by Martin Odoni

Just offering my ha’penny’s-worth on the BBC Panorama on-screen sewerage-fest from Wednesday. I am not going to offer a comprehensive breakdown of what was wrong with the ‘documentary’, as there were only two things wrong with it; everything that was said, and everything that was done. These pictures will offer a few hints about some of the problems though; –

Asa Winstanley

Asa Winstanley about BBC Panorama

Alex Richardson, regular messenger between LFI and the Israeli Embassy

Alex Richardson of Labour Friends of Israel (afiliation unmentioned in the programme.)

Ella Rose

Ella Rose of the Israeli Embassy (afiliation unmentioned in programme.)

If you want a comprehensive breakdown, please see here, herehere and here.

For me, my main focus is a small point about the Deputy leader of the Labour Party, and most powerful weapon the Conservative Party has left in its arsenal, Tom Watson.

Tom Watson revealed

Ah, this explains so much….

Sorry, wrong picture there. Lex Luthor cannot be Tom Watson. Luthor is someone who is somewhat intelligent after all. Let me find the right picture, give me a moment. Ah yes, here we go; –

Slimy backstabbing weasel

Oh hi, Tom.

Unmistakable.

The angle I wanted to highlight is Watson’s treatment of the party’s General Secretary, Jennie Formby. There has been a major backlash against Watson today for essentially using the Panorama fantasy as a pretext to join the ‘dogpile’ it has encouraged on Labour’s higher-ups, especially Formby herself. Formby, as she announced a few months ago, is currently fighting breast cancer, and so she is not really in the right shape for defending herself against political attacks.

Now, in itself, I do not believe there is anything inherently wrong in criticising Formby while she is carrying out her role as General Secretary. So long as Formby continues her duties, she has to be accountable, and while her illness should be taken into account when asesssing her conduct, if she cannot cope with oversight, she should really step aside – at least temporarily.

However, this does not really apply here, for while Formby has made clear that her illness is making matters difficult, she has not said that she cannot cope. Moreover, Watson’s behaviour is completely grotesque either way. Partly because he already knows full well that almost every detail in the ‘documentary’ was heavily-distorted or worse – probably knew full well days before he even saw it – and yet he still used it as a pretext to persecute Formby. The fact he would do that on false pretences while she is so ill is utterly inhuman, regardless of whether she can deal with it. Indeed, it is tempting to suspect that Watson hopes Formby’s illness will make his attacks more effective, which would show his amorality is at Boris Johnson standards.

JMac responds to Watson pretending not to know what he does

There is no doubt that Tom Watson is pretending not to know things that he very much does know, and that he is asking for information in public that can easily be obtained privately.

But still more than this, what slimy hypocrites Watson and his allies have shown themselves to be. Think back to the winter, when Luciana Berger was still a Labour Party MP. Berger was relentlessly rebelling against the party, especially is policy on Brexit. She kept publicly condemning fellow party members, and the leadership.

Berger’s behaviour essentially demanded cross-examination and criticism, and at length, her local constitutency party in Wavertree, fed up with literally years of her undermining her own party, tabled a Motion Of No Confidence in her. However, she was heavily-pregnant at the time, and the motion was met with nationwide cries of condemnation of the CLP’s supposed ‘bullying’. Most of the cries, on analysis, came from the Blairite Labour right. And guess who was one of the loudest to object?

“A pregnant young MP bullied out of her own party by racist thugs,”

Watson wailed when Berger resigned the whip (mysteriously avoiding all mention of the fact that the Chairman of Wavertree CLP is himself Jewish).

And Watson was moaning again just over a week ago when Ellie Reeves was allegedly targeted by one member of her CLP in Lewisham for deselection.

So, being heavily-pregnant absolves a female politician from any and all accountability, even accountability for activity they are carrying out while heavily-pregnant?

But fighting cancer does not?

