by Martin Odoni

The endless narrative of ‘bullying’ and ‘aggression’ by the Left in this country almost invariably goes unquestioned in the media. Abusive terminology such as ‘Trots-rabble-dogs‘, alongside long lists of (rather soft) complaints about being bullied over social media from Labour Members of Parliament on the party’s right wing, have given an ugly impression of the modern Left. The fact that calling an entire political movement a name like ‘Trots-rabble-dogs’ is itself a form of bullying should raise doubts about how fair the narrative really is. But there are more severe reasons for a pushback against it.

As I reported on Tuesday, a fringe event at the Labour Party Conference was abandoned due to a bomb threat. Thankfully it proved to be a malicious hoax rather than a real attack, and no one was hurt. But the event was still derailed, and the way the threat has been reported subsequently – where it has been at all – has been noticeably vague and misleading.

The main issue has been that headlines have been, I suspect deliberately, worded to imply that the incident was part of the now-tedious ‘anti-Semitism-in-the-Labour-Party’ furore of the summer, which has been presented consistently (and falsely) as a problem with left wing members. In fact, the bomb threat was against the screening of a film about Jackie Walker, a Jewish, pro-Palestine, veteran Labour activist, who is herself substantially of the left. She is also a Jeremy Corbyn supporter, and therefore hardly a likely target for the ‘army of left wing anti-Semitic bullies’ that Luciana Berger swears blind dominates the Labour Party, and yet for whose existence she can mysteriously offer no real evidence. From headlines and posts shared on social media, you would be forgiven for imagining the black-shirts had been after Walker for conducting a public Seder instead.

Take this bizarre declaration on Twitter from the (self-appointed and largely non-representative) Board of Jewish Deputies; –

BoD lies about bomb threat

The Board of Jewish Deputies offers a thoroughly absurd interpretation of the bomb threat against Jackie Walker’s film-screening in Liverpool.

Why would they assume that the bomb threat was anti-Semitic, when it was made against a film about a woman the Board themselves have repeatedly condemned as, among other slurs, an ‘unapologetic Jew-baiter’? Unless they were trying to exploit what happened Tuesday night for their own propaganda purposes?

Maria van der Zyl smears JW

The new chair of the Board of Jewish Deputies called Jackie Walker a ‘Jew-baiter’ less than two years ago.

And look how The Guardian headlined it; –

Guardian bomb scare headline

Subtle but clear misleading implication in the Guardian’s headline about the bomb threat.

This is certainly less crude than the Board of Deputies’ shenanigans. But the use of the term ‘Jewish event’, rather than ‘Fringe event’, and the failure to mention that it was hosted by a Corbyn supporter, means that anyone who only spots the headline but does not have time to read the article, is going to get a very wrong idea of what happened. Especially so in the context of the recent, semi-fictitious ‘anti-Semitism’ hysteria.

You just know that if this had been an event discussing Jews being victimised by Labour leftists, the editor at The Guardian would have found a way to squeeze a term like ‘by bullying Corbynistas’ into the headline.

Moving on to Wednesday night, I myself was at another meeting in Liverpool where Israel/Palestine and the Labour Party were under discussion, at a pub called The Caledonia. Now, that meeting was also the subject of a bomb threat! The police sent a car around to keep watch, but in truth, none of us took it seriously this time and the discussion went ahead in full. (We were following the logic that, if the ‘bombers’ would not blow up a meeting the previous night when someone as high-profile as Jackie Walker had arranged it, why would they bother blowing us up?) Sure enough, nothing happened. But even so, it was another act of anti-Leftist intimidation. And you can be sure there will be little attention given to it in the mainstream.

The overwhelming impression one gets of the current narrative of the Overton Window is that the Left must not be allowed to be seen as victims. This is brought into even more disturbing focus by another very ugly incident that happened in the last week. Not at the Conference, but in Wakefield, West Yorkshire.

