Cleansing the Labour Party of antisemitism, anti-Zionism and Corbyn

JVL Introduction

Joan Ryan, chair of Labour Friends of Israel, is refreshingly honest in this article in the Jerusalem Post

She makes it crystal clear that, as far as she is concerned, the antisemitism crisis was all about Israel. In her narrative, holding it to account becomes “an obsession with, and hatred of, the world’s only Jewish state”.

And so she witters on about “a deluge of despicable incidents” – warped conspiracy theories that Israel was responsible for Islamic State, repeated comparisons between Israel and the Nazis, and vile suggestions that Israel uses the Holocaust as a “political tool” as though this was the ordinary, everyday talk of the town in every place where two or more Labour party members meet.

And she happily endorses the view that the “free speech” caveat added to Labour’s shameful adoption of the IHRA definition was something that “drives a coach and horses through the IHRA definition”.

Just think about it – committing to free speech is equivalent to aiding and abetting antisemitism…

[PS: Don’t forget Joan Ryan’s barefaced distortions in the Al Jazeera film, The Lobby.]

This article was originally published by The Jerusalem Post on Sat 7 Nov 2020. Read the original here.

Cleansing the Labour Party of antisemitism, anti-Zionism and Corbyn

Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) last week published the results of its long-awaited report into antisemitism in the Labour Party.

The report graphically laid out the degree to which the poison of anti-Jewish racism infected the party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. It totally vindicated all those – from grassroots members to my former colleagues in parliament – who called out antisemitism, and it provides important recommendations, including the introduction of a fully independent complaints process.

I am pleased that Labour’s new leader, Keir Starmer, has said he accepts the report and will implement its recommendations in full. The party’s decision to suspend Corbyn’s membership after his disgraceful response to the report – in which he appeared to minimize the scale of the problem by suggesting it had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons” – was both right and unavoidable.

The EHRC’s responsibility was to examine whether the party had breached Britain’s equality laws – legislation that the last Labour government, in which I was proud to serve as a minister, was responsible for passing into law – and its focus was thus largely confined to issues of process.

However, as the EHRC’s interim chair suggested in her foreword to the report, rooting out antisemitism involves much more than correctly functioning complaints and disciplinary processes. “It is also,” she wrote, “about making sure that the Labour Party has a culture that clearly reflects its zero tolerance of antisemitism and indeed of all forms of discrimination.”

A vital element of the cultural change that Labour must now embark upon is to tackle the rise of anti-Zionism in the party, which was at the center of both the former leadership’s worldview and of the antisemitism crisis itself.

I became chair of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) in the summer of 2015. I expected my role to be like that of my predecessors: to maintain Labour’s historic commitment to the State of Israel and Zionism; to support a two-state solution and ensure we maintained the balanced approach toward Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians that had been the guiding principle of the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown; and to help strengthen links both between Britain and Israel in general and between the British and the Israeli Left in particular.

But less than a month later, Corbyn was elected Labour’s leader. Within weeks, LFI found itself facing a wholly new environment, one in which an obsession with, and hatred of, the world’s only Jewish state began to take root. In early 2016, we began to hear disturbing reports from the Oxford University Labour Club. It was alleged that a committee member had said all Jews should be expected to publicly denounce Zionism and the State of Israel, and any who refused to should not be associated with. Other members repeatedly used the term “Zio,” talked of a “New York-Tel Aviv axis,” and bandied about references to the “Zionist lobby,” and a Jewish student was harassed by a group of people who shouted at her that she was a “filthy Zionist.”

I was both horrified and determined that such behavior would not be tolerated in the Labour Party.

I CONFRONTED Corbyn as he left a meeting of the parliamentary party and asked him what he was going to do about it.

He asked me why I was asking him about it.

“Because you’re the leader of the Labour party,” I replied. In retrospect, that exchange encapsulated his entire approach to dealing with the problem of anti-Zionist antisemitism in the party.

Of course, this was just the beginning of a deluge of despicable incidents. Some, such as the former London mayor’s suggestion that Hitler supported Zionism, hit the headlines. But hundreds of others – warped conspiracy theories that Israel was responsible for Islamic State, repeated comparisons between Israel and the Nazis, and vile suggestions that Israel uses the Holocaust as a “political tool” – swirled around on social media, polluting Labour Party discussion forums, and spreading and embedding hatred of Israel.

At LFI, we frequently called out such incidents and demanded the Labour Party take action. And, crucially, we argued that Labour needed to draw some clear boundaries that make apparent to all where legitimate criticism of Israel ends and antisemitism begins. Throughout the summer of 2018, a battle raged within the party as to where those boundaries should lie.

We urged that Labour should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition in full. Corbyn and his hard-left supporters resisted, initially striking the four examples relating to Israel from the definition Labour would use and then, when forced to reinstate them, successfully winning the approval of a “free speech” caveat which, as the Jewish Leadership Council rightly noted at the time, “drives a coach and horses through the IHRA definition”.

The reasons for Corbyn’s resistance to IHRA weren’t hard to discern. Before becoming leader, he had, among many other offensive things, advanced conspiracy theories (among them the suggestion that “the hand of Israel” was behind a jihadi attack on Egyptian policemen in the Sinai Peninsula); hosted an event in parliament on Holocaust Memorial Day that likened Israel to Nazi Germany; and suggested that British Zionists do not understand “English irony.”

At the time, I wrote to the general secretary of the Labour Party, saying Corbyn’s behavior had brought the party into disrepute – a disciplinary offense for which members have been expelled – and that an investigation should be opened on that basis. My request was, of course, denied, but like other MPs who had been campaigning against antisemitism, I increasingly found myself under attack from pro-Corbyn sections of my local party.

Shortly afterward, the hard Left engineered a vote of no confidence against me. Despite rigging the ballot, its motion was carried by only one vote. The fact that Iran’s Press TV – which is banned in the UK – successfully infiltrated and broadcast footage from the meeting showed yet again the character of many of the forces which lined up behind Corbyn.

I left Labour a few months later, unable to remain in a party while Jews were being bullied from its ranks and antisemites were allowed to retain their membership cards. After the publication of last week’s report, however, I feel, for the first time in five years, a sense of optimism that Labour might now be embarking upon a journey that will return it to the values of equality and a hatred of racism and prejudice that first led me to join it four decades ago.


The writer is the honorary president and former chair of Labour Friends of Israel. She was a member of Parliament between 1997-2010 and 2015-2019, and served as a home office minister under Tony Blair.

Comments (38)

  • Jaye says:

    I realise that this article is posted here in order to highlight criticism as per the introduction. However, whilst I disagree with Corbyn’s suspension, JVL should acknowledge that Corbyn’s “obsession with, and hatred of, the world’s only Jewish state” sounded alarm signals to Jews everywhere (except apparently in the parallel universe of JVL) who regard the Jewish State as critical to survival and identity. Obsessive anti-zionism is indeed antisemitism so call it out!

  • RC says:

    This is indeed a useful admission from Ryan – far more honest than her fraudulent charges against Jean Fitzpatrick.
    It would make a useful part of teaching materials.
    Teaching about racism (AS variant) obviously includes assessing the truth or falsity of charges of racism (AS variant).
    Am I being picky? Yes, and with a good reason. Forgive me for declaring that one racist in the party is one too many.

  • Philip Horowitz says:

    Whatever Corbyn’s view’s, I was never convinced that a Labour government would be able to do much damage to Israel. What was alarming was that, in case of such failure, the government would turn on British Zionists who would, of course, be mostly Jewish.

    [We’re approving this comment – but find what it is asserting, quite frankly, bizarre.
    It is claiming that a Labour government, having failed to do “much damage” to Israel (what an odd way of phrasing a desire that Israel should be encourged, with sanctions if necessary, to obey international law), would then “turn on British Zionists” – whatever that is supposed to mean. We trust Philip Horowitz isn’t envisaging internment camps on the Isle of Wight or somesuch. But it really is beyond us to understand what he is asserting and on what nightmare fantasies it is constructed.
    Not that we are opening a debate on this topic – on the contrary! This particular topic is closed.
    JVL Web]

  • George Wilmers says:

    All credit goes to JVL for reproducing this piece in its entirety and also for publishing Jaye’s comment above referring to what he calls JVL’s “parallel universe”.

    One of the usually assumed characteristics of living in a parallel universe, at least in its metaphorical usage, is that you do not have access to what happens in the “normal universe”. However Jaye would do well to reflect that JVL has a fairly consistent policy of providing links to the sites of its political opponents such as the Jewish Chronicle or the Guardian whenever it cites these sources, so that readers can easily evaluate for themselves whether the meaning of the words cited is fair and accurate, and has not been taken out of context or otherwise distorted. So in that sense at least adherents of JVL are not afraid of ideological pollution from what Jaye presumably considers to be the normal universe. However if we compare this with the situation obtaining in the “normal universe” of the corporate media, we find something entirely different. When approved commentators in the “normal universe” quote from JVL or other “parallel universe” sources, not only do they frequently deliberately misquote or distort the meaning, but they almost never provide links to the source material which would enable readers to check the original. The obvious inference to be drawn is that, following in the footsteps of Pope Paul V, they are very much afraid that a rational collision of the two universes might not be to their advantage, and at worst might result in a total collapse of “normality”.

    As for the alarm induced in many ethnonationalist Jews concerning the supposed threat to their identity, it is no more rational than Pope Paul V’s fear concerning the threat to his identity posed by the discovery that the earth was not the centre of the universe.

    So, Jaye, which of the two universes is the real universe?

  • Jim McNeill says:

    Sounds more like “an obsession with, and hatred” of international socialism

  • Allan Howard says:

    Jaye, from where did you get the idea that Jeremy Corbyn has an obsession with, and a hatred of Israel? Anyway, I’d be interested to hear what you think about the following: In a Spotlight article reproduced by JVL in January, there’s a video clip of Marie van der Zyl, the current president of the BoD, from an interview she did on an Israeli news station in August 2018, in which she says that Jeremy Corbyn is spending more and more time with terrorists and extremists. And she says it THREE times in the space of less than four minutes, The following is from the the Spotlight article:

    The video you’re watching in this post is from August 2018 and it’s of Marie Sarah van der Zyl, the current and 48th President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. She’s being interviewed by i24News – a right wing Israeli news channel. In the interview, Van der Zyl claims, repeatedly, that Jeremy Corbyn had been “spending more and more time with terrorists and extremists” and “with people who threaten the security of Britain”.

    It was a vile, poisonous falsehood of course; a massive Big black propaganda Lie, and the president of the BoD concocted it for the obvious reason – ie so as to smear and demonise Jeremy Corbyn. Now why would she think to do THAT Jaye?

    https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/expose-who-are-the-board-of-deputies-of-british-jews/

  • Kuhnberg says:

    Joan Ryan notably doesn’t address the acts of the Israeli government that have inspired the opposition of the left. From what she writes anyone without information on the subject would believe that Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians have been wholly blameless. The frightening thing about those who suffer from this form of of voluntary blindness is that they appear to have genuinely managed to erase all knowledge of what all the fuss is about. As in some many cases, a quotation from Orwell’s 1984 is apposite:

    “The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.”

  • John Hall says:

    “A vital element of the cultural change that Labour must now embark on is to tackle the rise of anti-Zionism in the party, which was at the centre of both the former leadership’s worldview AND THE ANTISEMITISM CRISIS ITSELF.

    Modern Zionism -the currently dominant settler-colonial form in Israel and among posibly tens of millions of evangelical Christian Zionists around the world but particularly in the USA where the estimated 8 million in the Christian Union for Israel alone have the motto: “For Zion’s Sake I will not keep Silent”. These Christian Zionists believe that the resettlement by Jews, (at least a substantial majority) throughout ancient Zion is a requirement for the second coming of Jesus Christ. Particularly in the USA where their number includes VP Mike Pence, their adoration of Donald Trump undoubtedly has more than a little to do with their hope that he may lead to conditions set out in end-of-times theology which will lead to Jesus’ return. (Has this also something to do with Trumps reluctance to leave office which not a few commentators are referring to as a “coup”?)

    Our Chair of Labour Friends of Israel has stated clearly. The “anti-semitism” row in Labour was about anti-Zionism and so to sensible people not about anti-semitism. How did they get away with conning everyone?

  • Ian Hickinbottom says:

    Zionism is a political ideology, in the same way socialism, conservatism, communism, etc. are. To be anti zionist is no different to being anti communist or anti conservative.
    Anybody who watched Joan Ryan in action on The Lobby, knows how truthful anything Joan Ryan says or does would be. Isn’t it surprising how no one in LFI or BoD or JLM made any complaints about the proposed antisemitic campaign against Michael Howard, yet one of those that did, Corbyn, is accused of being an antisemite.

  • It needs a longer article but Jaye’s comment that ‘Corbyn’s “obsession with, and hatred of, the world’s only Jewish state” sounded alarm signals to Jews everywhere… who regard the Jewish State as critical to survival and identity. Obsessive anti-zionism is indeed antisemitism so call it out!’

    Just as an aside. If Jewish identity is dependent on the world’s most racist state then it is better it disappears for good.

    We should however challenge this soundbite ‘the world’s only Jewish state’. India is the world’s only Hindu state and it would be better if it wasn’t. Religious states are an anachronism which the French Revolution abolished. There is no catholic state in the world bar the Vatican, which is a state in name only. Does that imperil Catholics? Did Israel guarantee the safety of the 3,000 Argentinian Jews tortured to death between 1976-83?

    Unfortunately not as Israel considered its lucrative arms deals and military training with the Junta more important than mere Jews.

    Israel, far from guaranteeing the safety of Jews imperils them. Everytime Israel wages war on Gaza or other peoples’ people react by attacking Jews because what Israel does is in the name of Jews everywhere.

    It’s about time this trope, ‘the only Jewish state’ was called out for what it was. A pernicious piece of Zionist nonsense.

  • Oh dear I did not think I could feel sorry for an”antisemitism” preacher but this Joan Ryan letter is both so woolly and banal that it is childish! Resting firmly on the quick sands of “alleged”, “was heard of” “poison””infected” “vile”,”warped” and so on, it has no apparent references to reality. Even if it had a valid point this would have been negated by the vague and ineffectual tone! The whole thing is lifted straight from the Daily Mail so I suppose Ms Ryan can read but she cannot write. This drivel would have failed lower English.
    I suspect that my comment might not be included as it is basically just sneering which, of course, is not fair but why be fair when discussing liars!

  • Steve McKenzie says:

    Cynicism of epic proportions.
    The left should have made a stand against duplicitous distortions of this nature when they first reared their head

  • Susan Greaves says:

    I am not going to comment on everything in Ryan’s article because anyone familiar with propaganda understands the tools she is using (unconsciously, I think, because she and her article are so foolish). The use of strong adjectives that add nothing to the veracity of her assertions, the slurring over of truthful accounts of events, the omission of information that would alter substantially the balance of her judgements…all of this is standard propaganda, used by populists everywhere. A complicated subject requires time and effort to analyse correctly and Ryan does not need to do this because she is preaching to the converted.
    I am more upset at the comment above, about the assertion that Corbyn had “an obsession with, and hatred of, the world’s only Jewish state”. How can anyone with any knowledge of this man’s past accept this statement? An obsession means that an idea “continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person’s mind”. Jeremy Corbyn took principled stand about the Israeli government’s actions towards the Palestinian people. He also took a stand about injustice everywhere in the world. As for “hatred”, this seems to me to be something that Corbyn does not experience. (I do, and this helps me to see what a very unusual person he is).
    Oppose Jeremy Corbyn’s views if you like, but this phrase taken from Ryan’s article typifies everything about the dreadful vilification that has gone on over the past few years. Ryan has no real argument so she resorts to entirely inaccurate character assassination.
    As for sending alarm signals to Jews everywhere, this assertion taken by itself, cannot be denied. But blaming Corbyn for this alarm is completely absurd. In pointing out the injustices committed by the Israeli government towards Palestinians, Jeremy Corbyn is simply a messenger. If that message creates alarm, that is because what he is reporting about the actions of the State of Israel, leads any sensible person to predict that this will lead to bad feeling and violence. I have just read George’s comment above, and see that he has already made this point, with his apt comparison of Pope Paul V.

  • Stephen Richards says:

    “Paranoia strikes deep; into your life it will creep”.
    Imagine being Palestinian, just for one day!

  • Paul France says:

    How can we persuade the JLM that the Labour Party does not conform to its ideals and so will decide to de-affiliate in protest?
    Then JVL can affiliate!!!!

  • AC says:

    I find it extraordinary that those whose families have in the past experienced such appalling treatment are bent on delivering the same to others. It seems also that the paranoia and false assumptions are completely out of hand. We’re not hearing the same obsession from other groups e.g. the Kurds the Rohinga, the people of indigenous peoples in many parts of the world, Yemen, South American nations whose democracies have been demolished by US interventions, etc etc. In comparison, it seems Jewish people have, of late, done rather well. Christians are persecuted in Syria and other countries – we hear hardly anything about that – apart from, from NGOs asking for donations to mop up the horrific global mess, caused by appalling, male managed, foreign policies. As a woman, I too could make an entirely justified massive verbal attack on the entire global patriarchy.

  • John Hall says:

    I think that Philip Horowitz’s “bizarre” comment is meant to illustrate that right-minded people will target Zionists, (who are mainly Jewish in Britain), for the settler-colonial manifestation of Zionism behind the dispossession and human rights abuses of Palestinians – if the civilised world continues to do nothing about the Israeli government’s promotion of said dispossession and abuses.

  • Paul France says:

    Forget the previous comment.

    The Lobby: this is the first time that I have heard arguments against the two state solution. I am converted. Yes!!! And it will benefit from a Truth & Reconciliation process. Single state needs to be promoted amongst the Palestinians too! It would be nice to hear the good Israeli & Palestinian politicians discussing this.

  • Mike Scott says:

    As someone who is Jewish but not Zionist, I find the most concerning aspect of all this is the fact that Zionists refuse under any circumstances to get into a calm debate about the issues. Their whole aim is to avoid this whenever possible and to close down debates that have already started by insulting or refusing to listen to anyone with a different view.

    This can only be because they’re frightened they can’t win an objective debate. We’ve all been accused of horrible things that are utterly untrue, but can’t defend ourselves, as no-one will engage with us: how can anyone believe that to be fair or even rational?

    Yes, we need to be prepared to defend our point of view, but so do they!

  • Ikhlaq Hussain says:

    After reading the above article.
    I am left with sadness that someone who is intelligent and educated. Should be blind to the fact what is stoking up all this . It is not acceptable for us to see the state of Isreal, still occupying the land and more recently allowing the settlers to attack the indigenous people of Palestine. If you are honest with yourself, you wouldn’t befriend a killer? Or would you?
    Other nations have been vilified for a lot less than what the Israelis are doing to indigenous people.
    My only wish in life is that we as people live with each other in peace with humanity and dignity.
    One of the question I always ask myself, why was I born? Did I ask to be born? Why is there so much poverty? Why is there so many people so poor and homeless even in rich countries?
    Let us all pull together make a better world for all .

  • Nick Pile says:

    I wonder of “Jaye” could offer a little clarification of what he calls “… Corbyn’s “obsession with, and hatred of, the world’s only Jewish state”. While I agree that the rights of the Palestinian people has been high of his agenda, it is just one of several issues to which Jeremy Corbyn attached considerable importance. To describe it as an “obsession” suggests that he thought of – and spoke – of little else, which is of course completely untrue. If we are to bandy about words like “obsession”, we might more accurately describe Ms. Ryan’s behaviour, and that of certain of her like-minded colleagues, as obsessive. To spend the time and energy they spent on smearing a principled man with the obscenity of “antisemitism” and to do it, as Margaret Hodge reportedly said, to “destroy him as a man” comes far closer to the definition of an obsession than anything Jeremy Corbyn has ever done. Is the a little more information that Jaye could share in order to enlighten us?

  • steve mitchell says:

    If antisemitic comments were so rife in our Party after 2015 why did I not hear a murmur about them at CLP and other meetings. When Momentum was formed I became a member. Our first chair was Jewish as was our health spokesperson; a retired Jewish doctor. Labour has over half a million members yet, after months and months of deliberation they came up with a verdict that named less than a handful of guilty individuals. Even the man who wrote the IHRA definition is admitting it is not being used as originally intended. It will as no surprise that Ryan mistrusts free speech. New Labour shut that down forcing thousands of loyal members to resign in droves. The farrago of vile lies about Jeremy continues. Who must members believe. about the State of Israel. Ryan or the TUC?

  • DJ says:

    Who is obsessed with the state of Israel? Surely the answer is LFI, JLM, and CAA. They seem to spend much of their time defending its actions and hounding its critics rather than challenging actual acts of antisemitism. Advocating that this rogue state should be uniquely exempt from criticism is clearly an indication of their obsession.

  • John Hall says:

    Paul France and other “one staters”: In a single state “Settlers” or rather land-stealing racist thugs will continue to harass and dispossess Palestinians of land, water and other resources. (An esimated 1 million Palestinian olive trees destroyed!) Should these thugs be allowed to keep stolen/illegally-settled land and resources?

    A settlement should be imposed by the international community and all the illegal settlements and other resources freely handed over to Palestinian refugees and their descendants while “settlers” f-off to where they came from.

  • John Hall says:

    One other point:-
    Note that Ryan says that she expected her role as FoI Chair to be: “to continue Labour’s historic committment to the State of Israel and Zionism” (!) “to support a two state solution”.
    There appears to be an intellectual deficit here. How can one support a two-state solution while promoting a settler-colonial movement dedicated to the absorption of one territory into the other?

    In defending “Zionism” and accusing opponents of the settler-colonial movement of “anti-semitism”, Ryan and her ilk are dissembling. Zionism is not the same as Judaism. The majority of Zionists are CHRISTIAN who support settler-colonialism and the dispossession of Palestinians in order to create the right conditions for the second coming of Jesus Christ. “For Zion’s Sake I will not keep Silent” is the motto of the Christian Union for Israel which alone has around 8 million members in the USA and is occasionally addressed by US Vice President, Mike Pence.

  • DJ says:

    John Hall. I think you are guilty of misrepresenting the position of those advocating a “one state” solution.

  • john.hall says:

    One cannot advocate for a two state solution and support settler-colonialism at the same time, but Ryan professes to do so.

  • Jaye says:

    I don’t know whether JVL will allow me to comment again on this article but since many others have attacked my earlier comment, I would ask for the opportunity to respond in more detail.

    I am unable to write a dissertation on Corbyn’s Israel obsession, as some have requested, but if someone can find an unqualified positive statement he has ever made about Israel at any time regarding any action by any of its governments, then please enlighten me. He’s certainly had positives to say about those who threaten Israel. Obsessive anti-zionism, equating to antisemitism, is a fair description and that’s how Corbyn is perceived by most Jews, who are very attached to Israel, including Jews like me (yes!) on the Left. Some of your posters tend to trivialise this attachment, with one of John Hall’s comment being the most objectionable … and btw he’s been allowed 4 or 5 bites of the cherry in the above comments! Most Jews feel some bond with Israel where nearly half the world’s Jews live for a variety of reasons, family, cultural, religious, historical, lived experience, and because they regard it as critical to Jewish continuity and survival after 2,000 years of Jewish exile and dispersion and the horrors that befell us. You can’t artificially separate Jewishness, Judaism, Zionism, biblical and modern Jewish history, as if one has nothing to do with the other, and this is what I am referring to as JVL’s parallel universe.

    There is plenty of open democratic debate within and without Israel about internal politics and redressing wrongs but those of us who are critical of some/many/most/all government policies, and who oppose just about everything that Netanyahu’s coalition stands for, would never again want to live in a world without a Jewish State. Most of the suggested utopian one-state “solutions” are not intended to alleviate Jewish concerns because democratic-secular states in the ME are non-existent. To paraphrase part of JVL’s statement of principles, Jewish Lives Matter, everywhere, so whoever proposes that millions of Jews be part of such a utopian experiment could perhaps read history and then check how things are going in say Lebanon where there are no Jews.

  • DJ says:

    John Hall. The two state solution was always a smokescreen. The idea of forming a Palestinian state on the occupied territories which are not contiguous and account for only 22% of the territories is a non starter. It doesn’t begin to address the rights of Palestinian refugees ethnically cleansed by the settler colonial Israeli regime. The Israeli state would never accept it’s right to having it’s own armed forces. It would be a state by name only.

  • Tim says:

    Ryan claims to be horrified by “vile suggestions that Israel uses the Holocaust as a ‘political tool'”. I remember a letter fro Gerald Kaufman MP to the Guardian suggesting, nay, SAYING exactly that. But then again she’d just say he was the wrong kind of Jew.

    Also, in Philip Horowitz’s comment: “the government would turn on British Zionists who would, of course, be mostly Jewish”. Really? It looks to me like they’re mostly Gentile and not Labour supporters, either!

  • Doug says:

    Jaye
    Is it anti semitic to ask why the Jewish State chooses to use Live Ammunition against innocent men, women and children

  • Doug says:

    What is and what is not anti semitism, that is the question and the sooner it is tested in court the better
    Someone who has a vexatious claim made against them by the usual suspects, should take legal action
    As a gambler since age 14, my money would be on not a single case being heard
    Regards

  • Allan Howard says:

    ‘Attacked’ you Jaye! Well THAT is straight out of the black propagandists hand-book, and one that the corporate media use all the time. If your claim was a false claim, which it WAS, then posters will of course querie and question you about it. Which they did. But perhaps you’d like to copy and paste the exact words of each of these ‘attacks’ and include them in a post.

    Anyway, I couldn’t help but notice that you omitted to say anything in respect of Marie van der Zyl’s Big Lie about Jeremy Corbyn. I mean it’s no small deal, is it?! It’s not like she was saying that his tie was crooked, or his shoes weren’t polished, and yet you have nothing whatsoever to say about her smearing and demonising him with a total falsehood, and the fact that you DIDN’T, in itself reveals exactly where you are coming from!

  • Jaye`s comment “that is how Corbyn is viewed by most Jews” makes me ask WHY is this how Corbyn is viewed by most Jews? How does Jaye know what “most Jews” think?
    Perhaps because “most Jews” like so many people, Jews or otherwise, have simply accepted, without critical appraisal, exactly what Corbyn`s detractors have TOLD them to think!

  • Allan Howard says:

    Regards what Doug said, as I’m sure most people who follow this site will know, Tony Greenstein started a libel case against the Campaign Against Anti-semitism a couple of years ago for repeatedly referring to him as a ‘notorious anti-semite’, a case which just recently came to an end with the judgement being found against him. The judge’s ruling was that if that is CAAs opinion, then they are entitled to say so.

    A number of people have called Jeremy Corbyn an anti-semite during the course of the past two or three years or so, including Margaret Hodge of course, and I have no doubt that they knew before saying it that they couldn’t be sued for libel for doing so, and that they were protected in law, as such. And no doubt Jeremy was advised by his legal team that that is the case, and that he would lose any libel action that he took against anyone who said as much.

  • John Hall says:

    Jaye: Why do you insist that criticising Christian Zionism is anti-semitism?
    Settler colonialism by Jews is a necessary condition for the second coming of Jesus Christ which is why Trump et al promote it to please their evangelical disciples.

  • Jaye says:

    John Hall again! Six or seven bites of the cherry on this and now inventing quotes. You are posting to a Jewish site which values Jewish lives and I’m sure many others are also finding your posts increasingly offensive.

  • DJ says:

    Jaye. Do you really believe building a “Jewish” state by ethnic cleansing and institutional racism is a way forward to tackle any form of oppression including antisemitism? You can’t ignore what establishing this state has cost the Palestinians. You also claim that it is utopian to call for a single, secular, democratic state that affords equal rights for all faiths. Why do you believe this is utopian? If it is achievable, do you support it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Read our full comment policy.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.