There is no getting away from it. Tom Watson is just utter filth. He is a slimy, insinuating, double-faced back-stabber, and he has no place in any public office, let alone a place as deputy leader of the largest political party in Western Europe. Sir Humphrey Appleby once described MPs as having a skill called ‘moral manoeuvrability’. Which really means that they have no ethical consistency at all. He might as well have been talking about Watson.

(Note that the same condemnations above apply to Harriet Harman, who has also shriekingly leapt to the defence of Berger and Reeves, but has remained deafeningly silent over the bullying of Formby. Who does Harman think she is kidding?)

Still, all of these blatantly corrupt theatrics are rather deodorised by the latest opinion poll released by Survation. Note that the days the polling work was done were Wednesday and Thursday, so yes, the data includes the effect of the Panorama smear. What do we find? Labour are six points ahead.

Survation Poll - 10th-11th July 2019

When will the smear merchants get it? The more mud they sling, the more Labour’s polling position improves.

I think Watson and his allies need to get it into their heads; their blatantly-orchestrated smears are simply not working. If they were ever going to, Jeremy Corbyn would have surrendered the leadership long ago.

Advertisements

by Martin Odoni

Imagine a desperate Palestinian committed a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. For all my support for the Palestinians, there is no sane denial of the fact that it sometimes happens, or of the horrific agonies that it genuinely inflicts. And say that one of the victims of such a bombing happens to be a supporter of the Palestinians. What would be the right thing to say to relatives of such a victim?

Would, “Don’t you think your family had better stop supporting the Palestinians now?” be appropriate? Surely not.

Well, one guy who has shown he would say it without a moment’s pause for thought – or even for dignity – is the rabid Zionist Rabbi Zvi Solomons. The terrible church bombings in Sri Lanka over the Easter weekend took over three hundred and fifty lives, and have left over five hundred injured. A relative of one of those who died is the Labour MP Tulip Siddiq. She revealed her family’s loss on her Twitter account a couple of days ago, and Solomons decided to extend his own, ‘unique’ brand of condolences.

Solomons Twitter attack via Siddiq

Rabbi Zvi Solomons demonstrates that no situation is too sensitive for him to use for cheap point-scoring.

“So sorry to hear this Tulip. Doesn’t your leader support Islamists like this? Are you still supporting him?”

Essentially, Solomons used the events, in traditional absurd-Zionist fashion, as an opportunity to scold Siddiq for being a ‘supporter’ of Jeremy Corbyn. Now, in fact, Siddiq is not really a supporter of Corbyn as such. She was originally one of the MPs who gave Corbyn a nomination to stand for Labour leader back in 2015, but when it came to the ballot itself, she voted for Andy Burnham. But that is not the real point. The real point is Solomons’ incredible mixture of cynical hawkishness and narrow-minded insensitivity.

Going up to someone when they reveal that they have entered a time of mourning, and trying to shame them for supposed associations, is not principle. It is cheap and cruel. It shows lack of human feeling, and betrays Solomons’ only real concern – his desire, shared with Zionists more widely, to see Corbyn isolated within the Labour Party.

Study Solomons’ Twitter feed, and you see a relentless chain of accusations and insinuations against Jeremy Corbyn, all implying in one way or another that he is anti-Semitic. There is little or nothing to support any such allegations, bar the usual deceitful quotemines and distorted half-truths, but they are unending, day-after-day, and give the impression of an almost disturbing obsession. Like most Zionists in Britain, Solomons clearly means Corbyn real harm, and sees isolating him from allies, even ones he does not really have, as a major first step. The corruption in political Zionism is demonstrated by the way it is only ever advanced by smears and bullying.

