Zionist/Imperialist Politicians and Media Expose Themselves

The attempt, by Zionist/imperialist politicians and media, to use the appalling murder of Jewish worshippers, by an anti-Semitic jihadist, to ban pro-Palestinian protests has simply exposed their own hypocrisy. The feats of semantic gymnastics they have performed have been Olympian.

Firstly, as I wrote a couple of days ago, we had the condemnation of the jihadist as undertaking an egregious and abominable act against Jewish worshippers, in Britain, who have no connection to the acts of genocide being committed by the Zionist state in Israel, against Palestinians. It was quite rightly pointed out that this was, therefore, an anti-Semitic attack, against Jews for being Jews, and which sought to equate all Jews with Israel, and with Zionism. All absolutely, correct. But, then, we had, immediately after that, demands that demonstrations – called not against Jews, but against the Zionist state's genocide in Palestine – be cancelled, or postponed, in deference to British Jewish communities! Why?

The first absolutely correct premise that British Jews are not synonymous with the Zionist state, and, therefore, in no way connected to the genocidal actions of that state, precludes any connection of demonstrations against that Zionist state being deemed to be protests against British Jews. You cannot argue the former without accepting the latter, without placing yourself in a fundamental contradiction, a reductio ad absurdum. Yet, that is what the Zionist/imperialist politicians and media have tried to argue. Are they really wanting to say that pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and/or demonstrations against the genocide being committed by the Zionist state are, de facto, anti-Semitic demonstrations against British Jews? If so, they can only do so by, also, claiming that British Jews are, indeed, somehow synonymous with the Zionist state, and, therefore, also responsible for its actions!

That is the inevitable logic of their argument, and, of itself, is a thoroughly anti-Semitic argument. Indeed, throughout its history, Zionism, by its own attempts to claim that Judaism and Zionism are synonymous, has been a thoroughly anti-Semitic ideology, and a major contributor to the development of anti-Semitism across the globe. (Some of the most militant Zionists are not Jews, but are Christian Zionists, whose own vile anti-Semitism is explicit.) It implies that you can only be a real Jew if you are, also, a Zionist, and that, wherever you live in the world, as a Jew, you are Israeli, and your allegiance lies primarily with Israel.

There are, of course, those that have difficulty separating one thing from another. For example, in Britain in the 1930's, opposition to Nazism, led some to simply equate Nazism with being German, even though it was millions of Germans who were the first and most affected by it. That didn't stop some, in Britain, simply adopting a hatred of all Germans just for being German! But, would anyone have argued not to hold demonstrations against Nazism, and in support of the victims of Nazism, on that basis? Of course not, though, it is why, it would be better to refer to fascism, rather than Nazism. Its why its better to refer to the actions of the Zionist state, rather than the Israeli state.

The most obvious manifestation of this anti-Semitic, Zionist logic is the fact that, in Britain, thousands of Jews oppose Zionism, and oppose the genocide being committed by the Zionist state against Palestinians. Many of them, indeed, took part in the demonstrations that the Zionists/imperialists sought to ban. The implication is that, these Jews are not, therefore, really Jews at all. It seeks to equate being a real Jew with being a Zionist, and with being, thereby, synonymous with the Zionist state, and its genocide! What greater piece of anti-Semitic ideology could there be than that, as a means of stoking hatred of Jews as Jews?

For the last century, imperialism and supporters of the Zionist state have claimed that they favour a two bourgeois states solution. That is the creation of a Jewish state, and a Palestinian state. Setting aside the reactionary nature of demands for the creation of new bourgeois states, let alone nation states based upon religious or ethnonationalism, what do the arguments over the weekend, actually tell us? We are told that the pro-Palestine demonstrations were, inherently, anti-Semitic, and so should have been cancelled or postponed. But, you can only argue that a pro-Palestinian demonstration is “anti-Semitic”, if, first you equate being Jewish with being Zionist, and if, secondly, you see the existence of a Palestinian state as being inevitably contradictory to the existence of a Jewish state in Israel. Now, as it happens, and as I argued 40 years ago, and ever since, I do believe that, so long as capitalism/imperialism exists, the reality is that a two-bourgeois states solution is a dangerous and reactionary delusion, but that is not what the imperialist politicians and media have claimed.

But, if they were genuine in their belief that a two bourgeois states solution is the way forward, and not simply a diplomatic lie used to pacify the gullible, and enable the colonial rule of the Zionist state to continue, whilst denying political rights to Palestinians, they cannot possibly argue that a “Pro-Palestinian” demonstration is de facto, an “anti-Israel” demonstration, let alone an “anti-Semitic” demonstration, and even less a demonstration aimed against Jews living in Britain! A “pro-Palestinian” demonstration, i.e. a demonstration demanding that a politically independent Palestinian state should be allowed the right to self-determination, and that the occupation of that state by the Zionist state be ended, can only be deemed to be “anti-Israel” if you actually believe that the creation of an independent Palestinian state is irreconcilable with the continued existence of the state of Israel. In other words, it requires that you abandon the pretence that you support a Two-bourgeois states solution. Even, less, as set out above can a pro-Palestine demonstration, then be equated with being a demonstration against British Jews, or Jews per se, especially as many British Jews have participated in those demonstrations.

Netanyahu, of course, has no difficulty in simply saying that he rejects the idea of a two bourgeois states solution, and admitting that he sees the creation of an independent Palestinian state as being antithetical to the existence of the Israeli state. Only at the point that the Zionist state has killed all prospect of an independent Palestinian state, or, indeed, any kind of Palestinian state, and increasingly continued existence of Palestinian people, as it proceeds with its genocide, has Britain recognised Palestine, which amounts to a totally meaningless, face-saving gesture, as it turns its attention to the possibility of future war crimes trials, in which it may be implicated. Yet, for the hard-line Zionists even that formal recognition of Palestine, is too much. When the deplorable Lammy went to Manchester, a group of hard line Zionists, took the opportunity to shout him down complaining that, in some inexplicable way, this recognition of Palestine, was itself a contributory factor in leading an anti-Semitic, jihadist to carry out their attack! With that flawed logic, it would be at least as rational to conclude that such a person was motivated to carry out their attack as a result of the Zionist state undertaking a genocide against Palestinians!

The flawed logic and hypocrisy continued with the response to the actual demonstrations. As stated above, the descriptions of the demonstrations have varied, sometimes referring to them as being “Pro-Palestinian”, and sometimes “anti-Genocide”, as well as those dealing with the opposition to the ridiculous banning of “Palestine Action”. What none of those descriptions have been able to claim is that the demonstrations were “anti-Israel”, let alone “anti-Semitic”. That has been left to be tacitly implied with the commentary surrounding the description and reporting, and overtly implied in the demands that the protests be cancelled or postponed. But, the implication whether tacit or overt has no basis in fact or logic. If you purport to support a two bourgeois states solution, then an independent, free Palestine, is a prerequisite for it, and so, why would you oppose a protest in support of such a development, especially as the British government, along with the majority of other other states in the world, now recognises a Palestinian state?

If that is what you believe, you cannot logically argue that a protest in favour of Palestine is de facto, a protest against Israel, let alone a protest aimed at Jews. Similarly, most civilised people across the globe oppose genocide and war crimes, even if an increasingly right-wing polity in Britain seeks to abandon all such civilised behaviour, for example, in abandoning the European Convention on Human Rights. So, how can you, then, oppose a protest against an actual genocide that is continuing day after day, conducted by the Zionist regime? Opposing that genocide, does not equate, even, to opposing the continued existence of the Zionist state that is undertaking that genocide. It only equates to insisting that that state desist in its actions, just as demands that the Russian state desist from its war against Ukraine does not equate to a demand that Russia continue to exist. Even less can it be argued that a protest against an ongoing genocide is in any way a protest aimed at Jews, let alone Jews living in Britain.

