When you open sluice gates nasty stuff flows out

JVL Introduction

Mike Cushman responds to the recent EHRC “exoneration” of the Labour Party and the venomous attacks on Jewish Voice for Labour by Ruth Smeeth, Margaret Hodge and others.

Those doughty defenders of all Jews who felt uncomfortable in the Labour Party three years ago, are now inviting left wing Jews to leave it, as pro-business, pro-Nato, pro-Israel sentiments seem to be the new condition for membership.

This article was originally published by the Morning Star on Wed 22 Feb 2023. Read the original here.

When you open sluice gates nasty stuff flows out

Last week’s EHRC statement on anti-semitism in Labour is based on flawed premises and has led to an undemocratic enforcement of ideological purity within the party

LAST week the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) gave the Labour Party a “clean bill of health” on dealing with anti-semitism.

Its statement is based on two falsehoods and has led to a growing crisis of party democracy.

First, that there was a major problem of anti-semitism to be cured.

Second, that it ignores the escalating attack by the party on its Jewish socialist members.

The publication of the EHRC’s statement has encouraged the right-wing leadership of the party to declare that support for Israel and its criminal behaviour is mandatory for party members and proclaim that a pro-business and pro-Nato stance is also required.

Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) has exposed in detail the scanty and selective evidence base for the accusation of widespread Labour anti-semitism.

We have never denied the existence of a low but troubling level of anti-semitic speech by a few party members.

We have also been clear on the systematic failure of the party machine under the Blairite leadership of Iain McNicol to deal with those instances.

This did not end with his displacement to the House of Lords.

The undermining, by staff appointed under his regime, of the efforts of the Corbyn/Formby leadership to get on top of his legacy was revealed by leaked report on the activities of governance and legal unit, the party enforcers, and confirmed in the Forde report.

JVL also publish a detailed critique of the flawed legal basis of the EHRC’s findings of unlawful behaviour by the party in How the EHRC Got It So Wrong.

The commission’s unjustified findings of unlawful behaviour were not only painful and damaging for the individuals concerned; they also provided the excuse for the demonisation of Jeremy Corbyn and all who supported him and for a state-sanctioned assault on socialists in the party who spoke out in support of Palestinian rights.

In the two years since the EHRC reported, this assault has most ferociously targeted left-wing Jews.

The Keir Starmer/David Evans autocracy has conducted a campaign of harassment against JVL’s Jewish members.

We have produced detailed statistical evidence that shows that Jewish JVL members are 37 times more likely to be investigated for anti-semitism than an average Labour Party member and 54 times more likely to be expelled.

It is not necessary to show that there has been deliberate targeting of Jews for disciplinary action for this pattern to be deeply disturbing.

Socialist Jews experience this as grossly inconsiderate of their right to express how their upbringing leads them to feel about Israel’s actions.

The floodgates open

Since the publication of the EHRC’s latest statement the demands for ideological purity from Starmer and leading Labour zionist politicians have intensified.

This was anticipated by siren call from Rachel Reeves a week earlier when she celebrated the pile-on on Kim Johnson’s accurate description of Israel as a state guilty of the crime of apartheid, saying it was a sign of just how serious Starmer is at booting both anti-semitism and “anti-zionism” out of Labour. Starmer has boasted that he is “a zionist without qualification.”

It has not been so explicit previously that it was impermissible for party members to disagree with him.

While Reeves is opposed to anti-zionists and those human rights defenders she mislabels as anti-semites, she is on record as celebrating Nancy Astor, a known anti-semite and Hitler sympathiser.

It swiftly became clear that Reeves was not alone in determination to cleanse Labour of those who placed an emphasis on morality and equality.

Margaret Hodge said on Radio 4 “I’m inviting them, if they feel uncomfortable, in a party that will not tolerate Jew-hate, that supports businesses and the economy, that will support Nato in the international arena, this is not the party for them.”

It is not opposition to “Jew-hate” that divides us from Hodge; it is her expansive but selective definition of it.

Hodge seems to have a perception that would include Amnesty, B’Tselem and Human Rights Watch and anyone who quotes their denunciations of Israel’s criminal treatment of Palestinians but excludes Reeves’s endorsement of a known Nazi sympathiser.

It is not difficult to imagine her expletive-laden outrage if Corbyn had spoken warmly of Astor.

Ruth Smeeth, under her nom-de-guerre of Lady Anderson, was not to be upstaged by Hodge.

She got herself interviewed on BBC TV news and on being asked whether her reaction to anti-zionist Jews being frightened to attend Labour Party meetings because of abuse and intimidation was “tough” she did not hesitate to agree.

She went on to insult and defame JVL and said its members did not belong in the Labour Party.

This is the same Ruth Smeeth who said in 2019: “I am not prepared for any Jew to be hounded out. If the party won’t fix this, then they are going to hear from me every single day until this is resolved.”

She is as selective as Hodge as she clearly means “any” in the more limited sense of “any who agree with me.”

Peter Kyle has tweeted: “If you’re anti-semitic or you don’t agree with support for business … then this isn’t the party for you.”

Again, we see this supposed link between anti-semitism and lack of support for business.

It’s almost as if there is for these people an unbreakable join of Jews with business — Kyle and others might want to look at any list of classic anti-semitic tropes.

This consistent messaging from Starmer’s outriders suggests that he wants to use the EHRC as another weapon not to win an ideological argument but to enforce an ideological uniformity on the party.

This dungeon has room for: tolerance of, and thus complicity in, Israeli quotidian breaches of international law; sympathy with business but not with trade union action to protect workers against abuse and impoverishment; an absence of any critical reflection on the role of Nato either in relation to Ukraine or more widely.

When the Guardian praises Starmer, even they still warn against his hostility to independent thinking and challenge from the left.

A desire for purification is a feature of fascism. No previous Labour leader, not even Neil Kinnock or Tony Blair, has pursued a purification programme with the enthusiasm and ferocity of Starmer as even a moderate commentator like Michael Crick has realised.

The EHRC has handed Starmer new equipment for his petty version of the Inquisition. His acolytes have seized it with alacrity and joy.


Mike Cushman is JVL membership secretary.

Comments (11)

  • dave says:

    “Again, we see this supposed link between anti-semitism and lack of support for business. It’s almost as if there is for these people an unbreakable join of Jews with business…”

    Not what I see. It’s just they are out in the open now indicating it’s not about antisemitism but about getting rid of anti-capitalist and anti-war socialists. And anti-Zionists of course.

    1
    0
  • Angie Birtill says:

    Excellent informative article. Thank you

    0
    0
  • Kuhnberg says:

    As Starmer’s grip over Labour’s component parts grows ever stronger, the party has become unrecognizable. Its traditional commitment to equality and human rights has now been replaced by a commitment to ‘business’, which in Starmer’s terms means big business, the interests of large corporations. Since those interests seem these days to be divorced from any responsibility for the welfare and decent wages of the workers who keep those corporations running, it is hard to see why any trade union would continue to find Labour worthy of its support.

    The right, in short, seems by all accounts to have succeeded in disposing of a socialist and anti-racist they feared and hated by painting him as an antisemite, replacing him with a leader who will do their bidding, and using the new leader to execute a complete takeover of the party and its function. But none of this has been won fairly, by debate and reason, only with despicable lies and calumnies. Referring to these illegitimate outcomes as ‘victories’ is a mistake. An advantage gained by cheating is not victory but theft.

    Labour now seems to hold an unassailable lead lead in the polls. Such is the unholy mess created by the current administration, this is likely to translate into a huge Labour landslide in 2024. Nonetheless I find it hard to believe that the public has been entirely fooled. Despite the best efforts of a servile media to conceal the truth, Starmer is generally viewed with suspicion and dislike. How all this will play out I have no idea, but I continue, perhaps vainly, to believe the motto taught to us as children: that cheaters never prosper, and those who win a game with lies will some day receive their comeuppance.

    0
    0
  • Stephen Richards says:

    Anti-Semitism hype was a classic ‘Moral Panic’ used as a stick to beat Socialist Labour.

    0
    0
  • Hassan says:

    “Its traditional commitment to equality and human rights”

    How do Afghanistan and Iraq fit into the above narrative ? Dont tell me, that was just Blair/New Labour, and it was all better in mythical Old Labour times. You know, the elitist Fabiens and imperialist Atlee.

    0
    0
  • Tony says:

    No shortage of anti-Corbyn letters published in yesterday’s Guardian. Hard to believe that no pro-Corbyn letters were received.

    0
    0
  • Rory O'Kelly says:

    Peter Kyle is strikingly frank in his assimilation of ‘anti-semitic’ to ‘anti-Business’. He comes close to accepting that the ‘antisemitism’ of which Corbyn was accused was simply a coded reference to his criticism of capitalism.

    Of course the position taken by Kyle and others like him only makes sense if it is tacitly accepted that generally speaking all capitalists are Jews and all Jews are capitalists. The dirty little secret beneath all the rhetorical outrage is that the entire narrative of ‘Labour Party antisemitism’ rests on an assumption that is not only false but in itself antisemitic.

    0
    0
  • Andrew Hornung says:

    I’m with “dave” on this. First they came for the anti-Zionists, then they came for those protesting the expulsion or proscription of anti-Zionists, then they came for the anti-capitalists and the Nato-sceptics…

    0
    0
  • Allan Howard says:

    About two years ago now I went on to the CST’s website to check how many ‘Prosecutions for Antisemitism’ they had listed for 2020, and found that there was nothing listed, and only prosecutions up until 2019 were listed. So anyway, it just occured to me to check again, and it’s STILL the same – ie there is no annual listing of prosecutions beyond 2019 (the year JC and the LP lost the GE and Jeremy announced that he was standing down as of when a new leader is elected).

    As far as I can tell (from their website) the CST have been publishing annual lists of prosecutions for antisemitism since 2003, and I can’t see any explanation for why it suddenly came to a halt in 2019. Why would it?!

    What they say on the page is ‘CST will continue supporting prosecutions against antisemitism and will update this list as required.’ Could it be a case of ‘Mission Accomplished’ and they’re not bovvered anymore!

    https://cst.org.uk/research/prosecutions-for-antisemitism

    0
    0
  • Allan Howard says:

    I just went back onto the CSTs website to have a bit of a look around (which I’ve not really done before), and the very first thing I came across – which I don’t recall hearing about before – is a CST report (so-called) entitled ‘Engine of Hate – The online networks behind the Labour Party’s antisemitism crisis’, pubished in 2019. Here’s a short extract from the intro:

    This report identifies 36 key pro-Corbyn Twitter accounts, each with their own, overlapping, online networks that drive social media conversations about antisemitism and the Labour Party. These 36 accounts have been dubbed the ‘Engine Room’ in this report as they are amongst the most influential accounts on Twitter in engaging with online conversations about Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party and antisemitism.

    I’ve only skimmed through it reading a bit here, and a bit there (it’s a 52 page pdf file), but the main claim being made appears to be that that these accounts are claiming that it’s all been exaggerated and weaponised to undermine Jeremy Corbyn, and that THAT amounts to Hate….. Well, yes, it does – ie persecution and hate-mongering against those telling the truth and exposing the malevolent falsehoods and lies for what they are!

    Anyway, at the beginning of page 9 they’ve got like a screenshot of part of a Skwawkbox article, which they don’t comment about, but seem to imply that it’s an example of Jew hate/anti-semitism, and yet when I did a search re the subject matter of the SB article, the Times of Israel had an article about it as well. They also disseminate the falsehood that KL said Hitler supported Zionism. He didn’t! He alluded to The Haavara Agreement, and then said in respect of the agreement, that Hitler *was* supporting Zionism.

    Yep, we all know (on the left) about the REAL Engine of Hate, and who’s behind it!

    0
    0
  • Kuhnberg says:

    The most deranged comment to date on the readmittance of Luciana Berger to the Labour Party (against Labour policy as defined in the rule book, but who cares? Certainly not Mr Rules himself) comes in a tweet from ex-Tory Christian Wakeford to the effect that he is ‘thrilled’ to see Berger back in the party after the ‘depths of depravity’ of the Corbyn years. As one who took part in those ‘depths of depravity’, I find myself pleased to see one of Starmer’s recruits exposing himself with such lack of moderation. It revives my faith is what was achieved and how much it mattered. A recent piece by Jonathan Cook entitled ‘Starmer is paving the way for the triumph of dark politics’ offers an analysis of recent developments in this saga infused with his usual wisdom and insight. There is a warning there about the dark currents which might be stirred up by Starmer’s purge of the left, but Cook also offers a germ of hope that given the glaring absence of solutions coming from the two main parties, ‘Voters will increasingly be drawn to figures promising decisive action over inaction.’

    0
    0

Comments are now closed.