Jade Unal is an activist and local campaigns manager for Young Labour. On Friday 21st September, she and her mother were having a quiet drink in a local pub, when, without warning, several people came up to them and physically assaulted them both. They snarled at Jade that she was,

“a posh c*nt in politics, that’s stuck up your own a*se”.

They also accused her for no apparent reason of being ‘a paedophile’.

Both Jade and her mother were badly beaten. Jade’s head was smacked against the bar so hard that it came out in a giant lump, with a severe gash in her scalp. The assailants then followed them back to their home, where they threatened to set the building on fire.

Unsurprisingly, Jade had to go to hospital to get her injuries seen to. With her permission, I will now share pictures of the injuries. Please note before you scroll down that they are quite disturbing.









JU side

Just to underline how badly she was beaten, here is a photo of her without injuries to compare; –

JU uninjured

Jade Unal, prior to injuries suffered in an attack.

Now, there is no doubt, from what her assailants told her, that Jade was attacked for political reasons. Who precisely the assailants were, and what exact political orientation they have, is not clear, but Jade is a Labour leftist, and she was quite explicitly attacked for her politics. It is doubly disturbing that her mother was also attacked, and that the assailants then threatened to torch their home. Jade, it must be emphasised, is herself a mother, and so her daughter has effectively been threatened at the same time.

Jade has received precious little help from the authorities. The local police force, the West Yorkshire Police (former stamping ground of Sir Norman Bettison – no surprise then), have taken her complaint, but done nothing subsequently to help her or to find her assailants. Jade also tried to get the Social Services involved, as her attackers had children with them at the time. But again, a meaningful response has been unforthcoming. The Labour Party itself has offered precious little reaction. Jade is getting a lot of support from those who know her, but on an official level, she is largely ignored by anyone outside of her network of friends.

This was an actual and very vicious act of real violence. And nobody who can do anything about it seems to care, and nobody who should at least be drawing public attention to it seems enthusiastic about doing so.

In short, while I do not wish to sound over-dramatic, the British Left is currently facing growing aggression and threatening behaviour from other parts of the political spectrum. That aggression is largely being overlooked or misrepresented. When Labour centrists complain about ‘bullying’ and ‘victimisation’, as I have pointed out before, they seem highly selective over which victims they care about. Hence, an almighty ker-fuffle is made over the very obviously faked and theatrical ‘bodyguard’ requirements of Luciana Berger this week. But there is a muted reaction, or no reaction at all, when a young woman in the party is actually beaten up for her political persuasion, and when party meetings are threatened with bomb attacks.

I am not in any doubt that there are some violent, over-aggressive leftists out there. But the Left is not the aggressor here. It is the target. And it is time that it was made clear to the public at large just how dangerous the aggression is getting.


EDIT 11:15am 27-9-2018: I have received a number of slightly odd complaints on social media about the ‘cover photo’ for this article. It does not actually appear in the article itself, but appears in links to it on sites like Twitter and Facebook. This is the image in dispute; –

Far-right violence

The far right is on the rise across Europe, but the British media and political class waste so much time worrying about the far less violent resurgence of the left.

The image is of protesters at a far-right demo in Germany from earlier this year that turned violent. The objection seems to be that the readers do not think it is relevant to the (comparatively) low-key events discussed in the article itself.

Well, allow me to retort; it is very much relevant. The point is to do with the aforementioned fuss being made over ‘left-wing bullying’ that currently dominates media interest in the UK (mainly because of occasional nasty tweets being sent in the heat-of-the-moment). This fuss is being made while far-right violence is on the increase. This very much includes here in the UK, with the very aggressive support for Stephen ‘Tommy Robinson’ Yaxley-Lennon. A couple of months ago, I was literally threatened with murder by a ‘Free Tommy’ yob over social media.

Okay, maybe I should have been more explicit, but my point was, if people are bothered about political violence, why are so many of them looking for it on the left, when all of this is happening on the right?

Sounds perfectly consistent with what is in this article? I would say so.