Seeming to recognise that they had been caught out in this flawed logic and hypocrisy, the Zionist/imperialist politicians and media changed to a different tack. They moved from demands that the protests be cancelled because of being seen to be threatening to British Jews, to demands that they be postponed, because they would drain police resources that would otherwise be utilised to protect Jewish communities. But, none of the protests have been violent protests. For the number of people taking part, during the whole period of the last three years, fewer people have been arrested than at an average football match. The logic would rather be that to save police resources, all current football matches be postponed! Good luck trying to argue for that one.

Moreover, most of the arrests that have taken place, are not for any kind of violent behaviour, but have been arrests of people for carrying flags or placards. Oddly we do not see the same kind of zealous pursuit of racists and fascists for carrying flags and placards, in a threatening manner, nor for vandalising property by illegally erecting flags, or daubing paint on road signs. If the police and politicians were worried about a real extensive threat to Jewish communities over the weekend, then they would have prioritised their scarce resources to that task, and not to policing and arresting a load of peaceful protesters, opposing genocide.

When it comes to the protests opposing the banning of Palestine Action, the logical gymnastics have been even more absurd. Firstly, it was claimed that because Palestine Action is a proscribed “terrorist” organisation, it was already illegal to protest in favour of it. That is simply not true. It is illegal to support Palestine Action, as an organisation, but it is not illegal to protest against the government's decision to proscribe it, which itself is being challenged in the courts, nor to protest in favour of that ban being lifted, nor is it illegal to protest in favour of the aims of Palestine Action, i.e. to prevent the genocide in Gaza, and the government's facilitation of that genocide by the supply of military equipment. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of all, under the Genocide Convention, to which Britain is a signatory, to prevent such genocide. It is the British government that is acting illegally.

So, if the argument is that police resources are being used to arrest a bunch of peaceful grannies sitting holding placards, and interfering with no one other than a few pigeons in Trafalgar Square, rather than protecting Jewish communities, the question is, do they not have a brain so as to decide which is the most pressing use of those resources? If police resources, week after week, are being used to police and arrest hundreds of grannies and vicars, who have only turned out because the British government, as it becomes aver more authoritarian, has passed a piece of ridiculous legislation declaring Palestine Action to be a terrorist organisation, then, the responsibility for that lies, primarily with the government, which should lift that ban, and secondly with the police for using their resources to implement that ridiculous ban, rather than protecting Jewish and other minority communities.

Protesting against the government's ridiculous ban, does not equate to supporting Palestine Action as an organisation. I do not support Starmer's reactionary Blue Labour, but I would oppose it being banned by some future government. As a Marxist, I do not support Palestine Action, and its petty-bourgeois, individualistic acts of sabotage. Rather, I support the mass action of the working-class to achieve those ends, as with the general strike being organised in Italy. But, that does not mean that I am indifferent to the actions of the state to ban Palestine Action, and that same state if allowed to continue unchallenged, would soon turn its attention to banning any actual mass action by the working-class.

All around the hypocrisy and contradictions of Zionism/imperialism are being exposed more clearly by the day.

Zionist Hypocrisy

The vicious attack and murder of Jewish worshippers at a synagogue in Manchester, was a deplorable act of anti-Semitism.  It was an attack by a jihadist against Jewish people, simply because they are Jewish.  They have no responsibility or connection to the actions of the Zionist state in Israel, and its genocide against Palestinians.  For all the attacker might have known, those worshippers he killed, like many other Jews, in Britain, may have been opponents of the Zionist regime, and the genocide it is undertaking.  Thousands of British jews, just like tens of thousands of Jews across the globe, regularly join in the marches and protests against the Zionist regime, and its genocide.  The jihadist was not striking a blow against Zionism, but simply expressing their own vile, anti-Semitic hatred of Jews for being Jews.  Dress that up, however, they might, the anti-Semites cannot equate Judaism with Zionism, cannot hold Jews, as Jews responsible for the vile actions of the Zionist state.

But, of course, the Zionists, including all of those that have defended the actions of the Zionist state, do exactly the same thing, as this anti-Semitic terrorist.  They do try to equate Judaism with Zionism, and so equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.  In doing so, they actively promote anti-Semitism, by actively promoting the same logic of this anti-Semitic jihadist, who also equates Judaism with Zionism, and so, justifies their own hatred of Jews as Jews, by holding every Jew in the world responsible for the crimes of the Zionist state.  Repeatedly, protests against the Zionist state, and its genocide have been described by the Zionists, and by those western states and politicians as "anti-Semitic", thereby, equating Judaism and Zionism, where no such equation exists.  It was simply a lazy and opportunist way of trying to shut down criticism and protest against the actions of the Zionist state, as an ally of western imperialism.

Remember, of course, that bourgeois liberals have frequently claimed that democracies do not start wars, or carry out such genocides, whilst they have continually claimed that the Zionist regime in Israel is such a democracy.  The claim that democracies do not start wars and so on was a crock to begin with, and the whole history of colonialism is one of oppression and violence that was undertaken by such democracies.  But, even were it true, its proponents would have to either abandon the claim in respect of the actions of the Zionist regime, or else, conclude that Israel is not a democracy.

In the Sky News Press Preview, last night, Adam Boulton, commenting on the attack, made precisely the point that thee is no connection between being a British Jew, and the actions of the Zionist state, and so the killing of British Jews, is just an act of anti-Semitism.  Quite right.  But, later, he, then, argued that the pro-Palestine demonstrations, opposing the genocide by the Zionist state, should have been called off!  In other words, having argued, correctly, that there is no connection between being a British Jew, and the actions of the Zionist state, he, then, almost immediately makes that very connection, to argue that demonstrations against the actions of the Zionist state should be called off.

Why would that, in any logical sense, follow, given that, as he said to begin with, there is no connection between British Jews, and the vile actions of the Zionist state, and the genocide it is undertaking against Palestinians?  This is the debilitating effect that the equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism has on any rational discourse, and flows from the flawed IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which does make that connection.  The actions of the British government are predictably hypocritical in demanding that the protests against genocide in Gaza be called off.  For the racists of the Blue Labour government the murder of thousands of Palestinians week after week by the Zionist state, pale into insignificance compared to the murder of two British Jews, by a jihadist.

London Marathon Prevents Londoners Going About Their Lives

Londoners were prevented from going freely about their business on Sunday, as roads were closed, when 50,000 runners in the London Marathon occupied some of the roads for several hours. Christians seeking to cross the road to get to their local church, people wanting to get to their local pub, and others were told that it was unreasonable for them to be able to simply disregard the barriers, and to simply try to walk through the 50,000 runners. That was particularly the case given that some of those trying to do so so, were also known to be hostile to the event itself.

This restriction on Londoners freedom came just a day after police had also told a Jewish man, Gideon Falter, of the pro-Zionist, Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, who similarly wanted to walk through a large demonstration protesting against the Zionist genocide going on in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. In an edited video released by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, who just happened to also have someone there to witness, the confrontation between Mr. Falter and the police, he was seen being told not to do so, before being arrested. What the video omitted, but was shown in a further video, released to Sky News, was that before that, the police offered to escort him by a different route across to the synagogue, he said he wanted to get to, but that he refused. As he said, why should he have to do that, and similarly, why should not people be free to walk across the path of people running the London Marathon?

Why would anyone think that someone trying to do that, having brought someone along to film them doing so, was simply trying to be provocative? God forbid such a thought. In fact, I am all in favour of having such events policed and marshalled by their organisers. I doubt that had Mr. Falter simply wanted to merge into the demonstration, and make his way across it to the other side, he would have had any problem. There were after all many other “visibly Jewish” people taking part in the demonstration against Zionist atrocities, and one more would have attracted no attention.

What would have attracted attention, of course, would be if someone was protesting against the march itself, was shouting anti-Palestinian or pro-Zionist remarks, defending the genocide being committed against Palestinians. What that would have provoked is not a response against someone for being Jewish, but as with someone protesting against the Marathon, by trying to march through it, of simply being a bit of a dick. In the case of someone vociferously protesting in favour of the Zionist genocide against Palestinians, or seeking to deny its existence, rather like Nazi Holocaust deniers, it would not be surprising if the response to that was itself rather forceful.

Zionism and Anti-Semitism

The Zionist genocide against Palestinians has clarified a number of things. It has put the last nail in the coffin of the reactionary Two-State Solution; it has exposed the sham of bourgeois-democracy, and its rule of law; it has shown the nature and purpose of the hysteria built up around charges of “anti-Semitism”, against the Left.

Faced with the glaring reality of that genocide, the international institutions of imperialism, such as the United Nations, and its bodies, such as the ICJ, have found it impossible to deny, though, even as they have called it out, their impotence has been made all the more obvious, when the dominant imperialist power, the US, and its subordinates, have no reason to act on its findings, which would undermine their global interests. On the contrary, in a growing dissonance from reality, the US, and its representatives have tried to deny the evidence that everyone can see, including these global institutions, charged with administering the supposed rules based international order, and have vetoed resolutions, or, when, left with no credible other option, have simply claimed that the decisions are non-binding, and so on, as they continued to supply war planes and munitions to a regime carrying out genocide and other war crimes.

US imperialism, its subordinates, and the social imperialists have cavilled and openly lied about the actions of the Zionist regime, even after those lies have been demolished in devastating detail. But, the apologists for these Zionist atrocities, as well as simply lying, and denying the reality, have also fallen back, on the stock response developed over the last ten years, or so, of trying to claim that anyone who opposes the war crimes of the Zionist regime, is simply guilty of anti-Semitism! A classic example, of that was in the encounter between Owen Jones and Hen Mazzig, on Sky News. 

Mazzig having failed to counter any of the arguments, and facts, put by Owen Jones, simply falls back on the implication of anti-Semitism, and charges of supporting Hamas, with no grounds to do so whatsoever. The nature of Zionism, and of its apologists, is illustrated by his comment that he can understand why Jews or Palestinians might feel passionate about the issue, but cannot understand why Owen Jones would, as though, any decent human being would not feel passionate about suffering and genocide, whether inflicted on Jews, Palestinians or anyone else! I suppose its the logical conclusion of identity politics, but the underlying implication is that, you as not a Palestinian are only passionate about this, because, you are an anti-Semite!

This was taken to a ludicrous level, when Owen Jones, having deplored the obscenity of Nazi Germany's Holocaust against Jews, noted that it had attempted to redeem itself by its support for Israel. Mazzig then attempted to attack Jones for having even referred to the Holocaust, claiming that it was offensive to do so, even though Jones, had referred to its obscenity. Subsequently, the apologists of Zionism have ridiculously accused him of saying that Germany's attempt to redeem itself for the Holocaust was obscene. This is the depths to which they have sunk, in their attempt to defend the indefensible.

But, the ground for such a lying response has long been prepared by all of the anti-Semitism hysteria that was whipped up, in previous years, particularly after Corbyn was elected Labour Leader. That hysteria, used as a means to attack, first the Left, and then, Corbyn himself, undermined the struggle against actual anti-Semitism in society. Of course, it was not just in Britain that this happened. A similar campaign was waged in the US, and Europe, and was facilitated by the spread of identity politics. The reason for Zionists waging such a campaign is quite clear, to act to protect the Zionist state in Israel, by undermining any anti-Zionist forces in the countries of its imperialist backers. That is, in fact, no different than any other state would do, in promoting its interests globally. Yet, the Zionists and their apologists claim that even pointing this out, is in some way, itself, anti-Semitic, suggesting a claim of some Jewish conspiracy, even though it is the opposite, noting that every state does it, and that the Zionist state would be unusual if it didn't!!!

Moreover, its only a conspiracy theory if, no evidence is provided to back up the claims that this is what is happening. But, there is lots of evidence that the Zionist state in Israel, does this, just as there is lots of evidence that the Russian state does similar things, as does the Chinese state. Al Jazeera has presented numerous videos and documentaries setting out the way the Zionist state has pumped large amounts into Britain, for example, to win the support of various politicians. Call it lobbying if you wish, but its a standard part of the corrupt and corrupting nature of bourgeois-democracy.

And, to note that this is what happens, whether in Britain, the US, or EU countries, and elsewhere, is not at all to suggest that the Zionist state tail wags the imperialist dog. Zionism acts to promote its own interests, and imperialism acts to promote its interests. In whipping up the anti-Semitism hysteria, as part of the attack on the Left in Britain, and in the US, the Zionists promoted their own interests, but, those interests, coincided with those of imperialism, for whom the rise of Corbyn in the Labour Party, of Sanders/AOC etc., in the US, and similar forces, elsewhere, represented a potential threat.

It is the imperialist dog that wags the Zionist tail, because, Zionism is the vehicle of US imperialism in the Middle-East, but that does not mean, as seen, now, with the wayward actions of the Zionist state, that it does not, also, pursue its own interests. The right-wing of the Labour Party had sought to undermine Corbyn from the time of his election, and repeatedly failed, especially when, despite all their attempts to sabotage it, Corbyn's Labour won the largest share of the votes, it had ever won since 1945, in the 2017 General Election.

Its interesting that the Zionists and pro-imperialists of the AWL, have an article in the latest edition of their rag, by Eric Lee that echoes that hysterical line coming out of Tel Aviv.  He eulogises that Starmer's Labour is gaining increasing support despite its backing of the genocide, whilst in the US, Biden is losing support, and explains it by the backwardness of the US labour movement!  He writes,

"Part of the reason may be that the United States has lagged behind the UK when it comes to pro-Palestinian sentiment. Here, 15 years ago it was common for trade unions to call for boycotts of Israel. In the US, such a thing was unthinkable back then.

The result here was the eventual election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader — one of the most outspokenly pro-Palestinian politicians in the country. Corbyn led Labour to its worst electoral defeat since the 1930s. One cause of that defeat was the feeling that Labour had become a comfortable home for antisemites.

The US has not experienced anything like that. No political leader like Corbyn has emerged. There may be a lot of angry college students out there throwing around expressions like “Genocide Joe” — but there doesn’t seem to be a far-Left, pro-Hamas faction gaining traction in American politics.

I don’t know if the American Left needs to go through something like what we’ve gone through here in Britain, learning the hard way what a dead-end Corbynism turned out to be.

Support for Labour and the Democrats seem to be drawing heavily on dislike of their opponents. No Democrat or liberal wants to see Trump back in the White House. No Labour voter can bear the thought of another Tory government any time soon. This is a cause for hope."

The Zionist apologism, and logic, here, is mind-bending, a form of Zionist narcissistic personality disorder, in which it was opposition to Zionism by British workers that was responsible for Corbyn becoming Leader.  The fact that, under Corbyn Labour's membership rose to over 600,000 that, despite the sabotage of the Right, in 2017, Corbyn's Labour outdid even Blair, in the extent to which its vote, and gain in seats, rose is expunged from history by Lee, who mentions only the 2019 result.  And, the opportunism, short-termism and idiocy is summed up in the claim that the fact that Labour's soft vote is based not on actual support for Starmer or his policies, but solely on distaste for the Tories, "is a cause for hope"!

The idea that Corbyn became Leader, because of offering a more traditional Labourite economic programme, that it won progressive young voters, including many Liberals and Greens, because it gave a potential opposition to Brexit, never enters Lee's head.  It can only be his pro-Palestinian (read Hamas), position.  In which case, his claim about that, also then being the reason for losing in 2019, makes no sense, which is why he expunges the 2017 result from history.  Similarly, the reason for Labour's defeat in 2019, is presented as the electorate's disdain for Labour anti-Semitism, rather than the reality, which was that Corbyn returned to his pro-Brexit position, and the Labourite solutions to the economy fell apart on closer scrutiny.

The Right, which had long had connections with Zionism, via organisations such as The Labour Friends of Israel, BICOM, the Jewish labour Movement, and so on, simply used it to further their own ends. That is, of course, the nature of opportunism, whose unprincipled use of whatever achieves its immediate ends, leads to short-sightedness, and instability, as it results in unforeseen consequences. Those consequences are now blowing apart the whole edifice of opportunism, and western social-democracy.

We can now see the purpose of the ridiculous claims of the Zionists in Labour Friends of Israel, for example, which whipped up an hysteria against Corbyn, with lurid allusions to Nazi Germany – apparently Zionist references to the Holocaust and the Nazis are perfectly acceptable when used to attack the Left – even to the extent of saying that Jews were so afraid that they were having to leave the country, rather than risk the gas chambers to be introduced by Corbyn. In a particularly hysterical interview that was set out by former Director of Labour Friends of Israel, David Mencer. 

But, with the Zionist regime having sacked its previous press spokesman for having been caught out blatantly lying about aid trucks going into Gaza, to an extent that even David Cameron complained about it, he has been replaced by the very same hysterical Mencer, now relocated to Israel, from where he continues his lies and hysteria. 

Just read Eric Lee's words, from the Zionist AWL, once again, here, and the similarity with the line put forward by the Zionist spokesperson Mencer, formerly Director of Labour Friends of Israel, is impossible to ignore. 

Labour Waffle and The Elections

All the results are not yet in, but the conclusion is clear. The Labour Right and their Tory backers claimed that 2019 was the worst result for Labour since the 1935 (not true), and yet this result for Starmer's New Labour is much, much worse. Seats that Labour won handsomely in 2017, under Corbyn, fell under the Tory juggernaut, whilst even those seats that Labour won, under Corbyn, in 2019, were swept up by Johnson's marauders. But, then, given that Starmer has spent the last year praising Johnson's actions, and following in his trail, picking up the scraps and waste he has left, whilst having nothing of his own to say as an alternative, no criticism of Johnson's reactionary populist regime, why would anyone expect any different?

The media's superficial electoral analysis, still using the method of Bob McKenzie's “swingometer”, from the era of two party politics, in the 1960's, has grossly misrepresented what happened in the elections. Even in seats where it is perfectly clear that votes from one or more third parties swung behind one of the main parties, it is presented as though this was a swing from Labour to Tory, or in Scotland, SNP to Tory/Labour, whereas, particularly in Scotland, where voting is now entirely determined on nationalistic divides, for or against independence, even those same pundits had to admit that what was going on was tactical voting by unionist voters to throw their weight behind whichever unionist party had the best chance of beating the SNP, in the given seat, irrespective of the class that party is aligned to. That, of course, is just an indication of the pernicious nature of nationalism/separatism in dividing the working-class against itself.

The clear message of these elections is what I have been saying and predicting for the last two years or more, and which led to Labour's defeats in 2019, and again last Thursday. In 2017, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour not only recruited hundreds of thousands of young, progressive members to its ranks, but it also won the votes of millions of people like them, people who previously had either not voted, or else who had voted for Greens and Liberals, because they had seen the positions of those parties as, at least superficially, more progressive than the conservative policies that Labour had pursued under Blair, Brown and Miliband, which were indistinguishable from those of the Tories. It gave Labour the biggest increase in its vote since 1945. But, Labour threw it away in 2019 chasing a reactionary fantasy.

In 2017, Labour won over all those progressive elements, because it had undertaken the 2016 Referendum on the progressive platform of Remain, whilst not endorsing the existing liberal nature of the EU, and also putting forward its own more radical, social-democratic agenda. In 2017, despite clouding the issue by tying itself to “respecting” the referendum result, its “Six Tests” were clearly designed to ensure that any possible deal arrived at would fail to meet them, so that Labour was effectively committed to scrapping Brexit. Certainly for any progressive Remain voters, the only chance of stopping Brexit, in 2017, was to vote Labour, because the Liberals were disgraced, having put in place Cameron's shameful government in the first place, and the Greens had no chance of forming a government. Not surprising then that Labour candidates, in some seats, like Kensington, won, because they were able to get the votes, of middle-class, former Tory, Remain voters, as well as Greens, Liberals etc.

But, in 2019, Corbyn, backed by his Stalinoid advisors, who had never abandoned the reactionary nationalism of “The British Road To Socialism”, and their hostility to the EU, could not mentally separate out the idea that a growth in progressive ideas, and of the Left, did not itself include increased support for this talisman of their own reactionary leftism. Corbyn was led to stiffen the message of “respecting” the referendum result, to being one of implementing it, albeit in the delusional form of a so called “Labour Brexit”, which was simply a continuation of the reactionary and delusional ideas put forward under the rubric of Lexit. These were, after all the same reactionaries that had previously supported the Stalinoid No2EU election campaign. For them, the argument of “respecting” the referendum result was mere cover for their actual reactionary, nationalist agenda of Lexit.

The result was inevitable. Those millions of progressive Labour voters from 2017, were not at all attracted to the reactionary and delusional ideas of the Lexiters that were now being inserted, in insidious fashion, by the Stalinists and their fellow travellers. As it was pushed forward relentlessly, with the support of Stalinoid elements within the trades union bureaucracy, such as McCluskey, at Labour Conference, those Labour activists began to get disillusioned. In the Spring 2019 elections, even 60% of Labour members voted for other Remain supporting parties, rather than back Corbyn's reactionary Brexitism. Labour's vote collapsed. The reason Labour lost in the 2019 General Election was that it then had to spend the Summer undoing the damage done by that Brexitism in the Spring. Instead of spending the time on doorsteps putting a progressive alternative message to Leave voters, it was put on the back foot, and eventually tried to undo the damage by ever more frantic attempts to bribe the voters with giveaways that were seen for what they were. Incidentally its a problem Johnson will also face. The current pork barrel politics of bribing voters, in a few constituencies, like Tees Valley, can work for a time, but you can't sustain that economically for large areas of the country, and the bribes have to get bigger and bigger to retain the votes bought.

In fact, despite the claims, 2019 was not Labour's worst performance since 1935. In terms of votes and vote share, Labour did worse in 1983, 1987 and 1992. In 2019, Labour still got more votes than in any election since 2001, apart from 2017. Labour's share of the vote at 32.1% was significantly above that of Miliband in 2015 (30.4%), or Brown in 2010 (29%). Labour's problem was that Corbyn had gone in search of that reactionary nationalist Brexit vote, which he was never going to get in any significant numbers, and in the process pissed off 90% of party members who back Remain, and around 80% of its 2017 voters, who also back Remain. It was a foolish strategy, but Starmer has pursued it to even more foolish depths.

The trouble is that the strategists and pundits, much as they do when they look at the abstract concept of “the nation”, do not look at the fact that these abstract concepts are made up of antagonistic elements. So, “the North”, and “Midlands” are seen as areas of Leave, as with the constituencies that comprise them. Yet, as I have set out in previous posts, at the time, this is a crazy way of looking at the situation. As Professor John Curtice and others have explained, even in those heavily Leave voting areas and constituencies, a look at who was doing the voting for each of these two tribes is important. The reality was that, even in those seats, a majority of 2015 Labour voters, voted to Remain. The proportion of its 2017 voters – that included all those progressive new voters that Labour won over – who did so, was even greater than the proportion of its 2015 voters, who backed Remain.

Even in heavily Leave voting seats, around 60-70% of 2017 Labour voters backed Remain. Turning away from them, in search of a small reactionary minority that backed Leave, and whose reactionary views on other issues, meant that a progressive Labour Party would never get their support, was an act of stupidity. These are literally the same voters who, in the 1980's, backed the scabs in the Miners Strike, who voted for Thatcher to be able to buy their council house on the cheap and so on. Of course, they will never say so.  Nor did the scabs and supporters of the scabs in the 1980's either. And, of course, the Labour Right are quite happy with that too, because, at that time, they would have been lining up to “listen” to the views of the scabs, whilst taking every opportunity to appear on TV to attack Scargill and the strikers. As I wrote a while ago, I remember in 1984, Labour supporters being told not to raise the issue of the strike in Council elections for fear of losing the votes of scabs and other opponents of the strike.  Listen to those voters today, and the same message can be heard “we want Boris's money”. As with the Tories of the 18th century, Boris is again buying votes, but its a strategy that is bound to lead to disaster for him too.