But the insubstantial nature of Solomons’ remarks is not confined to his misunderstanding of the relations between Siddiq and Corbyn. He fails to see the laughable hypocrisy in his own words, or the insane associative illogic he uses. Partly, it is because the Zionist cries of “racism!” are coming from a man who is himself using racist – or at least religiously sectarian – reasoning. Now all the indicators are that the bombers in Sri Lanka do have Islamist links (Islamic State have claimed responsibility, although with their history of trying to associate themselves with anything going wrong upwards of a national leader catching a cold, it is tempting to disregard their word), but Solomons is plainly using an “All-Muslims-are-the-same” argument.

Corbyn once addressed delegates from Hamas as “My friends”, and Hamas are a Muslim faction. Therefore, Hamas must be Islamists, and Corbyn is literally friends with Hamas, and Hamas are the same as the Sri Lanka bombers, ergo Corbyn is an ally of the Sri Lanka bombers and is personally implicated in the attacks over Easter.

This mixture of silogistic fallacy and telescopic definitions shows where the prejudice really lies. On present information (at the time of writing at least), it is transparent nonsense to try and associate the bombers in Sri Lanka in any way with Corbyn at all, or indeed with Hamas.

Any doubt about the selfish, irrational scaremongering is dissolved by a later remark in the thread; –

“I don’t want Jews to start being killed by Jeremy’s Islamist friends.”

So there you have it. At a time of national mourning among the Christian community of Sri Lanka, Solomons wants to make it all about Jews. Incredible.

Yet again, ‘anti-Semitism’ is shown not to mean a hatred of Jews for being Jews, but to mean the manifestion of anything a Zionist hates.

As a Jew, it is a very saddening and disturbing reality that we all have to treat hearing the term ‘anti-Semitism’ with enormous caution. But in the present climate, we have no alternative, thanks to irresponsible, hate-addled wolf-cryers like Solomons.

by Martin Odoni

Apparently, there will be a fresh round of anti-Semitism allegations against Labour left-wingers at some point over the Easter weekend, via the Sunday Times. The chances of these allegations holding any more water than previous ones seem pretty remote, especially given the Murdoch-ite nature of the source. All signs so far that I have seen are that it is yet another catalogue of examples of Israel being angrily criticised on social media, rather than of Jews being insulted for being Jews. In other words, anti-Zionism is being spun as ‘anti-Semitism’, and Israelis are being spun as ‘every Jew’ yet again. This is a relentless, aggravating, and Orwellian conflation to which the Labour left are largely, and correctly, refusing to give in.

But the right are showing no reluctance to keep pushing the conflation either. So alas it will be seconds out, round umpteen. Do you know what though? I am no longer terribly bothered about it.

The reason why is that the right wing media’s attempts to smear the Labour left are proving more and more ineffective, and that is because they are so painfully predictable. Particularly over the last year or so, the pattern has been so regular you could almost set your watch by it. It is quite mechanical. So mechanical in fact, that it appears to be a carefully-structured program.

So, here is roughly how the pattern would be asserted if written as a computer program in BASIC language; –

10 LET Tory polling => Labour polling

20 INPUT Tories have embarrassing Brexit/Austerity-related meltdown$.

30 LET Labour polling = Labour polling + 3.

40 IF Labour polling > Tory polling THEN GOTO 60

50 IF Labour polling < Tory polling THEN GOTO 10

60 INPUT right wing media foam-at-mouth-hysteria$.

70 LET barely-Jewish organisations = claim to be representative of all British Jews

80 PRINT Barely-Jewish organisation list of accusations against Labour leftists who are supposedly guilty of ‘anti-Semitism’

90 FOR Smear kept at top of headlines = 1 to 5 days

100 IF Smear kept at top of headlines = 5 days GOTO 130

110 NEXT Smear kept at top of headlines

120 IF Labour polling < Tory polling THEN GOTO 140

130 IF Labour polling > Tory polling THEN GOTO 60

140 LET Labour poll surge = faltering

150 LET Hysteria = dying down somewhat.

160 Goto 10

Now, a quick look at recent opinion polls; –

The fact that Labour are presently not just ahead, but now well ahead, in pretty much all the opinion polls for Westminster voting intentions, is evidence that this strategy – really about keeping an uncritically Zionist/pro-Israel policy platform alive in the British Government – is not really working very well anymore . (If it ever was.) It sometimes slows and scuppers Labour’s impetus, but it has never caused Labour to slump. But it also explains why the Sunday Times are timing their latest attack for now.

The predictability of this pattern of behaviour is not only making it all-too-obvious to many people what is really going on, but it is also, frankly, getting thoroughly boring to be made to sit through it over and over, and I truly have serious doubts that many people will pay any attention to more of it. Common sense alone should lead most of the electorate to reason that if anti-Semitic behaviour were really anywhere near so prevalent in Labour as is being made out, there would have been hundreds of arrests by now for hate crimes.

Anyone who does believe the latest chapter will be the sort of person who would never vote Labour in the first place and is just looking out for any excuse to get angry with the party. There is no point in the Labour Party trying to appease people like that, so they should be left to go their own prejudgemental way. Labour should instead just refuse to dignify the latest smears with a response, and focus on what everyone should really be doing – fighting Austerity, and preventing a Conservative version of Brexit.

by Martin Odoni

A vote of no confidence in the leadership of someone you do not recognisably follow is a pretty futile gesture. Imagine Joseph Stalin, in 1943, had run a ballot of the Soviet population asking them, say, whether they had confidence in the Presidency of Franklin D Roosevelt in the United States – the USSR’s ally-of-convenience during World War II. Now I daresay the result of such a vote might have been interesting, but it would not have made any practical difference.

With this in mind, it seems bizarre that the media are reporting yesterday’s news that the ‘Jewish Labour Movement’ have voted that they have no confidence in the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, as though it is some major development. Does anyone in full honesty imagine that the vote matters one jot?

I often encounter people on social media who claim that the JLM is the true voice of Jewish members of the Labour Party. But if you cast your eyes down the constitution of the JLM, you quickly notice two gigantic flaws in that assumption. Have a look at the below section copied from the document, section 4.3, which deals with the qualifications required to become a member of JLM; –

JLM absurd rules

Membership of the ‘Jewish Labour Movement’ requires neither a Jewish background nor membership of the Labour Party.

Quite simply, if you wish to join JLM, you do not have to be Jewish, or a member of the Labour Party. Furthermore, while it is affiliated to the Labour Party, it is not actually a Labour Party organisation. Therefore JLM does not really follow Corbyn, as such, while the only real requirement for joining boils down to a prospective member must not already be a member of another party. Therefore, JLM’s qualification as either representative of left wing British Jews, or even an organisation ‘following’ the leader of the Labour Party is shaky in the extreme.

Many of the same people who swear by the word of JLM frequently mock its rival, ‘Jewish Voice For Labour‘, as being the proverbial ‘two-men-and-a-dog’. But really, how do these people imagine JLM has any more credibility, when its very name is so hopelessly misleading?

As for the reasons for this vote, they are a joke for reasons well-recorded. Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is entirely fleeting, while holding Corbyn individually responsible for dealing with what instances of it there are shows a laughable ignorance on JLM’s part of the party’s disciplinary process. The party leader does not have the power or authority to intervene in that process, as it would risk politicising any judgements made. (Although it is all-too-clear that politicised judgements are being made anyway, only by the National Constitutional Committee.)

JLM’s expression of no confidence in Corbyn is both ignorant and insignificant.

by Martin Odoni

I had planned to resist the temptation to write – in considerable amusement – about one of this week’s lighter bits of news; Jonathan Hoffman, perhaps the most limited and narrow-minded Zionist bigot in Britain, is in trouble with the law. The former Chairman of the Zionist Federation of Britain and Ireland (ugh, so vainglorious) and I have crossed swords over social media a few times over the last couple of years, and he is one of the most bullying people I have ever encountered online – worse even than Christopher Whittle. So it was difficult to resist having a written gloat at his troubles. Too difficult, as it turns out, because I have seen a statement about it he put up on his Facebook timeline, and I have to let everyone have a quick laugh at it.

To explain, Hoffman and his fellow anti-Palestinian intimidation artist, Damian Lenszner, are facing charges of common assault and the use of threatening words and behaviour. Lenszner faces an additional charge of assault by beating. The two defendants were due to appear in court this week, but both ‘mysteriously’ failed to turn up. Warrants were therefore issued for their arrest. (Subsequently withdrawn when they both reported in of their own volition, I must emphasise.)

Now, Hoffman has put up his version of the events of his O.J.-Simpson-like flight from the long-arm of the law on Facebook, as I say, linked to an article in the Jewish Chronicle about the episode. and here is a screencap of it; –

Hoffman on the run from the law!

Jonathan Hoffman makes his excuse for missing court

Before I get to the guts of my response, is it not hilarious to see a Zionist-imperialist like Hoffman complaining about his coverage in a Zionist-imperialist rag like the Jewish Chronicle? That would not be entirely unlike Donald Trump complaining about Fox News Channel being really harsh on him.

But I digress. Let us have a quick, snigger-saturated breakdown of Hoffman’s whines; –

“The reason I failed to appear is bcos[sic] I never got the letter.”

Oh yes, original one there, Mr Heffalump, we can be confident no one has ever heard that one before. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, it does not explain why Lenszner failed to show up either. Did he ‘not receive his letter’ either? Wow, courier services in this country have really gone downhill since the Royal Mail was privatised by Hoffman’s beloved Conservatives.

“The journalist knows this . Why has she not printed it? This is a trumped up charge with zero evidence.”

Urrrggghhhh, apologies for the delay there, I just had to go and be violently sick.

Is Hufflepuff kidding?! 

He must be, right? This is Jonathan Hoffman complaining about ‘trumped-up charges with zero evidence’?! I mean, seriously – Jonathan Huffing-and-Puffing is complaining about trumped-up charges, with his history of McCarthyite dirty behaviour? He is upset about someone supposedly manipulating legal mechanisms against him, when he reports Labour members to the party’s compliance unit so frequently that he has their phone number on speed-dial?

Once again, anyone trying to prove Jeremy Corbyn is one hundred per cent right about Zionists and their total lack of any sense of irony would be wasting effort. Zionists themselves make it absolutely self-evident every day!

“I will fight it strenuously. How appalling that we are charged for opposing Israel Hate”

No, Jimmy Hoffa, you have not been charged for ‘opposing Israel hate’. Opposing hatred of Israel is not a crime – although it could be argued that it should be, given what Israel does to the Palestinians; the Land Day Massacre was a year ago today, and you still try to blame the victims. You have been charged for – or rather with – physical assault and general threatening behaviour. Now, whether you are guilty or not, those are actually against the law in their own right, no matter which ideology – if any – they are carried out in order to advance.

If you are innocent of assaulting and threatening people, you will probably be cleared. If you are guilty of assaulting and threatening people, you will probably be convicted. Israel does not enter into this. It is that simple. Having said that, it is a little difficult to believe you are innocent, given your thuggish past, and your loving associations with hard-right fringe groups like the EDL and Kach Party supporters.

David Hoffman picture of Hoffman, Garfield and Roberta Moore

Jonathan Hoffman proving that British Zionists have nothing to do with neo-Nazi groups, by marching with Roberta Moore of the EDL and the Kach Party.

In any event, the wish to see you behind bars is less to do with your opposition to hatred of Israel, and more to do with your bloody-minded and racist enthusiasm for hatred of Palestinians.

“but Nazim Ali – who said that Zionists were responsible for the Grenfell tragedy – has not been charged.”

Okay, I will treat this bit semi-seriously. Nazim Ali’s remarks about Zionism and the Grenfell Tower Fire were foolish and irresponsible, and he definitely should not have said them. However, there are two problems with Jonathan Hissyfit raising them in this context; –

1) They are utterly irrelevant to the matter of Hoffman apparently committing a physical assault. Hoffman raising them appears to be just the flailing, hapless ‘whataboutery’ of a short-tempered, aggressive old man who knows he is in big trouble and is angling for sympathy about a supposed ‘double-standard’. But there is no double-standard, as what Ali said is not comparable to what Hoffman allegedly did. If Hoffman did assault someone – and it would hardly be out-of-character if he did – then he has committed a crime for he which he must be prosecuted. That is true irrespective of any controversial public remarks someone else made on a different matter.

2) If you study his words, Ali was talking about corporations being responsible for the appallingly shoddy safety standards at Grenfell. That he associated them with Zionism was a non-sequitur, and made his statement sound a little idiotic by their obvious inference, but they were not inaccurate as such. So what does Hoffman think Ali can be charged with exactly? It cannot be slander, given nothing Ali said was inaccurate, even if the inferred conclusion was. It cannot be racial hatred, due to Zionism not being the same as Judaism or Jewry, and definitely not being a racial group.

(Many Jews, like me, are not Zionists, and many Zionists are not Jews. Indeed, an awful lot of non-Jewish Zionists are anti-Semites. Having a Jewish State in the world is very handy for political anti-Semitism, as it means there is somewhere to which Jews can be sent away.)

You see? Hoffman is trying to claim that two quite separate incidents effectively carry equal weight, and they simply do not.

Jonathan Hoffman bullies, smears, threatens and lies so routinely and so instinctively that he no longer notices doing any of it. This is why, when he finally gets taken to task, he is convinced that he is a ‘victim’. Because he has simply stopped noticing the reasons why he is not.

In that regard, Hoffman resembles Tommy Robinson, only even less intelligent.

And yes, Hoffman, you can quote me on that.

by Martin Odoni

Jacqueline Walker, a black Jewish activist and long-time Labour Party anti-racism campaigner, was expelled from the party today. The story of her, somewhat-carelessly-worded-but-accurate, remarks about Jews being leading financiers of the slave trade in past centuries, is well-enough recorded that I doubt I need to go over it. If you need to refresh your memory, see here.

Jackie Walker stitched up

Jackie Walker has been expelled from the Labour Party for stating historical facts.

However, the reason why this is as much a stitch-up as the expulsion of Marc Wadsworth last year bears mentioning. As with the Wadsworth hearing, the disciplinary process was clearly corrupted.

The pretext for Walker being suspended was supposed ‘anti-Semitic’ behaviour. There is a reluctance on the part of many in the media to mention that the accused is herself Jewish. (As indeed there has been with the accusations against the likes of Tony Greenstein, Cyril Chilson, Jo Bird, myself, and others. As Alexei Sayle has pointed out, those suspended or expelled from Labour for anti-Semitism are frequently Jewish.)

Walker was not allowed to speak in her own defence at her hearing, although as she had chosen to have a legal counsel present, that is not an irregularity in itself; the party rules are quite explicit that any defendant who accepts legal counsel must leave all the talking to him/her.

The critical matter, which media reports of the expulsion are not making much effort to mention is that Walker, just like Wadsworth last year, was not charged with anti-Semitism. The charge that the Labour National Constitutional Committee levelled against her was Prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party. This is taken from part of the text of Clause 2.I.8 of the Party rulebook.

This charge is problematic in itself –  see below – but more concerning yet is that Walker was not made aware until a few days ago exactly to which of her actions/words the charge applied. She and her legal counsel had insufficient time to prepare a full defence against some of the accusations therefore, and Walker’s wish to make an opening statement was in response to this serious irregularity.

