What Corbyn has done for Jews in Britain

JVL Introduction

Tom Charles defends Jeremy Corbyn against those who have traduced him, particularly those on the right.

But he also defends him against those on the left who argue that he should have pushed back, and when he failed to do this as strongly as they believed necessary, lamented him for being weak.

He was not, believes Tom Charles, but acting consistently with his beliefs, “a player in the political game, but [unwilling to use] certain tactics …that result in pain for others”.

Now read on…

This article was originally published by URBAN DANDY LONDON on Mon 30 Nov 2020. Read the original here.

What Corbyn has done for Britain’s Jewish Community

Jeremy Corbyn’s refusal to use fear and suffering to achieve political ends marks him out as a very different calibre politician to those currently seeking to eliminate him and his principles from mainstream British life. While others use Jewish fears for political gain with zeal, Corbyn remains a true friend of Britain’s Jewish community.

In April this year, a leaked report from within the Labour party revealed that senior officials deliberately sabotaged the party’s 2017 general election campaign to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from becoming prime minister and implementing modest socialist reforms in the United Kingdom. That year, Labour won its biggest share of the popular vote since 1997 and were just 2,227 votes short of being able to form a government. The leak also revealed that the same saboteurs deliberately slowed down the party’s investigations of antisemitism complaints made against members to create the impression that Corbyn was indifferent to Jewish suffering. Their duplicity, ignored by the entire mainstream media as an inconvenient truth, directly contradicts years of condemnation of Corbyn for being a deplorable antisemite or, at best, a man tolerant of antisemitism.

The truth is that he is neither, unlike many of his critics in the media and Westminster.

The Facts

There is “no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party” according to a 2016 report by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Since 2017, according to official Labour party statistics released this year, a total of 2,178 Labour members had been accused of antisemitism. In a party membership of half a million people, this is 0.4 %. Almost all 0.4% were not genuine cases of antisemitism. A total of 56 Labour members had been expelled for alleged antisemitism at the time of the statistics being published, 0.01% of party members.

This 0.01% is what is known as Labour’s antisemitism crisis. As a “crisis,” it does not stand up to scrutiny, and that is why it receives neither any objective scrutiny nor even a factual mention, from mainstream politicians or journalists.

The Danger

These statistics, elaborated elsewhere alongside much objective evidence, help demonstrate that the antisemitism accusation levelled at Corbyn is a hoax designed to stop Labour winning a general election with a socialist leader and stifle any possibility of the UK fully applying international law and taking steps to end the occupation of Palestine by Israel. See the work of Asa WinstanleyJonathan Cook and Jewish Voice for Labour debunking the hoax.

A danger of the proliferation of the fake news “antisemitism crisis” is that many people in Britain, including in Muslim communities, see it as the ultimate expression of white privilege, Jewish fears being treated with far more seriousness at the highest, most respectable levels of UK society than incidents of racist and Islamophobic violence and hatred. The country has an openly racist, Islamophobic prime minister and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who vow to “protect people against discriminatory treatment and hold organisations, such as businesses and government, to account for what they do,” investigated antisemitism with Labour’s ranks but refused to investigate rampant Islamophobia in the Conservative party.

Both the country’s major political parties favour Israel’s occupation of Palestine, with its subjugation and humiliation of Muslims and Christians and the longest-running refugee crisis (there are seven million Palestinian refugees) in the world.

It is unfortunate but predictable that such a situation taps into popular conspiracies about Jews controlling politics, the media and financial institutions.

The Reality

The reality is that Britain’s Jewish population do not enjoy privileged treatment, they and their history are being used by right-wing politicians (including Keir Starmer) and the pro-Israel lobby (which is largely made up of anti-Arab Zionists, Christian fundamentalists and others who favour arms sales – death – to peace) to foment hatred against Jeremy Corbyn, the symbol of socialism in Britain today.

Britain’s Jewish people have been the target of an epic fear-mongering campaign by this Faustian coalition. Not content with Labour’s crushing 2019 election defeat, this juggernaut now seeks to eliminate socialism and socialists from mainstream political life in the UK.

With no hard evidence of a Labour antisemitism crisis, the electorate is left confused. A survey revealed that, on average, the public believed that third of Labour party members had been reported for antisemitism, a direct reflection of the rhetoric used by the nation’s media and political elites.

