I’m on a trip to London.
@Oui: Thanks so much!
Hi Richard,
The Israeli Lobby was successful in defeating Labour in Britian. The Working Class people rejected Corbyn because they think he represents communists, Islamists, IRA and imperialism, they thought he attracted the enemies of the West.
The Israeli Lobby played a big part in this brainwashing of the people. Can you please write a report about this because they are now doing the same to Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren.