The anti-Semitism report and Corbyn's suspension

It seems pretty clear to me that the outpouring or rage, directed at Jeremy corbyn, following the publication of the long awaited report on anti-Semitism in the Labour party is a phoney whirlwind, a sort of twitterstorm of the mainstream.

This isn't about anti-Semitism.  This is about making sure Corbyn is left holding the blame and - taking a longer term view - the leadership of the Labour Party.

As the report confirms:

The Labour party had - prior to Corbyn - inadequate processes for dealing with anti-Semitism. I don't see any claims that he took a good system and trashed it.  This was a party that had failed ot set up adequate processes for years - years and years - before corbyn became leader.  But it only became an issue after he was elected ... hmmmmm.

Things started to get better from 2018 after Formby took over. Before that, of course, the system was over seen by the likes of McNicol and 'whistleblower' Sam Mathews, who was meant to be overseeing the response to anti-Semitism ...

(as an aside, I'm bemused by the criticism of LOTO 'interfering' with the disciplinary process to speed it up so more anti-Semites could be expelled from the party, in a report that criticises the party for not dealing with complaints swiftly enough.)

This isn't about Corbyn. He's a scapegoat for the people who set up an inadequate system to deal with anti-Semitism,then tried to weaponize it to damage the leader.

None of this needed to happen, except, from the point of view of the self-proclaimed 'centrists' it did.

If Corbyn had been left to his own devices, he would probably have been leader for 3 years, stepping aside before the putative 2020 election to let someone younger and less controversial take over. In all probability, he'd have been content to see through the 'McDonnell amendment' so the left would always have been able to field a candidate.

Instead, the 'centrists' of the party decided to make a fight of it. You will recall they started tweeting their resignations and refusal to serves during his victory speech. No "Well, let's see where he's going with this" - just straight in with the attempts to sabotage his leadership, from the get-go. Then there was the conspiring, the planned rebellion before the referendum, the Chicken Coup, the second leadership contest, the deliberate breaking of the discipline system with the intention of making the party look anti-Semitic and so on, all sauced with briefings and leaking and so on, which the rightwing media lapped up and which the Labour 'centrists' were too dim-witted to think 'why?'

So instead of May trundling along with the majority she inherited from Cameron until 2020 and suffering the same fate as John Major, we had the 'blood in the water' election intended to finish Labour off, which instead broke May's government. Then suddenly Corbyn looked potentially electable - so the campaign intensified, culminating in the 2019 election and the election of a thumping Conservative majority.

The concern for the 'centrists' was that Corbyn would stand down to be replaced by an ideological soul-mate.  So getting rid of corbyn wasn't the point.  The point was to get rid of him and make sure no-one from the left ever wanted to be Labour leader again.  So the demonisation and the undermining was ramped up, resulting in the disaster of 2019.

That's all down to the 'centrists' and their dim-witted 'grown up' politics. I hope they are pleased with what they achieved.

Though I suspect they actually are - leftists will look at how Corbyn was monstered and think twice about standing for the leadership, even though they know they will be in with a good shout. Because who would want to go through what Corbyn was put through, and is still being put through, by the right wing media and their enablers in the Labour Party?

This isn't about anti-Semitism, or even Corbyn per se, but about showing any prospective leftwing leadership candidate what they are in for.

The 'centrists' can't win under one-person-one-vote, so they are making sure no-one from the left will ever want to be Labour leader again. 

Left Out - a serial review

 So, a few weeks ago a book was published, under the title of Left Out.  It was written by Graham Pogrund and Patrick Maguire and purported to tell the tale of Corbyn's leadership from its zenith in June 2017 to the disaster of December 2019.

I hadn't been terribly interested in reading it, frankly, because of some of the immediate media coverage had suggested it was going to be something of a Corbyn bash.  Hell, the Daily Mail got into a lather about it, though I won't link to their write ups.

Then I happened upon Pogrund's twitter account and I thought, "Well, he might work for Rupert Murdoch, but that doesn't sound too bad."  So I acquired a electronic copy of it and will now treat you - my riveted readers - an occasional chapter-by-chapter summary of it.

So now ...

THE PROLOGUE

This is very interesting.  Obviously, I am pro-Corbyn and am mostly interested in things that show him to be the luckless victim of the 'centrists' in Labout who thought they new better than the leader of the party and the membership who elected him (twice.)  But I'll try to be honest and reflect the opinions of the writers.

I am glad to report the opening pages offer plenty of rick pickings.

It opens - almost inevitably - at the moment of neesis, as the exit poll is announced on the 12th of December, 2019, and whatever hopes Labour supporters had of a repetition of the miracle of 2017 were dashed.  I was there, I remember how it felt.  The authors note - without comment - that Corbyn was viewing the exit poll at the offices of a charity called Freedom From Torture.  Perhaps, after the travails of the past few years, that was appropriate.

The authors note that Corbyn's inner circle had been aware they were up against it for sometime - that the grim, static polls in the run up to the election were reflecting what their own polling was showing (if anything, Labour outperformed their private polling, which indicated the party would win fewer than 180 seats.)  Never-the-less, the sense of shock and misery is well described in these opening pages, and rendered sympathetically.

The prologue quickly defines the fault line at the top of the party - between Corbyn's inner circle (McDonnell, Milne, Murphy and a few others) and those who opposed him, implacably, from the start.  Here the authors do not hold back, describing the latter as "the seditious officials at party HQ."  Dwell on that word for a few moments - "seditious."  That isn't all of it.  A few lines later, they quote an email from Corbyn complaining about "self-absorbed disloyalty" following the leaking of the party's campaign grid.  Think on that - someone had opted to divulge information they were trusted with relating to the conduct of the election campaign.  This isn't small stuff.  I'm nervous of throwing words like 'treachery' around, but sabotaging your party's camapign ... what else do you call it?  Let's foll the lead of Pogrund and Maguire and call it sedition.

Later on, they hark back to the happier result of 2017, commenting how that apparent high point really marked the beginning of the decline.  Though "the Project" had earned the authority to try things its way, in the face of "two years of bitter resistance from its internal opponents" it would really be all down hill from June 2017 - "the hostility of MPs and party officials did not abate" the authors note, referring to the leaked report on anti-Semitism, cataloguing the "toxic, distrustful and openly mutinous culture of Southside".

It isn't effusively pro-Corbyn, however.  The authors do note, even ain these aearly pages, that Corbyn and his inner circle aren't blameless in their undoing and offer some wanings of what may come, commenting on the issue of anti-Semitism in ambivalent wording, "Corbyn's own stances on anti-Semitism and foreign affairs came to wreak such damage on the Project."

I was, of course, completely right - the plot against Jeremy Corbyn

The right wing of the Labour Party actually preferred the party to lose elections than see Jeremy Corbyn become Prime Minister.

This is made clear in a massive internal report that has been leaked.

It's stunning, as it reveals not just the vindictive, self-destructive madness of the supposed 'centrists' and 'pragmatists' of the party, accustomed to being in charge and reacting with fury to the discovery that they were not.

This is how they responded to the 2017 exit poll:

08/06/2017, 22:48 – Patrick Heneghan: Everyone needs to smile
08/06/2017, 22:48 – Patrick Heneghan: I’m going into room of death
08/06/2017, 22:48 – Emilie Oldknow: Everyone needs to be very up beat
08/06/2017, 22:48 – Julie Lawrence: Its hard but yes
08/06/2017, 22:52 – Iain McNicol: I’m not in smiling and mixing and doing the 2nd floor.
08/06/2017, 22:53 – Iain McNicol: Everyone else needs to do the same.  08/06/2017, 22:53 – Iain McNicol: It is going to be a long night.

It goes on an on, example after example.

They were ecstatic at the idea of Labour losing an election; they celebrated polls showing substantial Tory leads and fretted about ones that showed the gap narrowing. And when reality hit them in 2017 they were devastated:

"They are cheering and we are silent and grey faced. Opposite to what I had been working towards for the last couple of years!!"

The response of Tracey Allen to the 2017 exit poll. She's not a Tory and the people she identifies as cheering are pro-Corbyn members. She's identified in the report as 'executive assistant/office manager, general secretary’s office'.

So, what had she been 'working towards for the last couple of years'? The overwhelming defeat of the Labour Party?

I note she is now identified as an ex-Labour staffer.