But as with all gaslighters, the accusation they are making is the very thing they are guilty of themselves: indifference to Jewish suffering and a willingness to use it for personal or ideological gain.

Left-Wing Media

Although none of it is mainstream in terms of its reach, there are left-wing media outlets and journalists in the UK. We also have easy access to North American alternative media.

Left-wing Americans have fared better on the issue of Corbyn and antisemitism than their counterparts here. The most prolific and revered left-wing pundits in Britain, Novara Media and Owen Jones, have played along with the hoax, choosing to offer an intricate left-wing perspective, rather than simply debunking it. Their most recent coverage, of Corbyn’s suspension and whip-removal, is incoherent as they work overtime discussing internal Labour procedures to avoid pointing out the most pertinent fact: there never was a “crisis”.

Full-spectrum propaganda only works when the left participates. The logic is that if even Owen Jones, the mainstream’s designated voice of the left, isn’t denying it, it must be true.

In repeating and amplifying the lie, and ignoring the role of the Israel lobby, prominent left-wing journalists in the UK have boxed themselves into a corner. If the crisis was real, then surely the leader of the party has rightly faced disciplinary action. Had there been a real antisemitism crisis on Jeremy Corbyn’s watch, then any right-minded, peace-campaigning, anti-imperialist would want him out. The fact is, there was no crisis. So, the media’s left-wingers are playing both sides, calling for Corbyn’s return to the Labour benches but refusing to explain to their followers that it was all part of a political game. They have retained their status as representatives of the left on Sky and BBC News by abandoning their journalistic duty, to tell the truth at all costs.

Jeremy Corbyn

Some quality journalists on the left have projected their own frustration onto Jeremy Corbyn for his perceived lack of fight against the fanatics who have attacked him using the antisemitism smear. Asa Winstanley, Max Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald are among them. They argued that Corbyn should have pushed back, and when he failed to do this as strongly as they believed necessary, they lamented him for being weak.

Yet these voices never identify exactly what he could have done. Corbyn probably predicted an unhinged response to any pushback that involved him pointing out that the idea of a “crisis” was absurd. The media would have ignored anything positive or conciliatory he said and pounced upon any hint of him not being adequately yielding. In this, he would have again stood alone against the entirety of the British establishment. More internal Labour divisions and more media focus on fiction instead of the urgent issues of the day were the inevitable result of an assertive push back.

‘So what?’ you might say, things surely couldn’t get much worse anyway, but there were two other factors. The first is 2017 when Labour almost won despite the smear campaign against the leadership. It wasn’t unreasonable to think that policy, over personality, could prove decisive in 2019. This turned out to be true, but it was the Tories, with a more coherent Brexit policy, who had the stronger hand.

The second, and I think most decisive, factor is Corbyn’s relationship with the Jewish people of Britain. Reviewing his career. Peace, justice, unity, and love are the qualities that transcend all politics for him. He is a player in the political game, but there are certain tactics he will not use, the ones that result in pain for others. Unlike those railing against him, Corbyn is sensitive to human frailties and fears. Judging that aggressive pushback would be used by some to further instil existential fear in Britain’s Jews and by others to foment hateful conspiracies, he chose to be guided by his own principles. He did not do or say anything that could have rebounded back on a minority population already being used in the most wretched way by those claiming to speak up for them.

The alternative option, preferred by some prominent left-wingers, was that Corbyn lay out all the facts of the smear campaign, call out the liars and be a warrior for absolute truth. This approach is one that ignores the realities of power in Britain. Exposing the truth has little positive impact unless it happens to match the establishment’s interests.

By choosing not to join in a sordid game, Jeremy Corbyn remains true to his values and his vision of an equitable society lives on. He has done nothing to frighten or endanger a single Jewish, or other minority, person in Britain. The same cannot be said of many other prominent political and media figures.

Comments (29)

  • steve mitchell says:

    In the long run Corbyn will be universally seen to be on the right side of history. Miriam Margolyes describes him as a man of principle. How right she is.

  • Doug says:

    Tom Charles
    Seriously you really believe there was nothing JC could have done, we know he is a man of peace we know he avoids conflict but even Ghandi resisted peacefully and decisively
    In this instance JC was as much use as a chocolate fireguard

  • Amanda Sebestyen says:

    I think the word ‘hoax’ is unfortunate, and the moderators of this site should have talked to the writer and suggested another word (given the prevalence of poisonous ‘holohoax’ theories out there). Better to say ‘false accusations’, surely. And the phrase ‘bearing false witness’ comes to mind from Jewish tradition.

  • Martin Prior says:

    I wonder if perhaps he should have said that anger over Israel does not *validate* anti-Semitism

  • Adam says:

    “Some quality journalists on the left have projected their own frustration onto Jeremy Corbyn for his perceived lack of fight against the fanatics who have attacked him using the antisemitism smear. Asa Winstanley, Max Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald are among them. They argued that Corbyn should have pushed back, and when he failed to do this as strongly as they believed necessary, they lamented him for being weak.

    Yet these voices never identify exactly what he could have done.”

    This statement is simply untrue. Those criticising Jeremy Corbyn have said very explicitly what he should have done which is to condemn the cynical weaponisation of accusations of antisemitism rather than apologising from Labour antisemitism.

    He should have said – from day 1 – “Of course I condemn antisemitism where it exists. I also condemn those making accusations of antisemitism for political purposes.”

  • There was plenty Corbyn could have done. I’m just reading Left Out by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick MacGuire and it is clear that LOTO (leader of the opposition office) was an organised shambles. They didn’t do strategy.

    There was one very simple thing Corbyn could have done. He could have made a major speech early on saying I condemn antisemitism and I condemn those who weaponise it. He could have recounted how everytime someone supports the Palestinians they are accused of antisemitism. Instead of trying to appease the Zionists from day 1 (with his pathetic answer to a question ‘what do you like about Israel’ wittering on about separation of powers and the independence of the courts

    The sad truth is that he never knew what hit him. Hence on p.306 of the leaked report he is reported as having urged the expulsion of Jackie Walker, Ken, Marc W and myself to be speed up to ‘rebuild the trust of Jewish stakeholders’.

    Of course Corbyn isn’t only to blame. It is those who constantly misadvised him, who said well Labour is only a little bit antisemitic missing the point that even if there was some antisemitism (when wasn’t there?) the narrative was still false.

    Above all I blame Seamus Milne who was supposed to provide strategy. If Corbyn had got it right from the start he might have faced off the Board of Deputies. Instead he sulked and temporised and then apologised. And the more he apologised the more they came after him. Then he introduced fast track expulsions but the more people he expelled the more he proved there was an antisemitism crisis.

    But please don’t make excuses for Corbyn. He threw his supporters under the bus.

  • Jack T says:

    The most critical indictment from many on the left is that Jeremy not only failed to stand up for himself and by implication the Labour Party, but he also failed to stand up for those who put their political lives on the line for him.

  • Simon Dewsbury says:

    ‘Nothing to endanger a single Jewish person’? Is this the man who pressed for progress with the disciplinary against Jacqueline Walker? I agree that he was probably going to be damned whatever he did, but he didn’t need to do that, or accept the ‘denialism’ narrative.

  • Allan Howard says:

    There WERE occasions when Jeremy and/or his team DID ‘respond’ to the smears and falsehoods, as when they condemned the Panorama black propaganda hatchet job, for example. And those behind the program knew damn well of course that JC and his team would have no choice other than to condemn the program given the multitude of vexatious and fraudulent claims by just about everyone who participated in the poison, and knew of course that all the forces ranged against Jeremy and the left would all pile in with mountain-loads of faux outrage when they – Jeremy’s team – did so. I mean what more proof does anyone need that the MSM and the Jewish newspapers and the BoD and JLM and CAA and the ‘moderates’ et al were never EVER going to let Jeremy and his team ‘fight back’.

    And what more proof do Jeremy’s detractors on the left need than the most recent episode, and what happened when Jeremy defended his handling of A/S within the party on the day the EHRC published its so-called report. Every single person who condemned him – not least of all Keir Starmer – knew that what Jeremy said was the actuality, and they are ALL well aware of the massive disparity and disconnect between the public perception of the ‘anti-semitism problem’ in the LP and the reality, precisely because THEY all participated in ‘creating’ that perception.

    So given that the hard evidence is there for all to see that there is no possible way that the saboteurs and the MSM et al will EVER give Jeremy an unbiased and undistorted platform, why do these people – ie commentaters and posters – who claim that they support him, just go on and on and on castigating him for not ‘fighting back’ and standing up to his enemies, and endlessly condemning him for appeasing them and, as such, being weak and cowardly and having no backbone etc?

    They definitely don’t come across to ME as supporters of Jeremy’s! Entirely the opposite!

  • Margaret West says:

    Doug – I think Ghandi had more support from those who were supposed
    to support him – hence his ability to resist whereas Corbyn had NONE.

    Why was there not an organised, coherent defence from the Labour Party?
    The necessary defence came from people like yourselves ..

    We hear the same old lies repeated again and again .. even now from public figures – even ones that the Tory Press has ceased telling.

  • Stephen Williams says:

    Corbyn had huge support among the membership. He could and should have used this advantage to ensure that the minority didn’t take over. A personal letter from him to all members asking for support for Palestine would have started the ball rolling.
    The word “Palestine” almost dropped-out of his vocabulary in his four years. Even the famous reference at Conference which led to the display of flags was but a single sentence…..almost an afterthought.
    And then there’s the Al J programme. And the banishment of Livingstone and embrace of Mann. And the failure to support Jewish and Black victims in particular of the witch-hunt.
    He sought to buy the lobby off with his silence. . He failed, predictably, and abandoned decent people in the process.

  • Judith Kelman says:

    I love this man! A truer more concise view of the matter could not be had. He sees Corbyn, as many of us did, just as he is. We can’t have him as we may like him to be. We have to have him, like anyone else, just as he is, which is a near perfect human being. Apparently we don’t like people to be so good!

  • Roshan Pedder says:

    Tom’s take on the futility of exposing the truth is bizarre – “(it) ignores the realities of power in Britain. Exposing the truth has little positive impact unless it happens to match the establishment’s interests.” By that criteria, all of us should pack our bags and go back to the comfortable life of not challenging the powers that be. Did any of the great movements in history, the votes for women, the abolition of slavery, the abolition of apartheid in South Africa and countless others past and to this present day take this defeatist approach, remaining silent on the truth? As the great Tom Paine said ““Such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it want is the liberty of appearing.”
    I truly regret to say that JC failed at this level and the lesson must be that we now must not fail to speak up against the official accepted truth.

  • Stephen Richards says:

    When the bully always threatens you, don’t be surprised if you keep running away. Continual appeasement just keeps encouraging more bullying & throwing Chris Williamson under the nearest bus left Jeremy standing alone. If you keep saying you are sorry, people may ask what it is you are apologising for? The doormat mentality allows opponents to wipe their feet on you. I find living on my knees to be most difficult.

  • I agree with Tom Charles. This article tells me much I already know, that: JC is of a different calibre than those seeking to eliminate him; he has been victim of a hoax designed to stop him winning a general election, and; the media’s ‘left-wingers’ like Owen Jones are playing both sides. However, I find the last section to be ‘worshipful nonsense’, treating Jeremy as a demi-God, rather than a very fallible human being.
    It is simply untrue to say: “The media would have ignored anything positive or conciliatory he said and pounced upon any hint of him not being adequately yielding.” The media can ignore the likes of thee and me, but has no choice but to report the statements of the Leader of the Opposition.
    It ought to be an embarrassment for Jeremy’s left-wing supporters (including JVL) that the mainstream politician who has spoken up most clearly on the shenanigans of the Zionist lobby is a Tory, Sir Alan Duncan. In his RUSI speech of Oct 2014 Duncan stated that: “For far too long, those who have made a moral stand against Israeli misconduct and in favour of justice for Palestinians have been trashed, traduced and bullied. This, and the character assassination of critics, cannot be allowed to continue”.
    All JC needed to do was keep repeating a message along these lines, and presenting the statistical evidence showing that antisemitism and other forms of discrimination against minorities remained much higher on the right, and the message would have got through to the public. At the very least, he would have sown serious doubt into the public consciousness about the veracity of the accusations against him and his comrades.

  • Mike says:

    When will the PLP stop using AS as a political weapon.

