by Martin Odoni

The very right wing LBC Radio‘s useful liberal idiot, James O’Brien, I suspect experienced some serious cognitive dissonance this week,  as his phone-in received a call from a woman who epitomises Zionist paranoia/maliciousness.

Now I have a history of criticising O’Brien for his juvenile, unquestioning, and sometimes downright hypocritical attitude when he hears about the ‘Labour anti-Semitism’ hysteria. That Labour is over-run by anti-Semites is a notion he treats as a matter of historical certainty, in flat contradiction of the actual evidence. He seems just to be blindly following the media narrative. This is an attitude that stands in stark contrast to his rational attitude to almost all other subjects, which therefore makes it doubly maddening. O’Brien is undoubtedly capable of far better, but when it comes to Labour and the anti-Semitism narrative, he just cannot bring himself to try.

But the call this week may have shaken O’Brien out of his self-induced stupidity, at least briefly, as the caller, name ‘Rosanna’, gave him a comprehensive demonstration of how absurd Zionist fear-mongering can be.

‘Rosanna’ fears monsters in the closet

‘Rosanna’ called in to attack the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. She claimed that Corbyn’s party had echoes of ‘Nazi Germany’ (one of the laziest, most over-used insults in modern political discourse), speaking of the time in the early-1930’s when Germans voted in an anti-Semite – a clear allusion to the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1932. O’Brien calmly, and correctly, asked ‘Rosanna’ to explain what points-of-resemblance she sees between Corbyn and Hitler (!). She replied that she was not comparing the two, even though she had done precisely that just seconds earlier. O’Brien corrected her on this, and then ‘Rosanna’ suggested that Corbyn has “never backed down”. That description sounds a) quite remote from Corbyn, who, if anything, backs down rather too easily sometimes, especially on this very issue of ‘Labour anti-Semitism’, and b) a lot like many a Zionist activist.

Then came one of the key moments for me. ‘Rosanna’ started talking about Corbyn’s position on Israel and Palestine, and O’Brien had to cut her off quickly as what she was saying was irrelevant. The discussion was not about Israel or Palestine. Israel did not even exist until years after Hitler died, so how could Corbyn’s views on Israel possibly carry a resemblance to Hitler?

It is of course the classic conflation of ‘Israel’ with ‘Jews’, and therefore of ‘opposition-to-Israel’ with ‘anti-Semitism’. O’Brien to his credit was having none of it, and soon convinced ‘Rosanna’ to back down and admit she should not have mentioned the Nazis at all. But it should serve as the perfect warning bell to O’Brien that what people like myself have been trying to persuade him of for years is true; most of the clamour about ‘anti-Semitism in the Labour Party’ is in fact a shoutdown of legitimate opposition to Israel, in particular Israeli policy towards Gaza and the West Bank, and its ongoing illegal control of the Occupied Territories. Here, O’Brien had an absolutely blatant, explicit example of an Israel supporter invoking the Holocaust as a reason for British Jews to fear Jeremy Corbyn (the particular British Jew writing this thinks Corbyn should be welcomed by British Jews with open arms, but I guess I may just be funny that way), and O’Brien was able to dismantle this panic-mongering nonsense himself in moments. But I find it hard to believe that at no stage O’Brien found himself thinking, “Hang on, this Zionist woman is speaking in exactly the way Labour leftists keep telling me Zionists speak…” Yes. And somehow he has missed this pattern completely for three full years!

The undetectable undercurrent

As the conversation wore on, ‘Rosanna’ continued to talk in hysterical generalities about an ‘undercurrent of anti-Semitism’ – again evidence-free and quickly swatted down – and even of Holocaust-Denial by Labour Party Election candidates. This suggestion had me choking on my drink! If there had been even one Labour candidate denying the Holocaust, it would have been all over the media for days. There has been no such under-current of behaviour, and it was one of the cheapest, crudest examples of Holocaust-manipulation that I have yet encountered.

James O-Brien hearing Zionist scaremongering

James O’Brien of LBC Radio was finally brought face-to-face with the hysterical unreality of Zionist smears, and this was his expression as he listened.