CORRECTION: This article previously indicated that Jackie Walker attended the screening of her film. In fact, she was not in attendance in person. Text amended accordingly.

by Martin Odoni

A fringe event at this week’s Labour Party Conference in Liverpool has been abandoned due to a bomb threat. The event was an early screening of The Public Lynching Of Jackie Walker, created by the eponymous Jacqueline Walker, and telling the story of how she was hounded out of the Labour Party on trumped-up charges of ‘anti-Semitism’. (Like myself, Jackie is a Jew, and also like myself, she is regarded as a ‘Wrong Kind Of Jew’ due to her opposition to Israel.)

Bomb threat & evacuation

A screening of Jackie Walker’s film in Liverpool is abandoned due to a bomb threat

The building hosting the event, Blackburne House, had to be evacuated, and the audience, after standing outside for some while, were instructed by the police to disperse a little after 8pm.

While not wishing to point fingers too soon, there have been numerous Zionist attempts to disrupt left-wing Jewish meetings over the last couple of years, including at a Jewish Voice for Labour fringe meeting this very week. In that light, a screening of a film in support of a Labour member expelled for supposed anti-Semitism is a prime target for violent threats.

Luciana theatrics

Luciana Berger only needs a bodyguard when the TV cameras are on her.

Perhaps Labour right-wingers like Margaret Hodge and Luciana Berger, with their ridiculous histrionics-for-the-cameras with needless bodyguards, and comparisons to the Holocaust, would like to consider that a real threat is being aimed at the very people by whom they claim to be threatened? There is every chance that this threat was made by one of Hodge’s/Berger’s allies. If that is the case, what will they have to say about that?

Anyway, Jackie has already responded with repeated declarations on social media that she will not be silenced. If you wish to help her in that endeavour, and in the interests of free speech, please consider donating to her GoFundMe campaign, so she can afford to hire the space to screen the film as widely as possible.

EDIT 21:55:

Happily, it does appear to have been a malicious hoax rather than the deployment of a real bomb. But the hoax has had the effect that was almost certainly desired of it, in that the screening of the film has been abandoned. This is intimidation and an affront to free speech.

Jackie has added the following information on her Facebook timeline about the threatening call that was received; –

The bomb-threat

The text of the threatening call.

by Martin Odoni

Another template readers can use for submitting e-mails to the Labour Party’s complaints team – at

To whom it may concern,

I wish to register my anger and disgust at Chuka Umunna MP, who has used a grossly offensive slur when complaining about supposed victimisation. He has publicly instructed Jeremy Corbyn to ‘call off the dogs‘, by which he means left wing members of the party who want to remove right wing members.

There has been a frequent pattern among high-profile figures on the right wing of the party of using the insult ‘dogs’ to describe the Labour left. It is both offensive to the demeanour and intelligence of the people it is aimed at, and snobbish and elitist. Prominent Labour figures have been employing the term for at least three years without sanction or reprimand from those in the party who have a responsibility to enforce the rules.

Umunna uses the term while actually complaining about supposedly being ‘victimised’ by the left of the party. He therefore is clearly aware of the unacceptable nature of bullying, denigrating behaviour. Therefore he has no right to indulge in such behaviour himself, which brings the Labour Party into disrepute.

It is high time the casual right-wng use of this slur was clamped down upon, and I therefore demand that Umunna is made an example of. I demand his membership of the party is suspended with immediate effect, pending a full and rigorous investigation into his conduct past-and-present, with a view to his possible expulsion.

With polite regards

Chuka Umunna

Chuka Umunna is one of the worst on the Labour Right for using offensive and bullying terms while complaining about supposed offensive and bullying behaviour

by Martin Odoni

Another template readers can use for submitting e-mails to the Labour Party’s complaints team – at

To whom it may concern,

I wish to register my disgust at, and my wish to see action taken against, the Enfield Labour MP, Joan Ryan. Her public outburst against members of her constituency party last night, after she lost a no-confidence vote, was both spiteful and offensive, and brings the Labour Party into disrepute.

Joan Ryan tweet-in-defeat

Joan Ryan displaying typical right-wing/Blairite ‘magnanimity’.

Ryan referred to honest party workers who voted against her as ‘Trots Stalinists Communists’. At least two of these terms are effectively pejoratives, and she has no reason to suggest that they reasonably apply to any fellow party-members, just because they have expressed no confidence in her. Her attempt to play down the outcome by pointing to the margin of her defeat was dishonest, as she had tried to ‘pad out’ the meeting with her supporters. Her response to still losing was vindictive and crude.

Joan Ryan no confidence vote stitch-up attempt

Joan Ryan tried to stich up the meeting in which she faced a vote of no confidence. And she still lost.

Ryan’s original attempt to accuse a Palestine Solidarity Campaign supporter called Jean Fitzpatrick of being ‘anti-Semitic’ was a disgusting slur in itself, and is also plainly McCarthyite conduct unacceptable in any member of the Labour Party. She has spent much of the last three years publicly undermining the Party leadership, which is effectively a manner of campaigning against the Labour Party. That is expressly against Party rules.

Joan Ryan has shown herself to be a toxic and damaging presence in the Labour Party, and does not appear to respect the rules therein. I demand her membership be suspended with immediate effect, and a full and rigorous investigation into her conduct past-and-present be undertaken, with a view to her possible expulsion.

With polite regards

by Martin Odoni

Template for people to e-mail complaints to the Labour Party, via

To whom it may concern,

Jess Phillips MP has made anti-Semitic remarks on social media. Please see below.

Jess Phillips anti-semitic statement against Israel

If a Jeremy Corbyn supporter had said “Isreali [sic] government are racist”, we know what would happen to him/her.

By referring to the Israeli Government as ‘racist’, Ms Phillips has used a term that applies equally to Nazi Germany, and therefore stands as a comparison with Nazi Germany. Under the terms of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, that makes her remarks anti-Semitic.

The party is presently clamping down ruthlessly on any statement made by members that can be presented as ‘anti-Semitic’, no matter how absurd the leap-of-logic required. Ms Phillips cannot expect to be treated differently from other members simply because she happens to be in the Parliamentary Party.

Therefore, I demand her membership of the Labour Party be suspended with immediate effect, while carrying out a full and exhaustive investigation into her conduct, past and present.

Polite regards

by Martin Odoni

No, seriously, how stupid are they?

David Collier is a racist and smear-merchandising Zionist blogger of precisely the kind that currently dominate the ‘Anti-Semitism-in-the-Labour-Party’ contrived hysteria. Yesterday, somebody added me to a Facebook group called ‘Palestine Live‘, and Collier noticed (obsessive, stalking weirdos these Zionists, are they not?), and decided to condemn me for linking to the blogpost I wrote over the weekend. But not having the courage to take me to task in person, he instead took a screenshot and then posted it onto his Twitter feed.

David Collier smear

David Collier attacks me without daring to confront me.

Collier also made some pretty huge assumptions about me in the process. He says Jews who reject Zionism, like myself, are; –

so lost that they comfortably swim with white supremacists, Holocaust deniers and antisemites.

All I can say to that is that I have not knowingly ‘swum with white supremacists, Holocaust deniers or anti-Semites’ in my entire life. That mention of white supremacists is perhaps a little two-faced, given the British Zionist movement’s undeniable links to the English Defence League. And it is also two-faced of Collier to have a cover picture on his feed reading, “Beyond the great divide the truth matters“, given how little priority he gives to accuracy when attempting to describe Jewish anti-Zionists. But I digress.

My point is this; how stupid do these people have to be? All Collier has done is given me a hint that I am starting to get under Zionist skins. Does he imagine that, by “screenshotting” me like this, he will ‘intimidate me into shamed silence’, or something? Does he imagine that by using an image of the link, rather than linking to the blogpost itself, it will be particularly difficult for me to provide counter-links that will allow people to view what I actually said, rather than his crude caricature of it?

But above all, does he not realise that, by trying to do a ‘public lynching’ job on me like this, Collier is demonstrating precisely the sort of toxic, bullying behaviour that is rife among Zionist fanatics, and to which I was referring in the very blogpost linked-to in the image in the first place? Talk about providing an object lesson in the very act of denying it.

Add to this, I probably would not even have noticed the attack, had it not been for our old comic ‘toothless attack-dog’, Jonathan Hoffman (another disturbingly-obsessive social media stalker) – perhaps also imagining that I would be intimidated – actually putting an image of Collier’s tweet on my Facebook timeline!

Do Collier and Hoffman really not grasp that the best indicator I can get that what I write is effective is that it bothers hate-preaching Zionist bigots like themselves? If Zionists were just ignoring what I write, I would take it as a sign that I am not accomplishing very much, and might question whether it is worth the bother of continuing. Moreover, Collier has a lot more followers on Twitter than I have as well, and many of them, who had probably never heard of me until this morning, now know of me and what my position is on Israel. So as things stand, I regard this as a nice, free promo for my blog.

So… thanks for the thumbs-up, Collier and Hoffman. You pair of cretins!


by Martin Odoni

Jews 4 Jez

I’m one of these. But this is not an easy position to adopt.

A ‘Theobald-Jew’

As I mentioned on a previous post, Jonathan Hoffman, the man who is to Zionist tolerance what the shark from Jaws was to convincing visual-effects work, told me the following recently; –

You are a disgrace. A Jew In Name Only. JINO According to the Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth in his The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich (1173), it was an apostate Jew, a certain Theobald, who swore that Jews had killed twelve-year old William, a tanner’s apprentice, to fulfill their “Passover blood ritual” in the fateful year of 1144—the first recorded such episode in a long line of murderous defamations. The world is teeming with Theobald-Jews who are ready to betray their own people to serve what they regard as their advantage.

An expression like ‘Theobald-Jews‘ is just an obsolete way of saying, “The Wrong Kind Of Jews” of course. But what Hoffman, and other aggressive Zionist smear-merchants are not very good at is developing their accusations beyond the label. They throw the name, and they sometimes offer a reason why the action has provoked the comparison, but they do not really establish why they believe the motive matches up.

What does Hoffman mean precisely when he implies that I am “ready to betray [my] own people to serve what [I] regard as [my] advantage”? For one thing, why is the Israeli Government supposed to be ‘my people’? For another, how can I have ‘betrayed’ them, when I have never professed any particular loyalty to them? How can it be ‘betrayal’ if I have not done anything underhand against them against their knowledge? But above all, what ‘advantage’ does he imagine I gain on a personal level from opposing Israel’s persecution of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

A frequent pattern

This is a frequent pattern I encounter when I cross swords with Israel supporters. A few years ago, an Israeli castigated me over social media in the following terms; –

such a “jew” martin, like yourself, cannot speak in the name of the jewish people. you see as “completely unnecessary” the existence and continuation of the jewish people, not simply of the state of israel!

i see completely unnecessary the existence of assimilated jews who are hostile towards jews/israel. Such jews should decide: either they’re completing the process of assimilation (and maybe becoming antisemitic – better antisemitic non-jew than a jewish anti-semite) or leave alone the jewish people. you can’t ride two bikes simultaneously and cynically use your “jewishness”: either one or the second.

NB: Please note that I did not change anything in the above passage. The poor grammar and appalling punctuation are not my doing.

Just to make clear, I had not said that I see the existence or continuation of the Jewish people as unnecessary. I had said that I did not believe that it had been necessary to found modern Israel, or to continue its particular status as a ‘Jewish state’. (My reasons why can be read here.) By the same measure, I had not claimed to speak ‘in the name of the Jewish people’. I had been speaking in my own name as a Jew. (“Two Jews, three opinions,” as they say.) Meanwhile, the Israeli’s insistence that my condemnation of Israel is me being “hostile to Jews” or a “Jewish anti-Semite” is not only yet another benighted conflation of Jews with Israel, it is also a variant on the same ‘Theobald-Jew’ accusation I got from Hoffman. When the Israeli accuses me of “cynically using [my] Jewishness”, he implies that I have an ulterior motive of some kind, but like Hoffman, offers no clear thoughts on what that motive is. The rest of his little rant basically amounts to saying that I have to be nice to Israel or I must keep my mouth shut, and ‘choose’ not to be Jewish anymore (which is not even possible, whether I like it or not – even if Gilad Atzmon thinks it is). His argument that the ongoing existence of myself and other Jewish anti-Zionists is ‘unnecessary’ seems like the real hostility, by any standards.

This demonstrates the oppressive attitude Zionist hardliners – gentile or otherwise – hold towards Jews. As far as the Zionists are concerned, Jews must ‘fall into line’. It is not gentiles, or Arabs, or even Palestinian Arabs more narrowly, that Zionist fanatics hate the most. The people Zionist fanatics hate the most are Jews who are not Zionists. Jews who will not fight to suppress the right of Arab people to have the self-determination that Zionists imagine they are fighting to bestow upon Jews themselves, Any Jew who steps out of that line is told he is no longer a Jew, which rather seems to run completely contrary to the idea of Jews having self-determination. That is why Zionism is not about granting self-determination to Jews, but about imposing a collective-determination upon Jews. Anyone, anywhere on Earth who questions it is attacked, but most especially if they are themselves Jewish, as they are not obeying the will of the ‘Hive-mind’ of Zionist imagination.

Meanwhile, anti-Semites think that all Jews already are in line, and that all Jews are somehow ‘secretly working behind the scenes to take over the world’, and other such would-be-hilarious-in-any-other-context tropes.

Anti-Semites and Zionists are flip sides of the same coin, especially to Jewish dissenters. One group hates us for trying to run the world when we are not, and the other group hates us for not trying to.

In short, we get it in stereo.

Anti-Semites & Zionists both hate Jewish dissenters

Now here is the detail I need to get across; an anti-Zionist Jew (or just a Jewish opponent of Israel) gets the worst of both worlds. We know, and anticipate, that anti-Semites are not going to stop hating us simply because we oppose Israel, because they will assume our motives are ingratiation, and will still assume all the other stereotype-Jewish characteristics are true. While Zionists accuse us of being ‘traitors’, and ‘Jews In Name Only’.

With this in mind, it should be as clear as the midsummers day sky that I, and other non-Zionist Jews, have no ulterior motive to adopt the position we do. It is not in our private interests to support Palestinian rights. All it does on a personal level is double the number of opponents we have. Our lives would be infinitely easier if we just shrugged our shoulders and supported Israel without question. The temptation to cave in and get back into line can be strong, especially when we become ostracised by Jewish communities that are stubbornly Zionist.

It is also an immensely frustrating position to be in in wider society, due to our voices being drowned out to the extent that few people realise we are here. Jewish anti-Zionists are routinely ignored by a media near-conspiracy that is determined to present a black-and-white “British-Jews-feel-they-are-under-siege!!!” narrative that is a useful weapon with which to attack the Left. Certainly, no one prominent in the media will ever speak up for Jewish anti-Zionists, and no one is eager to give us a platform to speak for ourselves. This is probably because a Jew who opposes Israel and Zionism is a confusing, water-muddying anomaly in many minds.

As an example, James O’Brien, the Thinking Liberal’s Idiot of LBC Radio, is always bending over backwards to sound sympathetic and sensitive to what he thinks are ‘Jewish concerns’ about the threat of the ‘next Pogrom’. But in doing so, he joins in with the right wing media insistence that ‘British Jews’ are a homogeneous mass with that same aforementioned ‘Hive-mind’. He therefore assumes that if one Jewish Briton expresses wild paranoia about ‘surging anti-Semitism’, and the need for Israel to do absolutely anything it sees fit to prevent it, all Jewish Britons are feeling the same panic, and believe in the same remedy. A Jew who opposes Israel is therefore a cause of confusion, and no likelier to get a platform from O’Brien, or others of his ilk, than a Blackshirt. Indeed, I see no evidence of the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists even being recognised in wide stretches of the western media. O’Brien, if he truly wants Jews to believe he cares and sympathises, needs to get it into his head that by projecting the views of some Jews onto all, he is being profoundly offensive.

Before anyone suggests it, Jewish anti-Zionists certainly do not get paid expressly for speaking out against Israel – or certainly I never have been. This blog is entirely free to read, and I have never been paid a penny for any of the articles written on here, even from adverts that sometimes appear in headers and footers. During my stint writing for The Canary, I did get paid a (very) small amount for my work, but only three of the forty-odd articles I wrote there were about Israel/Palestine. I do not have the precise figures, but I reckon the pay I got for all three articles would have been around £6. Not really worth all the bad feeling just for that, is it?

I have also lost friends within Jewish communities, several of whom were quite close to me, over my position on Israel, and I know I am far from the only Jewish anti-Zionist to experience that. Moreover, I frequently have very bitter arguments with members of my extended family who live in Israel, and who believe I am brainwashed by ‘politically correct’ propaganda.

All of that grief for the sake of £6? Seriously?

If you believe I would go through these miseries for an amount of money that piddling, you must believe every stereotype you ever heard about ‘Jewish money-grabbing’.

Any friend of Netanyahu is a friend of anti-Semites

No, I have no ulterior motive for supporting the Palestinians. I do it because it is right. It is right, because I recognise that Palestinians are as entitled to the same human rights as any other people. It is right because I recognise that Israeli policy encourages and creates a pretext for anti-Semitic feeling, potentially endangering Jews worldwide. It is right because I recognise that creating Israel at the outset was an act of anti-Semitism, as it created a geographical schism between many Jews and the rest of the human race. And it is right because, when Binyamin Netanyahu, without asking, tries to carry out his crimes in the name of the Jews of the whole world, my silence would make me complicit. That gives me a responsibility to say no, and to make damned clear why I am saying no. Especially when Netanyahu

  • tries to condemn a Labour Party leader, who has fought against anti-Semitism his whole life, as an anti-Semite,
  • tries to acquit Adolf Hitler of much of the blame for the Nazi Holocaust, and transfer it to Palestinians,
  • invites to Israel a Filipino elected-dictator, who boasts of being like Hitler, to open a memorial to the Shoah,
  • publicly expresses sentiments that resonate loudly with echoes of Nazi Germany’s ‘Survival Of The Strongest’ narratives.

When discussing ‘Bibi’, we are talking about a self-proclaimed ‘leader of the Jewish people’ who says Jeremy Corbyn is a racist, that Adolf Hitler was not, and that Rodrigo Duterte is a sensitive choice for unveiling a memorial to victims of a genocide. If the price of opposing a country led by a doublethinking megalomaniac like Netanyahu is for me to be labelled a ‘Jewish anti-Semite’, then so be it. It hurts and demeans me, but I am used to it, and I will simply shrug it off.  However, that will not always be easy, especially this week; –

I should know this week whether I am to be expelled

As regular readers should know, the latest aggravation I am experiencing in my capacity as a Jewish opponent of Israel is that I have been suspended by the Labour Party. From what I hear on the grapevine, my suspension is one among a number of cases that are expected to be assessed this coming Tuesday.

I genuinely do not know how it will pan out. It will truly anger and frustrate me if my case is assessed, as appears likely, by a gentile who knows little about the subject, and she judges me – a Jew who has experienced the sharp end of this prejudice – to be an anti-Semite. All because of a hopelessly-flawed definition of anti-Semitism being treated as Holy Writ. Anyone who understands and accepts that definition will not only imagine they know what anti-Semitism is better than I do, but will even be judging me under those terms. That is not only absurdly back-to-front, it is also a painful, powerless feeling.

As I say, my life would have been a lot easier had I just toed the line. But it would still have been wrong of me to do so.