A look at the Hartlepool vote showed that the vote itself was down by 10,000 votes, or 25% compared to 2019. That is overwhelmingly a reduction in the number of Labour voters who bothered to turn out, as Labour's vote fell by 7,000. But, of course, the dichotomised world view of the media could only interpret this as a swing from Labour to Tory, despite the fact that, add together the Tory and Reform vote, and it also fell, compared to 2019. In this election, it came in at 16,000, compared to a combined vote of more than 22,000 in 2019. So, clearly, this is not a matter of 2019 Labour voters voting Tory, but of Labour voters from 2017/2019 simply sitting on their hands to a greater extent than did Tory/BP voters.

And, its not just a matter of progressive Labour voters sitting on their hands. A look at the Council election results in Sheffield illustrates the point. The Council went from being Labour to Hung, as a result of Labour losing seats to the Greens. Yet, this understates the dynamic. In a FTP electoral system, for every former Labour vote that goes to the Greens, and results in a Green candidate being elected, another ten former Labour votes goes to Greens who do not get elected. Yet, every Labour vote that goes to a Green, Liberal, Plaid or other such candidate, whether those candidates get elected or not, is still a lost Labour vote, and makes the chance of Tories winning in that seat so much greater. But, with Labour indistinguishable from the Tories, and with Starmer pursuing a reactionary nationalist agenda why would any ordinary, progressive voter give them their vote, rather than voting Green or for some other candidate that – rightly or wrongly – they see as offering a progressive alternative?

In 2019, Johnson calculated – or probably it was Cummings – that all he had to do was to consolidate the reactionary Brexit vote. Labour's confused “respect the referendum” message itself was not sharp enough to mobilise all of the anti-Brexit vote behind it. The SNP are using the same approach in Scotland, mobilising all of the separatist sentiment behind them, now assisted by Johnson's pursuance of a reactionary and damaging Brexit over their heads. The anti-independence parties are trying, ineffectively, to mobilise support behind them, via undeclared tactical voting, but, in 2014, it was Labour's alliance with the Tories, and its pursuance of English nationalism, that put the nail in its Scottish coffin, and allowed the Tories to emerge as the second party in Scotland, though the bureaucracy and corruption of Scottish Labour had been rotting it from the head for decades, a process now likely to continue under Sarwar. In 2019, Corbyn's return to Brexit nationalism meant it was impossible for Labour to consolidate all of the Remain vote behind it, and with that Remain vote – which overall constituted a clear majority - divided, the road was wide open for Johnson to march his battalions through it.

But, at least, in 2019, Corbyn and Labour had another message. It was still able to offer a progressive, social-democratic agenda, even though, in the context of Brexit, such an agenda becomes impossible to implement, and became even more fanciful the closer the election came, and frantic efforts to add to it were made. But Starmer, has not just collapsed entirely into Brexit nationalism, so cutting off the route to all those progressive Labour, Liberal, Green, and Plaid votes, but has gone full throttle into jingoism, and wrapping himself in the butcher's apron, as the symbol of former British colonial imperialism. At the same time, having been elected on the basis of continuing the policy platform of the 2017 and 2019 elections, he has said nothing to support those policies, let alone develop them, despite all evidence being of the electoral popularity of those positions. Instead, at each stage, Starmer has simply acted as Boris Johnson's bag carrier.

No wonder that its not just John McDonnell, and Len McCluskey that complain that they have no idea what Labour, under Starmer, stands for, but that the same is said by Andrew Adonis, and others on the Right of the party.

The assessment has been made that all that was required was to say nothing and allow Boris to destroy himself. What a pathetic strategy for any political party let alone a socialist or social-democratic one. The idea that Toryism could be brought low by avoiding politics, but running to the media with cheap tittle-tattle about where Johnson's girlfriend shops, or who paid for the curtains was particularly abysmal. On the one we don't care, on the other, we all know that bourgeois politics is corrupt, and if this were the worst of it, then we would have little to worry about. The assessment was also made that the progressive Labour voters would vote Labour, even as Starmer chased the reactionary nationalists and jingoes, and abandoned even the moderately progressive social-democratic agenda of Corbyn. The assessment was also made that these progressive Labour voters were only to be found in the cities and metropolitan areas.

But, the example of Hartlepool showed that those progressive voters can stay at home in their tens of thousands. The rest of the country showed that they can do that, or they can vote Green, Liberal, Plaid, or SNP, where those parties appear to provide a more progressive alternative to Starmer's reactionary nationalist agenda. And, as in 2019, they did so, but now in even larger numbers. A look at the first results from the London Mayoral elections is another indication of it. It was thought that Saddiq Khan would have an easy win. Yet, the early results showed a much tighter race. Results in from some Labour seats showed, the Tories getting the most votes. Again that is not a result of Labour voters switching to the Tories, but of Labour voters staying home, or else, it appears, voting for Greens. Every vote for Greens, Liberals and so on, rather than Labour, is effectively a vote for the Tories. Khan is suffering because of Labour's overall reactionary turn, but also, because he opposed Corbyn throughout his period as Leader. Given that the election is in two rounds, he will undoubtedly win in the second round, as Green second votes go to Labour, but the fact remains that Labour's strategy is leading to a loss of support, enabling the Tories to win.

The idea that progressive voters only reside in cities or metropolitan areas is, as I wrote some time ago, clearly nonsense. Its just that there is more of them in some areas than others. There are plenty of progressive younger voters in a place like Stoke, just proportionately fewer compared to the older, more reactionary voters. The progressive voters in Stoke are no less likely to reject a reactionary Labour message than they would be if they lived in Manchester or London. That reactionary message is not going to win over many of those reactionary voters in Stoke and other similar areas, but it will turn away enough of those progressive younger voters to ensure that Labour could never win, and that the Tories will. That is what happened in 2019, and looks like what happened in England last week.

The comparison in Wales, is notable, where the Corbynite Mark Drayford's Labour appears to have done well, as he has continued to present a more progressive message, and, unlike Starmer, has, at least, managed to be opposing Johnson's government.

Professor John Curtice set out this view that the Labour Right seem to have been pursuing as though it was the only possible course, of trying to attract those elderly, reactionary voters. Of course, he said, it was not. Instead, its possible to try to minimise the divisions over Brexit, and focus on an economic message that might attract Labour voters across the divide. In effect, that is what Corby tried, but it failed. Another option, he said, was to ignore the reactionary Brexit voters, and go full out Remain, to rally around all of those progressive voters wherever they live, and, at the same time put forward a progressive economic agenda to win over Labour voters, again irrespective of their views on Brexit. That is clearly the rational electoral option, especially as the reality of the disaster of Brexit increasingly manifests itself.

But, instead, the Labour Right seek to double down on their failed strategy. Starmer talks about ending division in the party, but its him that has created the division with his expulsion of Corbyn from the PLP, the continuation of the witch hunt against party members, the expulsion of party officials just for challenging Corbyn's expulsion and so on. He can only talk in vacuous terms about learning lessons and winning back voters, but challenged about what message he would use to do that, he had no answer. Questioned again and again to elaborate, he simply became more and more rattled and red faced, repeating the same mantra, the more he was struck with the question, the louder the empty vessel rang, but with no change in its tune.

And, this talk of “listening” is not just vacuous, it is actually reactionary in itself. The conservative nationalist, former Labour MP, Caroline Flint, repeated the same calls for listening she has been making for the last several years, which really means listening to the reactionary demands for Brexit, for immigration controls and so on that some of her constituents had been making, so as to collapse into them in the vain hope of her winning a seat, so as to implement those reactionary, anti-working class policies. The conservative, populist Labour MP, Peter Kyle, responded to the electoral disaster by arguing it meant a need to push Labour even further to the Right. He argued the need to wrap itself even more in the butcher's apron, to be proud of British history, and so on. In other words, it was a call for a full on, racist apologism for British colonial savagery and slavery, in search of winning the votes of those bigots and reactionaries that look back to the days of the British Empire so as to bathe in its reflected glory.

The other day, I was watching, of all things, a recent episode of Michael Portillo's “Great British Railway Journeys”, using a guide from the 1930's. In it, he interviewed some Jewish people who had come across on the Kinder transport of that time, as refugees, from Germany. They talked about the way they were abused, and treated with hostility by British people when they arrived, at a time, of course, when Britain, like much of Europe, was consumed by deep-seated anti-Semitism and hatred of Jews. The first immigration laws were introduced to stop Jews coming to Britain, as they faced pogroms in Eastern Europe.  Churchill was a well known anti-Semite, as was the Hitler supporting Daily Mail.  They recounted how the British people they encountered resented their coming to Britain from Nazi Germany, as refugees, how they spoke of them as not belonging, because they were, and looked, different, and so on. The reality was that very few children were brought to Britain, partly due to this opposition. Even fewer Jewish adults were allowed into Britain unless they were of significance to the British state.

If Labour, at that time, had listened to all of these British anti-Semites whose views were prevalent in Britain at that time, the consequence would have been to have aligned itself with Moseley and the other fascists, who also put forward their own “left-wing” economic programme of nationalisation and so on. The Mosely Memorandum, was a 1930's equivalent of the Alternative Economic Strategy, and supported by Nye Bevan and others, for example. It would have meant Labour aligning itself, on the basis of such listening to reactionary voters, to an anti-Semitism that was far worse than anything they have accused Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters of.

Keir Hardie Would Be Expelled From Today's Labour Party

Remember a while ago there was furore about Jeremy Corbyn writing a foreword to a new edition of J.A. Hobson's "imperialism"?  How could he do such a thing, the Tory media howled, when it was well known that Hobson was an anti-Semite, who influence other anti-Semites , and radical leftists such as Vladimir Lenin.  In fact, of course, the Tory media, who ae marked by their laziness, matched only by their willingness to grab an easy headline, had no idea who Hobson was.  Most of them had never heard of him.  But dropped the titbit that Lenin's Imperialism was based largely on Hobson's earlier work, that was enough for them to assume he must have been some other raving lefty, rather than what he actually was, a liberal, whose ideas presaged those of John Maynard Keynes, particularly in relation to underconsumption as the cause of unemployment.

Hobson's offending statements followed him covering the Boer War for the Guardian.  It was following his experiences there that he concluded that the British government's war had been driven by the interests of British mine owners in South Africa.  He connected the idea about underconsumption, and the problem of realising profits, causing unemployment, with his ideas on the pernicious effects of monopoly, a belief held by all liberals, with the drive of imperialism to carve up the world into colonies where monopoly power could be exercised, and the surplus product of the imperialist powers could be sold.  The idea is bunk, and goes back to the under-consumption theories of Sismondi and Malthus, and was taken up by the Narodniks in Russia.

Hobson, was one of the British bourgeois economists, in the late 19th century, who helped develop the neoclassical school of liberal economics based upon the concept of marginalism.  Extending his ideas about the causes of war, Hobson talked about, 

"Jewish financiers", whom he saw as "parasites", manipulating the British government that danced to their "diabolical tune".  

But, Corbyn is not the only prominent Labour figure to discuss the work of Hobson. R. H. Tawney wrote the following in The Acquisitive Society (1920):

"The greater part of modern property has been attenuated to a pecuniary lien or bond on the product of industry which carries with it a right to payment, but which is normally valued precisely because it relieves the owner from any obligation to perform a positive or constructive function. Such property may be called passive property, or property for acquisition, for exploitation, or for power.... It is questionable, however, whether economists shall call it "Property" at all, and not rather, as Mr. Hobson has suggested, "Improperty," since it is not identical with the rights which secure the owner the produce of his toil, but is opposite of them."

Hobson's ideas were taken up by liberals in the United States, already critical of European colonialism, and monopoly capitalism, leading them to have introduced their anti-monopoly laws, at the end of the 19th century against the big oil companies and so on.  

Hobson was a liberal, and like other radical liberals found his way towards the Fabian Society, and then to the ILP.  Moreover, unlike Corbyn who can be accused only of having an elderly person's eyesight, in not having determined the detail of a picture seen on the small screen of a smart phone, as against his detractors who have plastered the same picture of a mural onto giant TV screens,  some of Hobson's contemporaries were more explicit in sharing his ideas in relation to the role of financiers, and Jewish financiers.

Keir Hardie, repeated Hobson's statement, accusing "half a dozen financial houses, many of them Jewish" of leading the UK to war.  Corbyn has never made any such anti-Semitic statement.  There would be no place in today's Labour Party for one of its founders, after whom its present  leader is named.  If his namesake were alive today, Keir Starmer would have to expel Keir Hardie.

See: Wikipedia J.A. Hobson

Starmer Brings Labour Party Into Disrepute

Keir Starmer has brought the Labour Party into disrepute, and should be held accountable to the party and, immediately, its disciplinary bodies. He is acting like a dictator, both in his support for the authoritarian policies being pursued by the Tories, his support for authoritarian measures in relation to the internet, and free speech generally, and now via his disregard for the party's own internal mechanisms, by refusing to accept the decision of the NEC's disciplinary panel to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn, and so refusing to restore the whip to him. These are the actions of a Bonapartist, who sees himself above the party and its democracy. He, thereby, brings the party into disrepute, and should be subject to disciplinary action as a consequence. 

Starmer is a tool of the Right who seek to take back control of the party from its membership, and to make it once again a willing tool of big capital. That is what Starmer has shown by his removal of progressive social-democrats from his Shadow Cabinet and the promotion of openly pro-Capitalist MP's, whose politics would make them more at home in the Liberal Party than the Labour Party. The suspension of Corbyn was clearly a provocation of the Left designed to provoke a response that would open the door to large scale further suspensions and expulsions, similar to those undertaken by Kinnock during the 1980's. Already we have seen CLP officers suspended for allowing their parties to discuss the EHRC Report, and Corbyn's suspension, and for passing motions calling for him to be reinstated. 

There was no basis in anything contained in the EHRC Report, or in Corbyn's response to it, that justified his suspension. The suspension certainly could not be justified on the basis of anti-Semitism itself, and so instead was justified on the grounds of bringing the party into disrepute. But, how? Corbyn, in fact, in his response, said nothing that was not already contained in the EHRC Report. A look at the Report's findings, even on the most generous of interpretations, finds that the actual instances of “anti-Semitism” were tiny compared to the size of the party membership.

In other words, contrary to the claims of Labour's enemies, inside and outside the party, the charge of institutional or rampant anti-Semitism could not be justified. Those that made those claims, and continue to make those claims are Labour's enemies, and certainly Corbyn's enemies, and so, whatever truth there may be in respect of any particular instance of anti-Semitism, it is clear that overall, this claim about institutionalised or rampant anti-Semitism, was itself being used for political purposes to attack Labour in general, and Corbyn in particular. Those that elide that fact are being either duplicitous, or else are being used as useful idiots, as a result of their own blind spot, when it comes to the way the charge of anti-Semitism is used as a weapon against political enemies. That Starmer has himself failed to identify that from the EHRC Report, and to hold those responsible for using anti-Semitism as a political weapon accountable, makes Starmer himself complicit in those unwarranted slurs against Labour. 

And, as Jewdas point out in their Open Letter to Starmer this is illustrated by the fact that the charges of anti-Semitism are used very selectively. They point to the comment by Barry Sheerman for example, who wrote, 

“Apparently there has been a bit of a run on silver shekels!” 

This was in relation to two Jewish businessmen left off the Lords list of that year. 

They give other clear examples. 

“Luke Pollard MP successfully initiated a campaign to erect a statue to a self-professed antisemite, namely Nancy Astor, for her contributions to women’s rights. Mr Pollard then refused to apologise when confronted with Astor’s record of hideous antisemitism. Given your principled actions thus far, we trust you will agree that Astor’s support for the Nazi Party and her description of Jews as a “world problem” make Mr Pollard’s statue campaign entirely unacceptable for a Labour MP. 

Rachel Reeves MP tweeted public praise for Nancy Astor with regards to the planned statue. Ms Reeves refused to retract her tweets or apologise when confronted with Astor’s antisemitism, in particular her claim that Hitler would have to do more than “give a rough time…to the killers of Christ” before Britain should risk war.” 

But, it appears, not only is Labour not proposing any disciplinary action against these MP's for their clearly anti-Semitic tropes, but Starmer has not even replied to these Jewish Labour members. Rather Starmer appears more concerned to assuage the concerns of known Tories and appeasers of anti-Semitism, amongst the ranks of the Board of Jewish Deputies, the Jewish Chronicle and so on. Its amongst those organisations, after all, that has seen some of their leaders welcoming the election of Trump, and of the anti-Semite Orban in Hungary. 

It is a long-standing principle of the labour movement that we do not accept the right of the bourgeoisie, or its state, to interfere with the inner workings of our movement. The cooperation with the EHRC was a clear violation of that principle. Why on Earth would any sensible person believe that our class enemies and their institutions would be impartial when it comes to any such intervention. Their whole aim is to undermine and destroy us. In fact, the EHRC, no doubt much to the chagrin of Starmer and the Starmer-rights, did not actually do that in respect of its finding in respect of Corbyn, or Labour in general. Even more to the Starmer-rights disdain, Labour's disciplinary committee, despite its right-wing majority, could find no grounds to support Corbyn's suspension, and so rescinded it. 

That, of course, is not enough for the Starmer-rights, and so Starmer has ignored the decision of the party's disciplinary body, and NEC, and acted like the Bonapartist he now clearly is, and has simply refused to restore the whip to Corbyn. In part, Starmer's action can be seen as responding to the bourgeois pressure from outside, but, in the main, it is simply a reflection of his own Bonapartist authoritarian tendencies. The NEC did not give Starmer the decision he wanted, so he ignores it, and now clearly seeks to wait until a tame bourgeois “independent” complaints procedure can be set up, to ensure that no decisions can be made in future that challenge the predominance of the bourgeoisie within the party, and will give him the result he wants. They realised that they made a mistake by introducing OMOV, and greater democracy that allowed Corbyn on to the ballot. They have no intention of making the same mistake again. 

In part, the Starmer-rights themselves admit that what they are doing is allowing the bourgeoisie and its Tory representatives to dictate to Labour. All of the argument is framed in terms of what the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Chronicle and other Jewish Tory organisations have to say, whilst ignoring the views of Jewish socialists. That is to give these Tory organisations a veto on Labour policies and statements that would never be given to anyone else, solely on the basis of them being Jewish. It is a clear example of “anti-Semitism” itself, because it treats these Jewish organisations differently to say, Catholic or Muslim organisations. It is a blatant form of exceptionalism. 

Often this exceptionalism is framed in crude, opportunist, electoral terms of the effect on the Jewish vote. Yet, even on this crude measure, the capitulation to Jewish Tories, makes no sense. Trying to subordinate yourself to Jewish Tories is not going to win the votes of those Jewish Tory organisations, or even of Jewish voters, who for a very long time now, have been committed Tories. It was once the case that Jews who escaped the pogroms of Eastern Europe, towards the end of the 19th century, joined in émigré socialist organisation. But, that is a century ago, and things have moved on considerably since then. Long before Jeremy Corbyn, around 75% of British Jews voted Conservative. 

In his book "The Jewish Vote" Geoffrey Alderman writes, 

"After 1945 an upwardly mobile but still working‐class Jewish electorate became disenchanted with the Labour Party. Conservative politicians were quick to exploit this alienation. In the 1960s and 1970s Jewish voters became substantially middle class and also substantially Conservative in outlook."

By the 1980's, the majority of Jewish voters voted Tory. And, the majority grew larger and larger into the 1990's, long before Corbyn or even Miliband. The main motivation seems to be politico-economic, as they opposed the social-democratic agenda of Labour, even in its conservative manifestation under Blair. 

That, of course, was the real objection of all those right-wing Labourites to Corbyn, and for whom anti-Semitism was a convenient whip to beat him with to cover their real agenda, whatever longer term damaging consequences for fighting actual anti-Semitism that might have. 

In 2015, a survey of British Jews showed that 69% intended to vote Tory, with only 22% saying they would vote Labour. 

Starmer, seems set on ensuring that Labour is returned to the right-wing politics at least of Blair, but even that will not be enough for those Tory Jewish organisations, who seek to destroy Labour itself, in the same way they have sought to destroy the Democrats in the US, and who have lined up behind the anti-Semite Trump. That in itself shows that the real issue, here, is not about anti-Semitism. It is about two basic issues – class politics, and nationalism. The Democrats, like Labour are the party of big socialised capital, whereas the Tories, like the Republicans, are the party of the petty-bourgeoisie, of the small capitalist. It is in that category that a large part of the Jewish population in the US and UK/Europe, now falls. A similar thing can be seen in Britain with the growth of the British-Indian bourgeoisie. 

The 2001 UK Census showed that 30.5% of economically active Jews were self-employed, compared to a figure of 14.2% for the general population. Jews aged 16–24 were less likely to be economically active than their counterparts in the general population; 89.2% of these were students. In a 2010 study, average income per working adult was £15.44 an hour. Median income and wealth were significantly higher than other religious groups. 

But, in addition to that, is the question of nationalism, and specifically Zionism. A large proportion of the Jewish émigré population has always associated with Israel, for fairly obvious reasons. In the same way that left anti-Semitism arises because hostility to Zionism, and the actions of the Israeli state can flow over, so too the opposite occurs, where concern to oppose anti-Semitism, or, for Jewish people, a desire to defend Israel from the attacks upon it, flows over into a justification of Zionism, and its reactionary nationalist and colonialist ideology, which inevitably finds expression in the expansionist and racist policies of the Israeli state. 

In the US, that has caused an increasing schism, as US Jews have found themselves unable to continue to justify the actions of the Israeli State, which do flow inexorably from the reactionary nature of Zionism. Yet, the bourgeois organisations of the Jewish community, in the US, have continued to try to maintain that link, especially attempting to, thereby, line up with Trump, whose own reactionary nationalist ideology chimes with Zionism, and whose Bonapartist and authoritarian politics ties in closely with those of the Bonapartist Netanyahu. It is no coincidence that all of these figures such as Putin, Netanyahu, Trump, Johnson, Orban, Erdogan all sing from the same hymn sheet, and pat each other's backs. 

And, the same process is happening in Britain, but not yet as developed. The old Tory organisations of the Jewish community also continue to push that Zionism, and uncritical support for Israel, meaning that anything less from any politician is inadequate, whilst younger Jews have distanced themselves from it.  Again, it is nonsensical to say that claims that the Israeli state itself interferes in these processes is conspiracy theory, or part of some anti-Semitic trope.  Every state interferes in this way.  That is the job of the state, and there is plenty of documented evidence of how the Israeli state does undertake such interference.  To suggest that it doesn't or shouldn't is again an example anti-Semitism, of exceptionalism, of suggesting that the Israeli state is somehow different to every other state on the planet!  The links between the Israeli State and BICOM for example, are fairly open for everyone to see, just as the links between BICOM and the JLM are open for every one to see.  There is no conspiracy theory, here, when everyone can see the links in plain sight!