O’Brien, again correctly I must stress, reiterated that there is no evidence of any of ‘Rosanna’s’ claims. Her inability to offer examples for any of her accusations made her sound like a bit of a drama queen, if I am to be brutally frank. She really should be ashamed of herself for talking in so absurdly toxic a fashion. If you want to smear someone, at least try and be clever about it. This evidence-independent attempt by ‘Rosanna’ was so feeble, it insulted the intelligence of everybody listening as much as it insulted the integrity of Jeremy Corbyn.

O’Brien demands evidence in the very area where he offers none

But the irony in all this is that other people, like myself, have been repeatedly demanding of O’Brien that he points to some firm evidence when he treats ‘Labour anti-Semitism’ as an irrefutable certainty. Various investigations have concluded that the proportion of the prejudice among Labour members is below 0.1%. The old ‘one-is-one-too-many’ platitude in response to that is disingenuous, as such measures applied to the left are not applied to either the centre or the right, which both generally come out far higher in incidents of anti-Semitism, as the Economist recently found to its surprise. The numbers involved on the left as a whole boil down to a few hundred at the most, all of them from members way, way down the pecking order of the Labour Party, and therefore nowhere near enough to constitute a ‘threat’ to any rational mind.

O’Brien would do well to reflect also on the centrist pattern the Economist study highlighted of being far likelier to conflate ‘Jews’ and ‘Israel’. O’Brien’s own position of ‘Labour anti-Semitism’ being widespread depends on that same centrist prejudice and lazy thinking. He speaks out when ‘Rosanna’ does it, probably because she does so in very explicit and obviously-groundless terms. She cannot come up with a single example for any of her generalised attacks on Corbyn and the Labour Party, most of which sound too vivid to skate over, therefore O’Brien can hardly let this nonsense pass without looking like he is either dishonest or a real fool. But he never applies that measure widely, he only applies it to a specific instance. When trying to gauge the phenomenon in the Labour Party as a whole, he is guilty of the laziest centrist thinking imaginable; he sees a huge number of accusations, assumes smoke-equals-fire, and so the huge amount of smoke must equal a huge fire, and never mind who lit it or why. In other words, it never occurs to him to check any of the accusations to make sure they stand up to scrutiny. An awful lot of them, I hasten to point out, are much like ‘Rosanna’s’ codswallop – vague, evidence-thin, based on bizarre logic, and seemingly trying to blackmail people into agreeing with the accusation through the intensity with which the accuser expresses fear.

The ‘fire’, in short, is the fantasy of the accuser, not the deeds or words of the accused.

On this occasion, it was more or less impossible for O’Brien not to check the accusations, due to the very bizarre angle of attack ‘Rosanna’ adopted i.e. accusing Corbyn himself of being ‘like Hitler’. And when O’Brien did cross-examine, he found what investigators had previously found about most of the rest of the controversy; it was paranoia at best, an outright crude smear at worst.

Will O’Brien learn from this?

It is now simply a matter of whether O’Brien finally opens his mind to the likelihood that this pattern is no isolated incident. It most certainly is not. Remember Mike Sivier and his supposed ‘anti-Semitic punctuation’?

'Anti-Semtic punctuation' is now a thing.

Zionists are now becoming such uncompromising censorship-trolls, they have now invented ‘anti-Semitic punctuation’.

That is the level many of the complaints are at – the same level from which ‘Rosanna’ is complaining. In the cold light of day, many of the accusations are so silly that they would be amusing in any other context. Except, somehow, wide numbers of media fools like O’Brien take them seriously and without bothering to investigate them first. They lend the accusations credence, enough that they seriously damage the lives of the accused in ways that go far, far beyond their involvement with the Labour Party.