  • I think he could have pushed back a little.
    But there was so much against him.
    You could tell be his face, he knew they had won.
    But I can never, ever forgive his own party backbenchers, for there lack of support.
    He is a proud and principled man, I’ve nothing but admiration for him.
    He would have changed the country for the better.

  • Peter Clark says:

    No, Corbyn was as much use as a robust and well made fire guard in the face of a raging conflagration set by his arsonist political enemies, in and outside the country, and in and outside his own party. This conflagration was fed and fanned by the arsonist press, and, significantly, not extinguished by the mealy mouthed leftists mentioned in the article, as well as the people mentioned in the article who accuse Corbyn of weakness.

  • Tony says:

    A big ‘thank you’ to Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell for supporting House of Commons EDM 1072 which urges the UK government to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

    I would like to ask all readers of this blog to contact their MPs and urge them to add their support for this move.

    A special lobbying tool has been set up for this purpose. With your help, we can achieve a world without the threat of nuclear annihilation.


  • Jennifer Cavanagh says:

    Tremendous truths here. It is already obvious but of course for our children the truth will be even more blatant. That Corbyn was railroaded by false accusations – claims a man who has consistently stood by and continues oppressed! It is clear that these falsehoods were to truly maintain the status quo whereby equity, justice and fairness could not flourish. Shame.

  • Anthony Sperryn says:

    A key aspect of this matter is how Jeremy Corbyn should have, or could have, dealt with Dame Margaret Hodge.

    She, publicly, had made grossly insulting and untrue statements about Jeremy, which he made no great fuss about. His instinct might have been to “turn the other cheek” or to act on the saying “Sticks and stones may bear my bones, but words will never hurt me”, as my father used to say.

    However, Jeremy is practical and I don’t suppose he would have wanted to waste his time suing the silly woman, when there was campaigning to do out there. He may have had more than an inkling that the Labour bureaucracy wouldn’t put themselves out to give him support and would have resisted any attempt to suspend her or withdraw the whip.

    Perhaps we shall soon come to a crunch-point in Britain. The Labour Party is in no way democratic, and ought not to be voted for by any person of goodwill. It should not be beyond the wit of someone to set up a new party, so that our half-witted government can be properly opposed and defeated. Loyalty to the old party is like clinging to film photography when the world is now on digital.

  • Actually Anthony Sperryn is wrong here. Corbyn did want to have Hodge disciplined. It was the reaction of John McDonnell, who urged that nothing be done against her, because there was no limit to his appeasement, that meant that she got away with this abuse

    If the Pogrund.MacGuire book is correct Jeremy didn’t forgive McDonnell and for months they didn’t talk.

    The reality is that instead of McDonnell providing the hard edge of Corbynism he led the charge to appease the Board.

  • Doug says:

    I would have JC back tomorrow and build a ring of steel around him, until its safe to hand over to the younger generation
    That would leave the dirty work to those best suited to it
    Simple message to our enemies would be that under a future Labour government ‘vexatious claims of anti semitism are hate crimes and will be prosecuted ‘
    To the MSM and toilet papers you are not fit for purpose, democratic countries need a functioning free press, we will remind journalists you serve only the truth
    Regulation with unlimited fines and 3 strikes and your out of business, administered by Prince Harry, Hugh Grant and Max Moseley amongst others
    Prefer to look forward rather than dwell on what JC could have done

  • Allan Howard says:

    Anthony, on the one hand Jeremy – who was probably advised to that effect – would have lost if he had taken legal action against Hodge for calling him an effing anti-semite, as Tony Greenstein recently learnt when his defamation case against the CAA concluded. It’s based on some ruling to protect journalists, and if someone believes something to be true and that is their opinion, then they are free to say so. And on the other hand the uproar by the ‘moderates’ et al about the party planning to discipline her was deafening AND the MSM full of it, and THAT is why they had no choice but to back down. The general jist of the attack was that any Labour MP who is ‘brave’ enough to speak out about the ‘scourge’ of anti-semitism in the party is targeted etc, etc, etc.

    Jonathan, as for Jeremy repeating the statistical evidence, I seem to recall that he did precisely just that a few weeks ago….. and got promptly suspended for doing so. Yes, the MSM can report what Jeremy says, and ALSO have several or more ‘moderate’ MPs condemning him for doing so, along with a spokesperson from the CAA, and the JLM, and the BoD…..

    And Jeremy HAS said that the prevalence of A/S in the party is no more than in other parties and in society in general, but it is either glossed over or challenged.

    You make it sound as if Jeremy can just call up whoever and ask to appear on this program or that program on the TV or the radio etc. But it doesn’t work like that. The following video clip is an example of how you get treated when you try to get the truth out there (and although I didn’t see it, there was an article on skwawkbox two or three weeks ago about how someone from JVL was treated when they apeared on Newsnight defending Jeremy):


  • Allan Howard says:

    And Jeremy did NOT throw Chris Williamson under the proverbial bus Richard, and he did in fact defend Chris, and guess what! Yep, he got vilified and condemned for doing so. It was widely reported by the MSM, but here’s a clip from the D Mail:

    ‘Labour’s dossier of shame: Jeremy Corbyn is personally accused of NINE anti-Semitic acts in bombshell report’

    It sets out in nine examples of Mr Corbyn’s past behaviour which the JLM claimed had acted as ‘signals to party members’ that ‘anti-Semitic views are acceptable’.

    This includes, defending Chris Williamson against allegations of anti-Semitism weeks before he was suspended for those allegations.

    Oh right, signals to party members! I bet they had a good laugh when someone came up with THAT one!


    And then there was THIS, and I have little doubt that it was a falsehood, concocted and contrived for the obvious reason:

    ‘Corbyn ‘did all he could’ to save ally Chris Williamson before he was suspended for his comments on anti-Semitism, claims Labour MP’


    Yep, Jeremy just can’t win, can he! If he DOESN’T support Chris and do whatever he can to defend him, he’s castigated by people who allege they are on the left and are supporters of his (despite the fact that he’s ‘weak’ and ‘cowardly’ and ‘appeases’ his enemies and ‘throws good comrades under the bus’ etc, etc, etc!), and then he’s condemned and vilified by the ‘right’ when he DOES give his support to Chris and defends him! Hmm.


  • Dave Kirsopp says:

    An interesting analysis – and equally an interesting series of responses… To me, the one thing that comes through this article – and its responses – is the simple fact that Jeremy Corbyn is a good man. Not perfect – no, but good, sincere and well intentioned. You know, I don’t care how clever someone is supposed to be – or whether they are a “good politician”, I just want decent men and women to be in positions of power. If we do not have decency and honourable people as our leaders then we are truly lost. Thank you Jeremy and others like you for all your efforts. No one is perfect.

  • Anthony Shorter says:

    I found this a very informative article. I had wondered why Jeremy hadn’t made a more strident response, although I was sure he would be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. I’m embarrassed I hadn’t considered that he was taking in to account the collateral fallout that would impact the very people who had joined in criticising him as well as those on his side. Something very typical of him, though I doubt those he protected in this way would understand or even realise.

  • Christine Coombe says:

    No matter how Corbyn reacted he would have been vilified by much of the media as well as political foes in and outside of the Labour Party. The 2017 election result frightened the life out of the establishment which is why everything was thrown at him from that time. Starmer will be tolerated as long as he doesn’t mention Palestinian rights and threaten the wealthy and powerful.

  • Bernard Grant says:

    Everything was against Cornyn from the moment he became Leader. There were LP Rightwing MPs, who made it their mission to make him fail, Starmer had only been an MP for a couple of years, yet he joined Owen Smith’s, Leadership Challenge two man Campaign Team, then there was the Rightwing Press spewing Lies and propaganda almost daily for 5 years, finally, although Corbyn campaigned up and down the Country, visiting more towns and doing more miles than any other MP (which was ignored by the Press and the BBC), he campaigned to Remain and Change. After Leave won, Being a democrat, he went with the majority to Leave but the LP Coup MPs saw an opportunity to make Corbyn fail, they went for a “People’s Vote” and pressed to get their way, led by Starmer, forcing Corbyn to reluctantly support it, that cost us hundreds of thousands of natural Labour Voters and the crushing defeat. ps, Starmer never once put his hands up and took the blame, he condemned Corbyn for the Loss. That alone says all we need to know about Starmer.

Comments are now closed.