The main reason the charge is problematic is similar to the one with the charge levelled against Wadsworth last year. At his tribunal, Wadsworth was charged with Bringing the party into disrepute, a lazy, catch-all term that effectively amounts to, “The NCC can throw you out just because its members don’t like something you said or did”. While being slightly more specific, the charge Prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party, in the cold light of day, does not appear to mean anything greatly different. It is useful as it matches words in the clause of the rulebook, so it sounds legitimate, but does so without having to give the ‘transgression’ any precise definition or clarity.

Both Wadsworth’s and Walker’s charges amount to extremely blunt legal instruments. They hand an excessive amount of power to the party right-wingers who dominate the NCC, and make it much too easy for them to get rid of any member for whom they just have a political, or even personal, antipathy, on the shakiest of pretexts.

Zionist organisations like The Jewish Labour Movement, The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and The Jewish Chronicle are trying to insinuate that Walker has been thrown out precisely for being an anti-Semite, and no other reason. What they fail to explain is why the NCC needed to press such a vague and subjective charge as prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour in order to ‘convict’ her? Surely if they really had sufficient grounds to convict her of ‘anti-Semitic behaviour’, they could have made it more explicitly clear?

The ruling given by the judgement panel on the NCC was worded,

“The National Constitutional Committee has found that the charges of breaches of party rules by Jackie Walker have been proven. The National Constitutional Committee consequently determined that the sanction for this breach of the rules is expulsion from Labour Party membership.”

They did not mention anti-Semitism, or racism, as being the reason for the expulsion. Given Walker’s long history of fighting racism – just like Wadsworth’s – that should go without saying really. And yet – just like Wadsworth – it did not

This imprecise announcement fits a pattern that occurs a lot when Labour members are expelled for alleged anti-Semitism. See the ruling when Tony Greenstein was given his marching orders last year; –

“The NCC of the Labour Party has today found that all three charges of a breach of the Labour Party’s rule 2.1.8 by Tony Greenstein have been found proved. The NCC consequently determined that the sanction for the breach of Labour Party rules will be expelled from membership.”

And the ruling at the end of the aforementioned Wadsworth expulsion; –

“The National Constitutional Committee of the Labour Party has found that two charges of a breach of the Labour Party’s rule 2.1.8 by Marc Wadsworth have been proven. The NCC consequently determined that the sanction for this breach of Labour Party rules will be expulsion from membership.”

All sounds very similar does it not? And all very obscure.

What do all the accused mentioned on this page have in common?

Well of course; they are all pro-Palestine supporters of Jeremy Corbyn.

Thus it is quite impossible not to suspect that Walker’s guilt and expulsion – just like all the others’ – were premeditated conclusions. My own, much lower-profile suspension will doubtless lead to the same place in whichever century the NCC finally get around to assessing my case of implied ‘self-hating-Jewry’. But in Walker’s case, all that was in doubt was not her expulsion, but how the NCC chose to word the verdict. In the event, they took the tried-and-tested route, making it as obscure and legal-ese-precise as possible.

What happened to Jackie Walker today was just history ‘rhyming’. As Wadsworth was stitched up a year ago, so Walker has been stitched up now, demonstrating just how much right-wing corruption remains in the innermost mechanisms of the Labour Party.

by Martin Odoni

So there you have it. Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is to be found among less than 0.1% of its membership. As I have been saying since what feels like the Dawn-Of-Time, the British right wing, especially Zionist factions, have been making a giant mountain range out of an ant-hill.

Zionists after Labour AS stats announced

0.1% of the party MIGHT be anti-Semites. Yeah. Really worth all this fuss, wasn’t it?

The evidence against the accusers, on the other hand, is truly mountainous. Recent, very corrupt smear tactics by Wes Streeting, and the whining response of the Labour Party’s right wing to moves to have dissatisfaction with Luciana Berger placed on formal record in her local constituency, are enough on their own to show how contrived the furore has been. Add in earlier cynicisms, especially from Margaret Hodge, who actually boasts that around 200 of the complaints made were from herself, and you can see how thoroughly the right wing are going out of their way to see vast anti-Semitism where there is very little. On the subject of Hodge, there is a particular reason why the outcome is not to her liking, but do not expect her to mention it; –

Margaret Hodges reports loads of non-Labour members

Hodge and her allies are trying to present abuse from non-Labour members as examples of in-party anti-Semitism.

Beyond doubt, many of them also committed the cardinal sin of conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism – as has happened to accusations against me, an anti-Zionist Jew.

And of course, the Zionist Imperialist Chronicle (I refuse to dignify the periodical smear-rag with the title ‘Jewish’) has been making mischief in another Liverpool Labour constituency, namely Walton. Stephen Pollard, the pathological liar running the Chronicle, and who used to edit the even-more-disgraceful Daily Express, has refused to apologise, even though he published a retraction that he had the nerve to call a ‘clarification’.

Sadly, vindication for those of us who were saying that the furore was a storm in a teacup does not mean satisfaction. Partly, there is inevitable pushback by the usual suspects, arguing that the figures have been massaged in some way. We can expect a lot of heels being dug in over the next few weeks in that regard. But further than that, there is an aggravation that both defenders and detractors of the Labour Party are causing. It comes in the form of a platitude that I am getting a little tired of seeing rehearsed; –

“Even one case of anti-Semitism is one too many!”

Now I must emphasise that I do agree with the statement as it reads. One case of anti-Semitism – indeed of any form of racism – is one too many. But the main reason I want people to stop retreating into saying it is that they only ever seem to say it in response to the anti-Semitism-in-the-Labour-Party hysteria. Sure, when real anti-Semitic behaviour in Labour is discovered, the person behind it needs to go, but that should be true in every party.

Platitudes in general are a bad practice, as they are usually a sign of making polite gestures without engaging the brain. More specifically in this case, it also rather shifts the metaphorical ‘goalposts’. There has been a relentless three-year clamour about anti-Semitism being ‘rife’ in Labour. Then, when the evidence shows that the numbers involved are proportionally trifling, the accusers just cry out, “But even one anti-Semite is one too many!!!” and keep the outrage alive. But the outrage was about the problem being ‘rife’. Now it has quietly become about the problem being present in any proportion at all. It is the same outrage, maintained without a break-in-stride, only it is now based on something quite other than what it was originally.

This means that those who defend the Labour Party over anti-Semitism need to avoid being drawn into saying, “One is one too many,” because they are allowing themselves to support attempts to change the narrative on the quiet.

Such a changed narrative is not only deceitful, it also holds the Labour Party to a standard that is probably unattainable. So long as anti-Semitism exists in society, some of it is bound to seep into all political parties, and it is quite unfair to insist that Labour has to wipe it out from its ranks entirely as a bare minimum, which is what the complaints that the party “is not doing enough” or “does not take the problem seriously” amount to. This is doubly true when nowhere near the same amount of pressure is being applied to  other parties, especially the Tories of course, to combat their own racism issues.

29572657_10156366518233489_4954806921188844906_n

Anti-Semitism is RARER on the left than on the right.

I sometimes hear people arguing that, as Labour aspire to higher ethics than the Conservative Party, Labour need to be held to a higher moral standard. But that is nonsense. It just gives the Tories an excuse not to try, even makes it acceptable for them to say that they are unconcerned about their lack of morals, and above all, gives racists a safe harbour in one of the largest political parties in the country. Real racism should not be allowed to influence Government policy; if you want to see the dangers of that, just ask the Windrush Generation.

In any event, holding Labour to a higher standard does not mean holding them to an unattainable standard. It makes it much too easy for McCarthyite troublemakers like Berger, Streeting and Hodge, whose real reasons for anger are ideological disagreements with Jeremy Corbyn, and provides a needless distraction from the real priority issues facing the United Kingdom; the twin struggles to end Austerity, and to rescue the country from the self-harm of a chaotic and ill-planned Brexit.