Another example of fake ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party

April 22, 2018

by Martin Odoni

Kevin Clegg is not a name that many people will be particularly familiar with, but it is the name of someone who is caught up in a very familiar controversy. He has been suspended from the Labour Party, under investigation into alleged ‘anti-Semitic’ behaviour.

I draw attention to Kevin’s case, because it is another textbook example of why the current ‘crisis’ of anti-Semitism in the party has been blown way out-of-proportion. In fairness to the party’s compliance unit, it has no choice but to suspend members until the accusations against them have been fairly assessed. But the problem, especially in the media, is the accusations themselves are being fallaciously presented as ‘evidence’ that anti-Semitism is endemic in the party. Close examination of many of the complaints, as I keep stating, paints a very different picture. This is certainly true in Kevin’s case.

NB: I am fairly sure there is an anti-Semitism complaint somewhere in the queue against me. Ironic, given I am Jewish, but last year I pointed out to the Zionist bully-boy, Jonathan Hoffman, that his behaviour towards Jewish critics of Israel is anti-Semitic. He claimed that he had reported me to Labour’s compliance unit for it.  (What precisely he has accused me of is unclear. Using the term ‘anti-Semite’ as an insult, perhaps, but even by Hoffman’s standards, that is amazing hypocrisy). That was eleven months ago, and I have heard nothing back from the Labour Party about the matter since. But the point is, if you feel that I can be presented as evidence of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, you clearly have no idea what the term means. The worry is that an awful lot of people making official judgements on the matter do not appear to know either.

The document

Kevin was sent a document outlining the complaint against him, based on news articles he has shared on his Facebook timeline. He put together a response in his own words, so I do not need to go into a detailed analysis here; instead, you can view the response, which he has turned into a .PDF and uploaded to Dropbox, by clicking here.

What I wish to point out is that every detail of the complaint levelled at Kevin comes from a vintage conflation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and opposition to Israel. Only one instance of the word ‘Jews’ was highlighted in the entire document sent to him, and that was not Kevin’s use of the word; instead it was in the headline of an article to which Kevin had linked, reporting the findings of an opinion poll. The headline in question had only used it as part of the term ‘Israeli Jews’, simply to distinguish Israeli-Jewish views from the views of other people living in Israel.

Screenshot from 2018-04-21 11-26-27

All other references called into question were uses of the words ‘Israel’ and ‘Zionists’ – neither of which are or ever have been synonyms for ‘Jews’ no matter how much the Israeli lobby wishes they were – and an article rightly criticising the megalomania of Israel’s Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.

University of Manchester censors anti-Zionist speaker

Anti-Semitism in the Independent?!?

It is interesting that Kevin is being held responsible for the wording of journalists writing for The Independent. It is also interesting that, if they truly believe these articles Kevin is sharing on social media to be anti-Semitic, no one appears to be complaining to The Independent about the ‘racist attitudes’ of its journalists.

The wild exaggeration of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, transforming it from ‘slight problem’ to ‘crisis epidemic’, is crystallised by Kevin’s example. A deliberate, cynical and false conflation of Jews with Israel is what gives so much of the issue its legs. Remove that conflation, and the true scale of the problem would be shown to be a fraction of how it is being presented.

Paranoia is not justification

I hear people arguing that this cynicism is no such thing, but fear. There is a terror among modern Jews, they argue, that the current time of relative quiet among anti-Semites is just the temporary respite before ‘the next Pogrom’. I would say this is probably a correct explanation (although even that argument, once again, conflates Jews with Zionists and Israel supporters). It is a paranoia I have felt for myself at times in my life.

But understanding the reasons for paranoia does not stop it being paranoia, nor  does it justify some of the deeds being carried out in the name of that paranoia. Knowingly throwing false accusations at people and sullying their names is illegal and it is malicious. No one should understand that better than the Jewish people, given the false accusations we have had to endure collectively ourselves down the centuries.

We also need to pause and ask ourselves where that logic can lead. It was, after all, another paranoia that led to the greatest crime ever committed against the Jewish people. It was the paranoia of the German people, thinking they were being made the world’s punching-bag for the troubles of the First World War and the economic disaster of the 1930s. The paranoia started with vilification of Jews, and from there slowly, gradually led to the Holocaust. We can understand that paranoia, especially given the deprivation and misery of the Hyper-inflation years in the Weimar Republic, but that does not come within a hundred-thousand miles of justifying what followed.

Nor is what Israel, or its supporters around the world, are doing right now.