The people throwing these accusations around are paranoid at best, and those who are not are simply unscrupulous. Blindly following their narrative without properly checking it, because you wish to be ‘anti-racist’, or because you are genuinely sensitive to the feelings of minorities, may come from a good impulse. But it is a good impulse that is being too-easily manipulated by bad people.

by Martin Odoni

It really is very easy to hate the outgoing Member of Parliament for Dudley North, Ian Austin. He is quite possibly the ugliest MP currently to hold a seat. I do not mean physically – althought let us not kid ourselves that he will ever win any Mr Oil Painting competitions – I mean everything about his demeanour and outlook. The nasty, sneering, twisted expression on his face whenever he is being abusive – and that is nauseatingly often – really epitomises the dark side of humanity. He is the sort of Parliamentary thug who confirms the stereotype established by figures such as Tim Stamper from House of Cards (UK), or Vic Gould, the Chief Whip in Yes, Minister, of the combative politician who is really just a hooligan in a tie.

There really is very little else to describe about Austin, as he is scarcely a politician of dimension. Hardly anybody had even heard of him before that notorious, and very unparliamentary, moment in 2016 when he heckled the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to “Sit down and shut up” during a debate in the House of Commons on the Chilcot Report. Austin seemed to find it quite obscene that any MP should feel that the declaration of an illegal and aggressive war is a reason to hold a former Prime Minister to account. People suffering from the debilitating mental condition called ‘sanity’ would argue that the declaration of an illegal and aggressive war is the very strongest of reasons to hold a former Prime Minister to account, but happily for Austin, he does not appear to be so-afflicted, and as time passes, the less and less afflicted by sanity he appears. The mainstream media, always so disturbingly enthusiastic for war overseas, showed little conspicuous disapproval of his yobbish behaviour either.

Since that time, Austin has rather revelled in his fifteen-minutes-of-infamy, and has tried to prolong it, with unimpressive results. He quit the Labour Party in February, shortly after the break-off of ‘The Independent Group’, but did not join them. While he claimed he had no plan to, the whisper is that the group did not want him, partly because of differing positions on Brexit, but also because they just found him personally intolerable. While announcing his departure from the Labour Party, he accused Jeremy Corbyn of being a ‘danger’ to the UK’s security and democratic institutions. But when challenged to put his seat, won as a Labour candidate, up for a by-Election, Austin refused, completely undermining his own democratic credentials.

Later in the year, during a debate on the rule-of-law triggered by Boris Johnson’s failed prorogation, Austin tried to rip into Corbyn in Parliament on the unsupported grounds of ‘enabling anti-Semitism’. His speech was disrupted to the point of ineffectual due to Austin getting a taste of his own medicine, as he was heckled by Labour backbenchers, particularly Liz McInnes.

Several weeks later, Austin invited himself to the fringe of the Labour Party Conference in Brighton, hoping to contrive a public scene making Corbyn look bad, by ranting about supposed ‘anti-Semitism’ from under a neon anti-Corbyn banner. That did not turn out too well either, as a Jewish grandmother and local councillor from Highbury stepped in and gave Austin a public trashing to his face while the cameras rolled.

In short, Austin’s ‘revolt’ is never as effective as he imagines it will be, and to compensate for the constant shortcomings in his efforts, he is now trying to amplify them through sheer outrageousness. To this end, he has this week gone as far as to endorse Boris Johnson, perhaps the most casually prejudiced blimp in the history of the Conservative Party (and the standard-of-competition for that title is phenomenal), in next month’s General Election. He has expressed this on the grounds that he is judging which party leader is the ‘lesser evil’ (is there ever a time when such a decision is otherwise?), but Austin is making himself look thoroughly barmy by his implication that Corbyn is somehow more ‘extreme’ than the psychopathic dog-whistler currently occupying 10 Downing Street.

The mental contortions of Ian Austin

Ian Austin really doesn’t seem to think anyone would be suspicious of a non-Tory who endorses Boris Johnson over Jeremy Corbyn.

I am starting to feel almost faintly sorry for Ian Austin. The mental contortions he has to put himself through to maintain this loud anti-Corbyn stance must be both tiring and painfully dizzying. He does what he does, not because he really cares about ‘racism’ in any form of course. Instead, it is an all-but-open secret that he is a Zionist, and he knows that if Labour win the Election, Corbyn will be a pro-Palestinian Prime Minister. Preventing that outweighs all other considerations for Austin.

But really, endorsing Boris Johnson as the anti-racist option? That is like endorsing Sepp Blatter as an anti-corruption candidate, or endorsing Liam Gallagher as an anti-drug-abuse-and-pro-brotherly love candidate.

Does advancing Zionism even outweigh the consideration of trying not to look like a complete imbecile?

What a wasted effort.

by Martin Odoni

A couple of months ago, Chris Williamson, Labour’s embattled and suspended Derbyshire MP, was in Manchester to speak at an event marking the 200th Anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre. It is a sign of how absurdly controversial Chris has become that – I am speaking from attendant observation here – there were absolutely blazing rows among the event organisers over whether he should even have been allowed to speak at all. Not because the organisers had no sympathy for him, but due to worries that the event could become “all about him” rather than about the event being commemorated.

Chris Williamson & his Musketeers

Chris W was assigned a ‘bodyguard’ of three, including myself, to stave off any potential Zionist troublemakers during the Peterloo Massacre commemorations in Manchester. A fearsome foursome, we can all agree.

How exactly has Chris become such a figure of contention?

The original suspension

Most people, I am sure, are aware of the decision to suspend Chris earlier this year over comments he made at a meeting of Momentum activists, in which he was discussing the wildly-exaggerated ‘Labour-Party-anti-Semitism’ furore of the last three years. The quotation that is routinely put in his mouth in the media is that he said Labour have been “too apologetic about anti-Semitism”.

While the quotation is not exactly ‘fake’, it is certainly imprecise, and indeed can hardly even be (half-)dignified with the nomenclature ‘quote-mine’, as it is not just out-of-context. It is actually distorted. Here are the words Chris really said; –

“The party that has done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party. …[O]ur party has been partly responsible for that because… we have backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we have been too apologetic. … We’ve done more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism than any other political party.”

In summary, it is not anti-Semitism that Chris was saying the Labour Party is too apologetic about. He was saying it is accusations of anti-Semitism that the party is too apologetic about i.e. when accusations are made, the party is too quick to plead guilty, and too hesitant to check first whether the accusations are being made on any justifiable grounds. Nor is the party sufficiently forthright in combating the overall narrative, clearly contrived by wide stretches of the media and Labour’s own right wing, of anti-Semitism supposedly being ‘rife’ or ‘rampant’ across the ranks. The figures speak for themselves; the real rate of anti-Semitic-incidents-per-head in the Labour Party is approximately 0.06% – far, far lower than across UK society as a whole, and a tiny, tiny fraction of the rates assumed by large cross-sections of the public.

Suspension reversed, then the reversal reversed

Sure enough, in June, an independent panel investigating Chris’ words on behalf of the party concluded that he had done nothing wrong and restored his membership. However, an almighty and heavily-theatrical furore was kicked up by the Labour Right against the decision, led in large part by the utterly vile pathological liar Tom Watson, claiming the decision was politically-motivated, even though the judgement had been made by an independent panel. The party once again seemed to get the willies, and re-suspended Chris on the same charge.

There were no grounds whatever for doing this. There was no new information or evidence against Chris, and no indication whatever of the panel’s investigation process being flawed, corrupted or improper. It was not only contrary to the rules of the party to reimpose a suspension over charges on which the accused had already been exonerated, but also, given party membership is a paid subscription, it was potentially illegal as a case of ‘double-jeopardy’. Hence the legal action taken to get the re-suspension lifted.

Reversal of reversed suspension reversed, and a new suspension

Last week, in spite of the characteristically-cynical spin of most of the mainstream media – and that most definitely includes the BBC – Chris did successfully get his re-suspension overturned in the courts. But an implausibly-contrived secondary suspension imposed by the party a few days earlier, essentially on the grounds that he had publicly criticised the first, was still in effect, so technically he is still suspended. This has allowed the media to put up misleading headlines declaring that his court bid for reinstatement has ‘failed’.

(On the subject of his secondary suspension, if the Labour Party deems public condemnation of a disciplinary procedure or charge to be unacceptable behaviour in itself, why has Margaret Hodge never been suspended for last year publicly comparing her own disciplinary process to the conduct of Nazi Germany? The party’s response to that was to drop the charges against her altogether. Maybe Chris should have invoked the spectre of the SS when condemning the witch-hunt against him, and then the party would have dropped the matter? Somehow, I doubt it.)

What is truly exasperating about all this is not just the fact that there is such a blatant and two-faced witch-hunt going on. We already knew that. It is that the Labour Party seems to be completely devoid of the willpower needed to resist it, which, by bitter irony, was precisely the point Chris was suspended for making. What he said was not offensive or hurtful to Jews, it was not offensive or hurtful to anybody, and above all, every word of what he said was true. The Labour Party is an anti-racist party, more so than just about any other in British history, and yet it is so weak-willed on this subject that it has actually suspended him for describing it as such!

The real reason Chris Williamson was suspended – again we all know this – was because he was, and is, a strong and prominent supporter of Jeremy Corbyn as leader; the party’s right wing, along with their allies in the media, are desperate to have Corbyn isolated to the point that he ceases to be leader in anything other than name. It is therefore doubly-infuriating that Corbyn himself has repeatedly side-stepped the pressing need to fight this issue, and seems unwilling to reciprocate Chris’ loyalty. Those who have tried to speak to Corbyn about Chris’ case always find him very reluctant to say anything at all, and often witness him talking around the subject. In that regard, Corbyn is relapsing depressingly into the stereotype of an evasive career politician, when his appeal to this point has always been that he is nothing like that.

Corbyn’s mishandling of the witch-hunt

There are a bewildering number of areas in which Corbyn gets a lot of undue condemnation, more perhaps than any other party leader in British history. I have usually been quick to defend him when attacks on him begin; just consider my rebuttal of the ridiculous ‘Brick Lane Mural’ hullaballoo from last year, if you doubt me on that.

But on this subject, I must add my voice to the chorus of disapproval. Corbyn has to be a lot, lot stronger on the subject of supposed ‘left-wing anti-Semitism’, and he has to start pushing back very hard against the false narrative. He has handled the matter very poorly indeed so far, allowing himself to look weak and hapless, reinforcing the impression the right wing of the Parliamentary Labour Party have always tried to give of him to justify their hostility to his leadership. He needs to recognise that none of his serial accusers, be it Hodge, Wes Streeting, the Board of Deputies, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, Ian Austin, or Watson, is ever going to thank him for conceding to them. They are simply going to attack him anew for not conceding even more.

Corbyn’s reluctance to say, “Look, this just is not happening nearly as much as everybody is making out,” probably stems from a worry that he would be acting as if he does not take anti-Semitism seriously. His wish not to upset Jewish Britons is to his credit, but he has to realise that conceding to the narrative and allowing it to go unchallenged is simply not working in any direction one cares to look, including in the direction of that same wish. His Chamberlain-like concessions yield no positive effects, and two unwanted side-effects. The first of these is that, like the Danegeld of ancient times,  it only encourages his opponents to attack even more, and he is still frequently accused of not taking anti-Semitism seriously anyway. But the second side-effect of appeasing his attackers is that it reinforces the impression that there really is a major problem with Labour anti-Semitism when there is not. That approach only heightens the paranoia many Jews in the UK are feeling about the Labour Party being instigators of the ‘Next Pogrom’, started by Zionist propaganda from hard-right smear-rags like the Jewish Chronicle.

Going along with the narrative only feeds the paranoia

Quite simply, going along with the narrative because arguing with it feels too daunting is not making Jews in Britain feel better. Instead, it is telling them that they are right to feel afraid. And if the price of co-operating with the witch-hunt is the loss of Corbyn’s most effective allies and supporters, well, what possible good does he expect will come of it? Just on a matter of basic principle, Corbyn should be speaking up for Chris, because a good man has been relentlessly smeared and unjustly treated, and all for backing Corbyn in the first place.

I still wish to see Corbyn, or at least someone from the real left of the Labour Party, become Prime Minister. The neoliberal consensus of the last forty years had clearly run its course by the time the Global Financial Crisis hit in 2007-9, and it has only continued on Government-funded life-support ever since. It requires someone away from the right half of the economic spectrum to face the need for fundamental change. With his impressive resilience against relentless attacks by both media and many in his own party, and by coming up with many fine and original policies for a reform program for British industry, Corbyn has shown that he has the capacity to overcome such a challenge.

But if Corbyn continues to show unwillingness to combat this smear campaign, it raises serious doubts as to whether he will have the strength-of-will to reform an entire economy, given the unrestrained opposition he will face from the Establishment against that.

Sooner or later, Corbyn is going to have to realise who his supporters are, and who are the opponents who will do anything, no matter how immoral, both to stop him and to maintain the status quo.

Sooner would be better.

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

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

We already know that Israel and its supporters assume the right to interfere in the Governments of other countries – Shai Masot inadvertently made that pretty inescapable. But someone in the Zionist movement clearly forgot to tell academic Manfred Gerstenfeld that this reality is still supposed to go unspoken in public. It may be an open secret, but it is still an official secret.

Gerstenfeld, an Austrian-Israeli, at the weekend just past wrote an article that was published in the Jerusalem Post, in which he performed an all-too-familiar character-assassination on Jeremy Corbyn. He titled it in rather militaristic terms, Battling Corbyn, Israel’s main British enemy. The word enemy in particular is startling, as it implies that Gerstenfeld sees a critic or vocal opponent as indistinguishable from a violent, blood-seeking foe.

Gerstenfeld v Corbyn

Manfred Gernstenfeld, an Austro-Israeli academic, has written a hatchet-job article on Jeremy Corbyn.

Now, most of Gerstenfeld’s account of what has been happening in the UK Labour Party over the last couple of years is hopelessly biased and inaccurate – particularly his damnable lie that Corbyn has offered, “expressions of sympathy for genocidal Arab terrorists.” The people Corbyn has expressed sympathy for are ordinary Palestinian people imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank, not terrorists. Despite endless media assertions, for instance, that Corbyn laid a wreath on a memorial to the Munich Terrorists of 1972 in Tunisia in 2014, he did not. But the desire to eclipse the harmless truth about Corbyn runs strong in Zionists.

We should expect no better than that from Gerstenfeld, or indeed from any Zionist discussing any Palestine sympathiser, so let us leave that on one side.

Instead, let us look at the bit where the twister writes,

Is there anything Israel’s allies can do to make it more difficult for a Corbyn-controlled Labour to rise to power?

This makes what we already knew quite explicit; Israelis really do think that they have a right to interfere – either themselves or by proxy – in the democratic processes of other countries, for the sake of Zionist advancement. Of course, Israel is very far from alone in this arrogance, but that makes the wish no less corrupt.

Gerstenfeld’s words are an open declaration of Zionism’s anti-democratic foundation, a foundation I have mentioned before. Israel has spent decades trying to be an ethnocracy and a democracy simultaneously, and it just cannot be done; the will-of-the-majority can only be reconciled with the will of one ethnic group over all others, by artificially making the chosen group larger than the others, which in turn can only be done by adopting policies that oppress the others – undemocratic in themselves. The democratic veneer of Israel is therefore more illusory than substantial. Zionism desires a ‘Jewish State’ be perpetuated at any cost, with even democracy being seen as a small price to pay. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations is also a lesser concern in the mind of the Zionist fanatics who dominate the Israeli Government and media.

Almost as telling as what Gerstenfeld says in the article is what he scarcely says. He is not speaking out against ‘anti-Semitism’. Indeed he only uses the term once in the entire article, and does not use the word ‘Jew’ even once. In the one paragraph where he uses the term ‘antisemitism’ (his spelling, not mine), he then starts discussing opposition to Israel instead of prejudice against Jews – the never-ending rhetorical trick of Zionists trying to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism rears its ugly head once more. From the omissions from his own writing therefore, we can take it as incontestable. Gerstenfeld’s objection to Corbyn is entirely on the grounds of Corbyn’s opposition to Israel, not any supposed hostility he may feel towards Jews.

Gerstenfeld, another specimen of the stupid Zionist fanatic, has let the metaphorical cat out of the bag.