Remember how we were told - repeatedly - that Corbyn and his supporters were professional protesters and campaigners and weren't really interested in winning elections? Turns out the people saying that were self describing. They weren't interested in winning; in fact, they wanted Labour to lose.

Further, the report seems to back up claims made by Jon Lansman that the anti-Corbyn faction (that maintained control of the party apparatus until 2018) neglected to take any meaningful action over anti-Semitism:

They did nothing to address what they were later to claim was an incredibly pressing and urgent issue; it's hard to escape the conclusion that this failure to act was wilful and their goal was to discredit the leader, in spite of the damage this would cause the Labour Party - in the hope of forcing Corbyn to resign, either before or after an electoral defeat.

After discovering that Corbyn wasn't the hapless mook they thought he was they concocted an active smear campaign against him, resulting in two years of constant smears and exaggerations about anti-Semitism before they finally got what they wanted.

That's the 'pragmatism' of the 'concerned' Labour centrists for you.

Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party - Again

Within quick succession, Countdown maths wizard and twitterer Rachel Riley, alleged comedian David Baddiel and prominent lawyer Andrew Julius have all expressed very similar opinions / ideas:

These #3billboards are going round London today, organised by ex-Labour people, horrified by what their party has become. Their principles haven’t changed, they’re the best of Labour’s anti-racist past. They speak loudly and strongly, it’s their only option.#VoteLabourVoteRacism pic.twitter.com/xeROGzTqDv

— Rachel Riley 🍊 (@RachelRileyRR) 26 November 2019

Riley has been a ferocious critic of Corbyn for a while.  Notably, she recently alter a well know image of him being arrested at an anti-Apartheid rally in the 80s to call Corbyn a racist.

Classy.

It is worth noting that Riley is echoing the sentiments promoted by the billboards on the trucks shown in her tweet.  And those billboards would have had to be prepared well in advance.  They were commissioned by a group called The Community United against Labour Party anti-Semitism (CULPA) who have carried out similar stunts in the past.  I remember doing some vague digging about them and finding ... something ... that I thought was interesting but I can't for the life of me remember what it was.

(EDIT - I actually blogged on the earlier parade of billboards at the time.  I'm pretty sharp, I am.  Today's news, yesterday!  It's associated with a character called Jonathan Hoffman, a politicised pensioner who has somehow reconciled his Jewish identity and the racist politics of the English Defence League.  It seems Hoffman has learned something from buddying up with the EDL - in June he was found guilty of a public order offence after threatening a speaker at a demonstration.)

Then Baddiel:

One last time. Corbyn is not actively anti-Semitic. He is - and certainly has been in the past - tolerant of statements (and people) most Jews would consider anti-Semitic because he thinks other things are more important. However: most Jews would call that anti-Semitism.

— David Baddiel (@Baddiel) 27 November 2019

This in response to the surreal debate about whether Corbyn's pronunciation of Jeffrey Epstein's name is some sort of anti-Semitic act.

Baddiel is saying (as explained earlier and drawing on two different comments he made as proof) that he thinks Corbyn is passively / subconsciously anti-Semitic. As you said, it is right there. The word "actively" is the give away.

He isn't accusing Corbyn of wanting to beat up Jews, or shout abuse at them; he is saying Corbyn consistently disregards, minimizes or trivializes Jewish concerns about some of his associations and endorsements; and (important bit) this consistent pattern of behaviour is something that most Jews would consider anti-Semitic.

So passive / unconsious anti-Semitism, not the active, goose-stepping Horst Wessel Song singing sort. But still - in Baddiel's opinion, or at least that of "most Jews" - anti-Semitism.

And finally Julius, responding to comments made by Harold Evans, who he worked with on the Irving libel trial:

To purge the party of anti-Semitism will be the work of a generation. The evidence that the political will exists to undertake this task is not compelling: members are not yet ashamed enough of their party’s anti-Semitism. The driving out of leading Jewish (and non-Jewish) politicians from the party, who cited its anti-Semitism, did not have a substantial impact on party morale, still less commit its officials and elected members to decisive action. We cannot leave the work to the party itself. Supporters have to lend a hand. Depriving the party of a vote is a start.

Three diverse sources all with essentially the same message - that a vote for Labour is a de facto racist act, and that voting Labour is endorsing and accepting the anti-Semitism Riley, Baddiel and Julius claim infests the party.

Julius is the most interesting case.  He is a prominent legal practitioner well known for his involvement in the Deborah Lipstadt libel trial.  He is also - according to Wikipedia - "an advisory editor at the current affairs journal Fathom" - which has published negative pieces about anti-Semitism in Labour - and "a founding member of both Engage and the Euston Manifesto" - the latter linking him to another fervent Corbyn critic, Nick Cohen - and "From 2011 to 2014 he was chairman of the board of The Jewish Chronicle" - which brings in Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle since 2008, another trenchant opponent of Jeremy Corbyn.

The tactic seems to be persuading Labour supporters that - if they prioritise social justice (or free cricket and broadband) over confronting anti-Semitism (and thus, perforce, accepting it exists, as defined by Juius et al) - they are akin to Corbyn tolerating his dodgy mates, which means "most Jews" would consider them anti-Semitic.  Most people don't want to be thought of as racists or anti-Semites, so will be deterred.

What does all this mean?  I have no idea.  I do know, if I was inclined to buy into anti-Semitic tropes, I'd be having a field day with all these media tie-ins.  I really don't want to go down THAT road.  David Irving might revoke my honourable standing as a "Traditional enemy of truth."  But there is something going on, some of it clearly deliberate and orchestrated, and some possibly coincidental (I struggle to think why anyone trying to hatch a conspiracy would include the tiresome David Baddiel); but, either way, the previously discussed cynical weaponization of anti-Semitism seems to being deployed once again.

Rabbi urges congregation to vote against Corbyn

Though Jonathan Romain is a fairly high profile Rabbi, writing in several papers and popping up on TV and the radio, this story doesn't seem to have made it to the Guardian yet, so I'll take the unusual step of linking the Stephen Pollard edited Jewish Chronicle:

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain has taken the unprecedented step of writing to his congregation urging them to vote for whatever political party stands the best chance of beating Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour candidates in the forthcoming general election.

The Maidenhead synagogue minister revealed he had sent the letter to 823 families who are members of the Berkshire shul across 16 different constituencies suggesting that “a Corbyn-led government would pose a danger to Jewish life as we know it.”

The source article notes that it is unusual for a Rabbi to be issuing political advice like this, then continues with a lengthy Romain's letter.

"I should stress that the problem is not the Labour Party itself, which has a long record of fighting discrimination and prejudice, but the problem is Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn-led Labour, has at best, let antisemitism arise within its ranks, or at worst, has encouraged it.

“This has never happened under any previous Labour leader, whether under Tony Blair on the right, Neil Kinnock in the centre or Michael Foot on the left, so the finger of responsibility really does seem to point to Jeremy Corbyn.

“I am therefore suggesting we should each put aside all other considerations and vote for whichever party is most likely to defeat Labour in whatever constituency we are in - even if we would never normally vote for that party.”

I am quite happy with Rabbi Romain expressing his opinion.  I can't see the point of religion that isn't engaged in social and political activity.  Religion is a political activity, and religion that tells its members not to be political is an inherently political act.  Quiescence and silence are de facto support for the status quo.  You can't be neutral or disengaged.

That doesn't mean I agree with what the good Rabbi says, of course.  I hate what you say but I defend to the death the right to et cetera, et cetera.  It's a ridiculous mish-mash of nonsense.

It's absurd to say "Corbyn-led Labour, has at best, let antisemitism arise within its ranks"; 'let' implies a degree of quiescence and apathy.  Labour has not been passive.  It might not have done as much as the Jewish Chronicle or, it would seem, Rabbi Romain would like, but it has not ignored the issue with the passive indifference that 'let' suggests.

But Corbyn's Labour party has taken far more action against anti-Semitism and anti-Semites within Labour than any previous iteration of the party in the time frame laid out by Romain.  Setting aside Corbyn's long history of engagement and expressions of sympathy for British Jews, following the Chakrabarti inquiry anti-Semitism is now something you can specifically be expelled from Labour for.  Previously, it was fudged under the heading of 'bringing the party into disrepute'; the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been adopted by the party, controversial examples and all; and many, many cases have been processed, and at a faster rate than previously.

It has been alleged - by Jon Lansman - that the delays in processing of anti-Semitism cases was not due to indifference by Corbyn and his team but by politically motivated neglect by anti-Corbynites on the NEC, who delayed processes in order to generate negative headlines about anti-Semitism.

On this troubling issue, where justice is being delayed and anti-Semitism used as a prop in political theatre, Rabbi Romain appears silent.

That was his 'best case' scenario, remember.  He suggests that, at worst, "has encouraged" anti-Semitism with in the party.

I think claiming Corbyn has "encouraged" anti-Semitism is someone wanting to be martyred. He's either hoping for a libel writ or (more likely) fishing for abuse so he can jump up and down and say, "See! Anti-Semitism!" and Pollard can write more articles bloviating about the wickedness of Corbynites and Corbyn.

I hope people will observe the distinction between criticism and abuse.  It is not wrong that Rabbi Romain has used his position to make a political point; it is wrong that his point appears not to be based on facts and the genuine interests of his congregation but political animus seeking a means to its end.  But he does not deserve to be shouted down, threatened or abused for that.

First, because it would be utterly wrong to do that.  Second, because it would be utterly wrong to do that.  Third, (and a distant third) because it would play into the hands of the sort of people who don't have the interests of Labour or of British Jews in their hearts.

I wonder if any journalists will interview members of his congregation to find out what they think of the Rabbi's letter?  Find out what actual Jews think, rather than just disseminating the utterances of their leaders.

Of course, that would require a bit of journalism, something of a dead art in 2019.

Anti-Semitic images considered: the 'facehugger' on the Statue of Liberty

An occasional series where I will ponder allegations of anti-Semitism directed at the British Labour Party and its members.

In this case, we are thinking about an allegedly anti-Semitic image shared by a Labour Party member. Its origins appear to be a far right site which revels in anti-Semitism. Rather than reproduce the image itself, I will link to it. For those not wanting to sully their browser, it shows the Statue of Liberty with one of the 'facehugger' aliens from Alien attached to it's face. The alien has a Star of David on its back.

The image was shared by a Labour Party member. It's origins appear to be a far right site which revels in anti-Semitism.

It has been described as anti-Semitic because the Star of David identifies the alien with Jews, and thus Jews with the alien. Anti-Semitic discourse regularly describes Jews as sub-human, alien and parasitical. The idea that Jews are corrupting their 'host' culture (just as the alien implants an embryo in the host) is very common. The reading here is that Jews are the enemies of freedom (hence the host is Lady Liberty).

BUT there are two factors that have to be taken into consideration. First, the Star of David is blue, associating it with the Israeli flag rather than Jews in general. This could change the message slightly - it is probably more about free speech and the perception that Israel is trying to stop criticism of it (ironically by claiming anti-Semitism at every opportunity!).

That's a 'legitimate' message, though I find the image abhorrent for the reasons outlined above. it is to crude and easily read as applying to all Jews rather than a political criticism of Israel.  It is far worse than the mural in that regard.

I think the mural was intended as a critique of capitalism that was too easily interpreted as anti-Semitic due to the crudity of its execution; whereas this image seems too much like it is an anti-Semitic dog whistle - an image that is essentially anti-Semitic but which is trying to give itself a veneer of acceptability which fools people into thinking it is not poisonous. The woman who re-posted it probably naively saw it as a legitimate criticism of Israel, but it is far more than that.   She should have known better.

Also, it is not clear if the woman who posted it knew it was from a far right site. These images slosh around the internet, are passed on from one person to another, or show up in Google searches and the provenance may not be clear.  On this aspect, I am willing to give the woman in question the benefit of the doubt in that regard.  Of course, if it could be proven she visited the site and was aware of the sort of place it was, that would be another matter.

The woman in question was suspended and investigated.  The investigation concluded the image depicted "a monster with the Star of David printed on it on the face of the Statue of Liberty suggesting that Jewish people control America.” and that, though distasteful "these are generally distasteful cartoons about the perceived relationship [between] Israel and the US." I think they were probably a bit generous in their interpretation there.  I think she was very thoughtless and foolish.

She was given a formal warning about her posting; hoepfully, she shows better sense in the future.

Another day, another load of old bollocks from the Guardian

It must be a day ending in Y because the Guardian - remember when it used to be a good paper1 - is running another spurious story about Corbyn's leadership being threatened over anti-Semitism.

The headline the Guardian runs is: "MPs tell Jeremy Corbyn: get a grip or lose a general election" and the main 'Gotcha' is a comment by Angela Rayner, speaking at a Fabian Society event:

The sense of crisis engulfing Labour deepened further last night when shadow education secretary Angela Rayner, a Jeremy Corbyn loyalist, broke cover to express her dismay at Labour’s handling of antisemitism. The shadow cabinet was “totally exasperated by the failure of our movement to be able to deal with this issue”, she said.  

 In an extraordinary outburst at a Fabian Society conference, Rayner said she was “absolutely embarrassed by what’s happened over the last few days and I’ve made my representations very clear. If that means setting up an independent system, then so be it... let’s just get on and do it.” 

Note the contrast.  The headline deliberately puts Corbyn in the frame, implying he is in someway responsible for the 'crisis.' (2)  Whereas Rayner doesn't mention him at all in the quoted passages.  In fact, the specifies "Movement," not Corbyn or the leadership team.

Later on, the story quotes Clive Lewis:

The Labour frontbencher Clive Lewis, who is on the left of the party, called on the leadership to “get a grip” before it was too late. With the Conservative party looking likely to elect a populist rightwinger, Boris Johnson, to replace Theresa May, the dangers and challenges were clear, Lewis said. 

“Now more than ever our democracy needs Her Majesty’s Opposition to do what it says on the tin and oppose and act as a counterbalance to what a significant portion of the electorate will consider as a likely dangerous lurch to the hard right,” said Lewis. 

“If Labour cannot perform this crucial function, then the danger for us as a party is that an increasing portion of the electorate will ask themselves: ‘If Labour won’t or can’t step up, then who will?’ The answer to this question may not be one we like very much. As such it really is time to get a grip and quick,” Lewis added.

Note again the lack of a specific mention of Corbyn or the leadership in general.  Surely, if he had specified Corbyn, the Guardian could have quoted him saying that?  But instead of actually presenting what Lewis and Rayner said failry, the Guardian framed these comments which seem to be aimed at the party as a whole, or perhaps - since the Guardian seems to think it is okay to make up whatever spin you like for a story - they mean Corbyn's critics within the party. 

So, another shoddy attempt by the Guardian to advance its Corbyn bashing narrative instead of just doing honest and straight-forward reporting.

1 - No, me neither.
2 - A crisis that largely exists in newspaper headlines such as the example here.  Even journalists must eat, and that is facilitated by making things sound much more exciting than they actually are. 

Chris Williamson's re-admission

So, some Labour MPs and peers have written Corbyn a letter complaining about the re-admission of loudmouth MP Chris Williamson, who had been suspended over allegations he made anti-Semitic comments.

Never mind the Guardian's typically biased headline that Corbyn is facing "Mounting pressure" over this (as opposed to the same old stuff from the same old sources).

This, from the letter to Corbyn, is truly bizarre:

It is clear to us that the Labour party’s disciplinary process remains mired by the appearance of political interference. This must stop. We need a truly independent process.

So, a "truly independent process" is one where an independent decision is made by the people who have scrutinised the case and are empowered to make that decision; and then it is overruled because some people don't like it?

 Williamson is a tool, but Watson et al are dearranged.

Tony (not Tommy) Robinson quits Labour

I’ve left the Labour Party after nearly 45 years of service at Branch, Constituency and NEC levels,partly because of it’s continued duplicity on Brexit, partly because of it’s antisemitism, but also because its leadership is complete shit.

— Tony Robinson (@Tony_Robinson) 3 May 2019

That's a shame, I've always liked him, but if he quits, he quits. His choice. I am puzzled by his comment about 'duplicity' on Brexit. The policy has always been pretty clear and if he though Labour were supporting Remain after the referendum result, then he is a fool.

It is very disappointing to see him mentioning anti-Semitism as a reason, though I wonder if this might help us understand the reasoning behind the right wing 'anti-Semitism' strategy. It isn't going to have much of an impact on the general voters because they won't pay much attention to it or will generally write it off (correctly) as a hatchet job. But celebrities will be nervous about supporting a party that is continually being described as anti-Semitic, no matter how unfounded the claims. After all, they depend on their reputation and profile for their money, and are likely to be very careful in avoiding negative associations.

New day, new smear - Don't-appreciate-irony-gate

The sun has come up, so I suppose that must mean another dimly conceived attempt to drum up a scandal about Jeremy Corbyn.

Here it is:

Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Zionists in Britain “don’t understand English irony” in a speech that appeared to portray Jews as an alien culture. 

Luciana Berger, a Jewish Labour MP, said that the Labour leader’s comments, caught on camera at a pro-Palestinian event, were “inexcusable” and made her feel unwelcome in the party.

Link 

And here is the video of him making these 'inexcusable' remarks:

First, he's clearly talking about some very specific comments made by specific people who were present at a meeting.  We don't know how they acted, so condemning Corbyn when this important information is lacking is grotesque.  I might even say, it's inexcusable.

Also, Corbyn's point was that the people who go on about the "immemorial rights of Jews" to the territory of Mandate Palestine, the "Rights of Jews to a homeland," the right "self-determination" and the "Rights of Israel to defend itself" are attacking someone else for suggesting that Palestinians (the people who were living in Mandate Palestine before Israel and were dispossessed by the creation of Israel) might actually have these rights as well.

As he said, they don't want to study the history of the area - as far as they are concerned, it started in 1948, or possibly even on 1967.  And they don't get the absurdity of their position, demanding the suppression of one group's rights for the advantage of another's.  I'd go further than Corbyn.  I wouldn't call it a failure to appreciate irony.  I'd call it hypocrisy.

Corbyn meets with Jewish representatives

So, the Jewish Leadership Council and Board of Deputies of British Jews met with Jeremy Corbyn to discuss the issue of anti-Semitism in Labour. They say they found Labour leader's response wanting.

After a meeting with Mr Corbyn, which lasted more than two hours, the organisations said in a statement: "We are disappointed that Mr Corbyn's proposals fell short of the minimum level of action which our letter suggested. 

"Words in letters and newspaper articles will never be enough. We welcome the fact that Mr Corbyn's words have changed but it is action by which the Jewish community will judge him and the Labour Party."

The actual list of suggestions they presented to Corbyn which they feel he was unforthcoming on are as follows (my immediate thoughts in italics):

• A fixed timetable to deal with anti-Semitism cases 

Why just anti-Semitism? Why not all cases? Fixed timetables are always problematic as cases can be problematic. If the timetable is not met, what happens? Is the member automatically excluded, or are charges dropped? I don't think that either outcome is really useful.

• Expedite the long-standing cases involving Mr Livingstone and suspended party activist Jackie Walker

I agree Livingston has been allowed to fester. But this is outwith Corbyn's power. This lies with the NEC. The decision to suspend Livingston 'indefinitely' was taken by the former incarnation of the NEC under Iain McNicol.

• No MP should share a platform with somebody expelled or suspended for anti-Semitism 

Again, why the special rule for this particular offense? Why not racism or homophobia or just being scum? As it would apply to all members it could make something as simple as appearing on Question Time problematic. It would also hand power to the anti-Semites, who could effectively bar Labour MPs from appearing on any platform, just by being there. Far better to accept that there are times when MPs may have to share a platform with someone objectionable, and hold them very accountable for what they say.

• Adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism

I probably wouldn't have a issue with that. It is a straightforward definition.  Some people don't like it as they feel it conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, but I don't see it.  If you can't manage to criticise Israel without coming across as a Jew hating lunatic, then you probably are a Jew-hating lunatic.

• Transparent oversight of the disciplinary process

I'm not comfortable with the idea that internal Labour Party issues are to be made 'transparent' - does that mean public? There are all manner of issues around this. Remember that disciplinary issues can result in someone being cleared - having their reputation damaged by the investigation process would be very problematic. Remember what happened to Carl Sargeant? He didn't even have any allegations publicised.

As you can see, a lot of them rely on unacceptable special pleading or violate principles of natural justice.

I am interested to know if they have issued a similar set of demands for the Conservative party?  Surely they can't be saying there is no anti-Semitism in the Conservative Party, or that its provisions for dealing with it are flawless?

A stronger message would have been one the removed some of the special pleading and focused on all forms of racism or bigotry aimed at the individual; and one that was clearly expected of all parties.  Developing a 'Code of Conduct' for for all political parties to deal with complaints like this would have been more useful than what seems to be their politically motivated campaign to target Labour and Corbyn.