15 Responses to “Another example of fake ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party”

  1. I would say recklessly exploited for political purposes

  2. Terry Norman Says:

    Giving the Tories the ammunition to exploit the Labour party, these blairite & right wing Labour members are destroying the chances of a future Labour government,

  3. As I have definitely shared your articles and others on this topic and expressed supportive opinions of the same on Facebook and elsewhere, I suspect I may get suspended too (if anyone ever reads anything I post, which I suspect they don’t!)

    But the really frightening thing about this utterly synthetic campaign is that it may well in time lead to precisely the virulent and evil anti-Semitism it claims to be protesting about. Which may indeed be the intention i.e. that a rise in real anti-Semitism will drive more Jews into the arms of the Zionists and the current Israeli regime.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      It’s reaching the point now that being suspended from the Labour Party for ‘anti-Semitism’ is becoming a badge-of-honour, as it almost invariably means you’ve expressed an objection to Israeli atrocities.

      As for the rest, see my comments on a previous post about Zionism being a failed ideology. It stems from anti-Semitism, it co-operates with anti-Semitism, it breeds anti-Semitism. Zionism and anti-Semitism are the same thing.

      • Florence Says:

        Many members of the Labour party are so busy self censoring, and policing and enforcing the unspoken rules on their social media groups, no one would dare say that! What a dreadful state of affairs.

  4. Apparently, (correct if wrong) it’s not illegal to be ‘anti-Semitic’ – just as it’s not illegal to be racist or homophobic, etc. What is illegal and prosecutable, as listed in a British police manual, is the illegality of unacceptable hate as to be deemed a ‘hate
    crime’ within which blatant racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, etc. issues may be judged as to be seen that a hate crime has been committed. That said, one asks what is it to do with the Labour Party investigating alleged hate crimes? All issues of anti-Semitism in Labour should be in the hands of the police, and for the police to decide if ‘a crime of hate’ (anti-Semitism) has been perpetrated as to be prosecutable.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      It’s not really a question of legality. The reason political parties often wish to investigate alleged hate crimes among their own membership is because hate crimes are, by nature, political to some extent. Given the political nature of the parties themselves, there is a very real danger of a hate crime therefore reflecting back on the wider organisation, and in most (not all) cases, the organisations won’t wish to be associated with such behaviour. It doesn’t necessarily follow that an expulsion from a party will lead to a prosecution, in the same way that someone getting thrown out of a private club for breaking the club rules won’t necessarily face legal proceedings afterwards either.

      • Bobbie Cee Says:

        Clearly, with Labour’s difficulty in resolving issues with so many suspended members, some who are Jewish, shows Labour is unable, even, incapable of finalising accusations of alleged wrongdoing. And, that there’s a case that accusations of hate crime (anti-Semitism) should be put into the hands of prosecuting services outside of the Labour Party where expertise will exhibit proper and due process of law where ‘hate crime’ is alleged to have occurred within the Labour Party.

      • Martin Odoni Says:

        As being a racist is not, in itself, illegal, it’s unclear whether the prosecuting services will have the power to intervene.

  5. Hoffman is a stupid ignoramus. When I accused him of being another Jack Ruby, his response was “Who’s Jack Ruby?”
    Hofman is just another “useful idiot” for the zionists.
    They use blockheads like him for their own purposes.
    And he is stupid enough to allow himself to be manipulated.
    Ultimately, this current fake campaign is motivated by a whole complex of motivations, such as:-
    Likud promoting aliyah;
    zionists promoting antisemitism;
    defending zionist racism and expansionism in Palestine; and
    Tories using the issue to attack Labour – falsely, of course, as they are far more racist than the Labour Party ever could be.
    I blame people like the former Chief Rabbi Sachs for causing such a venomous exceptionalist atmosphere in Britain.
    It may not be what he intended but it goes to underscore the old saying “Be careful what you wish for”!

  6. Roger Malik Says:

    Lord Triesman’s resignation from the Labour Party.
    It seems that Lord Triesman has used the media to his own advantage as he often did in other circumstances.
    David Triesman, as union official in NATFHE, displayed this ‘quality’ in the 1987 Weaver v NATFHE Industrial Tribunal case when he claimed after the union had denied advice and assistance to a victim of racial harassment by a union officer, under oath, that the union had an extant policy which did not provide advice and assistance to victims of racist harassment but gave those responsible for the racist harassment trade union representation. The Industrial Tribunal, despite criticising NATFHE officials for their actions in the Weaver case, accepted this policy. Subsequent information from within NATFHE circles showed that, contrary to Triesman evidence at the Industrial Tribunal, this policy was non-existent and had been put to the Industrial Tribunal to avoid he union being found guilty of racial discrimination. For further information you should consult ‘The Anti-racism Myth: A Flight into the Cuckoo’s Nest’ by G Weaver, especially chapters 7,8,10,15,16. This can be downloaded free at

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: