Moshé Machover sets the record straight

Much maligned by the bureaucrats at Labour Party headquarters, Moshé Machover was “auto-excluded” from the Labour Party in October 2017.

We stood by him at the time, pointing out that he had been shabbily treated “without due process – accused, charged, prosecuted, judged and sentenced in one letter and without even the apparent need for a hearing”.  He was subsequently reinstated.

His case appears in the leaked Labour Party dossier and Machover takes the opportunity here to comment on his treatment.

_____________

[23 Apr: The date of original publication in para 5 has been corrected]

You may or may not have seen the Labour Party report recently leaked by some unknown whistle-blower.

That report documents the moral depravity of some former high-ranking officials of the Labour Party, who are exposed as racists and misogynists, expressing themselves in disgusting language of the cesspit.  They conspired against the party that employed them, sabotaging its election campaign in 2017. They hoped and acted for an electoral defeat, that would lead to the resignation of the party leader Jeremy Corbyn. In the event, they may have succeeded in preventing an outright LP victory, but the Party achieved impressive gains, so Jeremy Corbyn remained leader for a while, until he was finally undermined.

The leaked report contains a whole section about me, detailing the contortions the said officials went through to “auto-expel” me from the Party. In the letter expelling me, dated 3 October 2017,  they made a nasty  insinuation of ‘antisemitism’ against me. This was not only an absurd lie, but a gratuitous one, as the pretext used for my expulsion was quite different. In the event, that flimsy pretext didn’t work, and they were compelled to rescind the expulsion. But the calumny of ‘antisemitism’ was never withdrawn, and my repeated demands for apology were ignored.

I take this opportunity to draw attention to my article ‘Anti-Zionism does not equal Anti-Semitism’  whose publication by Labour Party Marxists during the September 2017 Labour Party Conference triggered my expulsion. This article is attached herewith.

I must make it clear that this article was actually a slightly edited version of an article published in the Weekly Worker in May 2016, several months before I had joined the Labour Party. The original title was ‘Don’t apologise – attack’.

I believe that my old article is still quite topical, and I urge you to read it.

 

Moshé Machover

Comments (5)

  • Jon Grunewald says:

    From the Labour Party report:
    “This article caused offence. Among other things, the use of the quotation by Reinhard Heydrich, and the distribution of the article at Labour conference, offended many Jewish Labour members.”

    To offend people is not to be antisemitic. Those who take offence are not the victims of a hate crime, for goodness sake.

    This was written by Keir Starmer in the Guidelines he drew up for the Crown Prosecution Service when he was Director of Public Prosecutions. Perhaps someone should occasionally remind him of it:
    “The distinction between offensive and grossly offensive is an important one and not easily made. Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights observed in the case of Handyside-v-UK the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions “that offend, shock or disturb the state or any section of the population”.

  • michael ryan says:

    In defence of Ken Livingstone, Moshé Machover’s piece suggests that the Nazis were, until 1941/2, merely preparing Jews for deportation rather than what is an established truth, that they were being routinely dispossessed, beaten up, humiliated, split up from their families, then worked to death.
    Whatever the merits of the expulsion of Livingstone from the the Labour Party his case is much more difficult to condemn compared with most the subsequent cases which were based on criticism of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. Livingstone’s hypothesis might have had a place in a private discussion between informed historians, but not broadcast on a second rate popular radio talk show.
    His actions gifted McNichols and his treacherous clique the opportunity they were wating for.

  • Martin Dearden says:

    Seems like a good man

  • Allan Howard says:

    Michael, in the first place, Ken was not expelled from the LP, but resigned from it. And what hypothesis are you referring to? There was no hypothesis. Ken didn’t bring up Hitler, Vanessa Feltz did, and not understanding why she did so and what point she was trying to make, Ken then alluded to the Haavara Agreement. The following is from his resignation statement:

    ‘At 8.50am on 28th April 2016 I was asked by Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio London to respond to a social media post by the Labour MP, Naz Shah, quoting Martin Luther King, that ‘what Hitler did was legal’. King’s point, obviously, having been that just because something is legal (talking in the context of racist segregation laws in the US in the 1960s) does not mean it is right. I saw no relevance between Hitler and Labour so I responded in under 40 words pointing out that in the 1930s Hitler had supported Jews leaving Germany – including moving to Israel and he had arrived at a practical agreement with Zionist organisations on this.’

    And the following is all he said in relation to Hitler:

    “Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932 (it was in fact 1933], his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

    Here’s Ken’s resignation statement in full, and well worth taking the time to read:

    https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/ken-livingstones-resignation-from-the-labour-party/

    And the following ‘article’ in the Daily Express a few days after the radio interview is a classic black propaganda ruse. So there’s the following headline and sub-headline:

    LISTEN: Ken Livingstone calls Hitler a Zionist – the full clip leading to suspension

    KEN Livingstone has caused outrage and chaos in Parliament after claiming Hitler was a Zionist as he defended suspended Labour MP Naz Shah.

    But needless to say, in the video clip directly beneath the headline and sub-headline, Ken says no such thing! And never has of course, and it’s just complete fabrication, the likes of which Hitler and Goebbels themselves would have found highly amusing:

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/665321/What-did-Ken-Livingstone-say-Hitler-is-a-Zionist-interview-BBC-London-Vanessa-Feltz

    As for the Haavara Agreement, a search will bring up dozens of results/articles re the agreement, and the following is from the wikipedia entry:

    The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הֶסְכֵּם הַעֲבָרָה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: “transfer agreement”) was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

  • Mike Cushman says:

    @michael ryan

    You say “In defence of Ken Livingstone, Moshé Machover’s piece suggests that the Nazis were, until 1941/2, merely preparing Jews for deportation.” I’ve just re-read the article and it says nothing of the sort.

    It says that up to the Wannsee Conference, ‘the official policy was for the exclusion of Jews from political and social life for separation and for emigration’. That was indeed the stated policy; it clearly was not the practice which had changed gear markedly from Kristallnacht onwards and become an extermination practice from the launch of the Einsatzgruppen on the first day of the invasion of he Soviet Union. Wannsee was the pseudo-legalisation and regulation and further expansion of established practice. Nothing in Machover’s articles suggests anything else and your comment is a wilful mis-reading of a clear text.

Comments are now closed.