More on Labour / Anti-Semitism

So, someone decided to stage a Three Billboards style protest about anti-Semitism outside Labour Party headquarters.

Clever, eh?  That'll show that nasty old anti-Semitic Labour Party the errors of its ways.

Obviously a stunt like that requires a bit off effort and money to stage.  It was carried off by something called "Community United against Labour Party Antisemitism’ aka Culpa.

Their spokesman is someone called Jonathan Hoffman who seems to be quite vociferous on twitter about anti-Semitism and how much he dislikes Jeremy Corbyn.  Beyond his high volme tweeting, Mr Hoffman has a considerable cyber-footprint.

Let's look into some of the organisations that have hosted Mr Hoffman's views, shall we?

• On visiting the United With Israel website, I was prompted to watch "A moving tribute to fallen IDF soldiers" and asked whether I thought Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel.
• Harry's Place is somewhere I haven't looked at in years. Glancing in today I see the first article, by 'Lucy Lips' describing Jewish Voice Labour ' as 'Quislings.' Quisling, you will recall, is the fellow who served as a Nazi figurehead in Norway in WW2. Yup, that's someone describing Jews as Nazi collaborators. Wonder if that will get bigged up by Jonathan Hoffman? Or is it only ant-Semitic if Corbyn does it, Jonno?

• UK Media Watch admits openly (though perhaps disingenuously) that it was established to promote "Fair and accurate coverage of Israel."
• Z-Word seems to be a defunct, indeed perhaps entirely deleted, blog, run by the American Jewish Committee which describes its mission as "Advocating for Israel and the Jewish People." Interesting they put Israel first ...

Hoffman was also, apparently, chairman of something called the Zionist Federation until 2012, at which point he seems to have been booted out of it for abusing people he did not agree with and for cosying up to the racist English Defence League. I am not making this up.

It was interesting to discover the intriguing connections between an anti-Corbyn stunt and various pro-Israel organisations. This is nothing to do with anti-Semitism, it is obviously a hatchet job on Corbyn because of his pro-Palestinian views and links.

Labour and Anti-Semitism (probably the first of many)

So, you might wonder what has prompted me to stir in my Cthulhuesque slumber?

Today in parliament a debate was held on the issue of anti-Semitism.  Its a rather important issue and one which - you'd hope - would transcend party politics.  Sajid Javid, opening the debate for the Conservatives:

"While I would much rather that this issue transcended party politics [It does, there are plenty of anti-Semites in your own party.  The problem is that you are incapable of transcending party politics.] as other forms of racism have done for a long time, we cannot and we must not ignore the particular concern with elements within the Labour party [but we'll pretend there isn't anything to worry about in the Tory party]. Nor can we ignore the fact that this increasing concern has correlated with the current leader of the opposition, and the waves of activists that have come with him [Even though research has indicated anti-Semitic attitudes have waned since Corbyn became leader and the are less common in Labour now than in the Conservatives. Those activists - also known as young people - are far more likely to reject anti-Semitism than older people, who disproportionately support the Conservatives].”

 Javid uses a debate on a serious issue to attack Labour and Corbyn, and accuses young people of being swivel-eyed anti-Semites. You wonder why young people scorn the Tories?

 He also says, "I thank the leader of the opposition for attending this debate. It won’t perhaps be the most comfortable three hours of debate that he has sat in on, but he makes the most of it and his effort is appreciated for attending. There has, frankly, been a deeply worrying lack of leadership and moral clarity on this issue from him."

Clearly indicating that this is simply going to be a party political attack on Labour, and particualrly on Corbyn; and repeating the false claim that Corbyn is somehow vacillating because he isn't doing things he is not actually able to do.

There are words to describe him, but they can not be used here.

Obviously, there have been constant allegations, insinuations and unfortunate interventions from George Galloway:

Make no mistake. This is a #Coup against Corbyn #ProudOfCorbyn

— George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 17 April 2018

(Can anyone recall a post-2004 intervention by George Galloway that was not unfortunate?  why is he even a thing anymore?)

I'll try to post some of my branes on this issue ... and other stuff as well.

I'm sure my thoughts will have as decisive an impact in the matter of anti-Semitism as they have on every other matter.