When people can see the links between the old USSR, and the Morning Star and CPB, or of Putin's Russia with various groups in the West that parrot Moscow's line, it is rather odd that, when the even more open links between the Israeli state and pro-Israel groups in the West are there for all to see, they somehow become conspiracy theories!

In May 2018, the community was described by one of its most prominent figures, Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, as being “on the path to self-destruction” due to divisions over how to respond to conflict in Israel. 

The use of anti-Semitism as a weapon against the Left, then, is not just a matter of a reflection of pure class interest. The Labour Right, along with the Tory media will use any weapon to undermine Labour, and particularly its progressive wing. They did not settle on anti-Semitism to begin with, and for good reason, because its a double edged sword. The Tories are clearly more anti-Semitic than Labour, and particularly the Left of Labour. It was, after all the Tories, like Winston Churchill, who welcomed the coming to power of Mussolini in Italy, and Hitler in Germany. To begin with they tried to use charges of bullying and violence against the Left, but that lacked traction. Only later did they settle on anti-Semitism as their weapon of choice. Then they used it in scatter gun approach, with Owen Smith prominently accusing the pro-Zionist AWL of being anti-Semitic, during his leadership bid, for example.  But, Labour has other enemies, represented by the proponents of Zionism. For them, its not Labour's progressive social-democratic politics that are the problem, but its failure to be totally uncritical cheerleaders of the Israeli state. That is why such elements can equally be hostile to the tame social-democracy of Biden and the Democrats. 

The problem for the Left in the UK and US, is that these two forces are combined, for convenience under the rubric of opposition to anti-Semitism, as a means of opposing progressive social-democracy.

Oppose External Interference in the Labour Movement

From the time the labour movement began, a central principle of is has been that socialists do not run to the bosses' courts to resolve internal disputes.  The foundation of that principle is quite simple and straightforward; the bosses are our class enemy, they utilise their courts and other arms of the capitalist state to further their interests and to undermine ours.  Any resort to any of the bosses organisations, or organisations external to the structures of the labour movement, is, therefore, tantamount to siding with our mortal class enemy against the labour movement itself.  

The right-wing of the Labour Party, be it right-wing Labour MP's, or their allies in the Lords, in local councils, or within the permanent party machinery continually talk about their desire for preserving "Labour values", yet, time and again they show that they have absolutely no clue what those values actually are.  Its not just their willingness to resort to the bosses' courts, to non-governmental state bodies such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, or their demand, now, that some "independent panel" should be brought in to adjudicate over questions of anti-semitism, and disciplinary action against members charged with such offences, but their repeated willingness to run at the drop of a hat to the bosses' media to make their complaints and attacks on the Labour Movement, and not just any old part of the bosses media, even, but its lowest most vile, racist and bigoted representatives, such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun.

It is indeed ironic that those Labour MP's who protest about anti-Semitism, are themselves the same people who are to be seen writing, on a regular basis, in The Daily Mail, a newspaper that regularly plumbs the depths of gutter journalism in its promotion of bigotry and xenophobia, and which in the 1930's was a prominent supporter of Hitler and of Mussolini!  But, in truth, the Express, Sun, Star etc are little better, when it comes to spreading vile lies and bigotry, yet the "values" of these right-wing Labourites seems to offer no resistance to their willingness to rush to these Tory rags in order to cultivate support for their own rabid attacks on the Labour Movement they claim to belong to.

The Party had no alternative but to cooperate with the EHRC investigation into whether the party was systemically anti-Semitic, but the involvement of the EHRC at the instigation of these right-wing elements was itself simply a part of the now long standing attack on Corbyn and the Left, by the Right of the Party and their Tory associates, having failed miserably on two occasions to defeat Corbyn and his supporters.  The use of the EHRC is simply a means for the Labour Right, having failed to win their case by normal democratic debate inside the movement, to enlist the support of the bosses state to achieve its ends.  The involvement of the EHRC is mischievous.  It is quite clear that the Labour Party, which has a proud history of fighting racism and bigotry of all kinds, is not systemically anti-Semitic.  If it were, then its hard to understand why so many Jewish people have played such prominent positions within it over the years. 

That there may be anti-Semitic members of the party, is not evidence of systemic anti-Semitism, any more than the fact that there have always been Labour Party members that were racist, homophobic, or misogynist was an indication that the Party suffered from systemic deficiencies in all those areas either.  The main defect the party can be criticised for is a failure to deal rapidly with the allegations of Anti-semitism that have been raised over the last few years.  But, most of that deficiency arose under the old regime, when the NEC and the party machinery was still under the control of the Blair-right wing of the party.  It has been since those Blair-rights have been replaced in the last year or so, that far more resources and personnel have been introduced to deal with the problem.  It is indeed rather rich, for some of those that were part of the old Blair-right dominated party machinery, who failed to deal with the processing of charges of anti-Semitism efficiently and promptly, to now lay charges against the Party, when it has begun to devote the necessary resources to deal with the problem they left in their wake.

Moreover, many of the large number of allegations that have been dumped on the new party machinery to deal with, are themselves thoroughly spurious and time wasting.  A large proportion of the allegations that were brought were not even against Labour party members!  Rather like the BBC hatchet job, Panorama mockumentary, which carried unattributed comments, and anti-Semitic statements at the bottom of the screen that were not in any way connected with Labour Party members, with written or verbal statements that could be traced, rather than simply the usual nauseous comments made by trolls on the Internet, all of these spurious charges brought by the Labour Right have no other purpose than to inflate the number of reported allegations, and to unnecessarily tie down the party machinery in weeding out such spurious allegations from real instances that need to be quickly dealt with.

The EHRC investigation might, of course, be a blessing in disguise.  Occasionally, even the bosses' courts give a ruling in favour of the workers.  The EHRC might itself proclaim that the demands made for it to investigate the Labour Party were spurious and politically motivated.  It should, because they are.  Were it to do so, the short term benefit that the Labour Right might have obtained by a media story about the investigation, would quickly turn into a much larger, longer term hit to their strategic goal of undermining Corbyn and the Labour Party.  It would open the door to a Labour Movement Inquiry into those Labour MP's that demanded such an investigation, and to investigate their actual motives for bringing these charges, into their links with outside organisations hostile to the Labour Movement, with the rabid Tory press and so on.  It would open the door, for Labour to demand a similar inquiry by the EHRC into Islamophobia in the Tory Party, already highlighted by Baroness Warsi and other Tories etc.

But, of course, we should not expect any such impartial inquiry by the EHRC.  Such state, and quasi state bodies are not there to be impartial when it comes to dealing with the class interests of workers and the Labour movement, as against the interests of capital.  They are there to protect the interests of capital in whatever way they can.  In Corbyn, and his supporters they see a challenge to the interests of capital.  Even though these same elements see the Tory Right, and Boris Johnson as also a threat to capital, because of their pursuance of Brexit, and despite Labour's late conversion to the idea of a second referendum, they still see Corbyn as a threat, not because of what Corbyn himself represents - he is only a social democrat in the spirit of Attlee or Wilson, with whom they rubbed along nicely in the past - but because of the forces in society that a Corbyn government could itself release,  as workers again began to feel more confidence beneath their feet, were enabled to organise more effectively freed of the anti-union laws, and so on.  That is why they are using every tool in their box to try to undermine Corbyn and his supporters.  It is why we should not let them. 

The idea that the EHRC is neutral is a naive fantasy.  Even Jacob Rees-Mogg is honest enough to recognise and to say that the state is not neutral or impartial.  He knows and understands with innate class consciousness that the capitalist state is there to protect and to extend the interests of the dominant section of capital, and to do so means undermining its opponents whoever they may be.  What gripes Mogg is the fact that when it comes to Brexit, the interests of the dominant section of capital are counterposed to those he seeks to represent, of the small capitalists, and his desire to return British capitalism to the kind of golden era that his mentors Hayek and Mises envisioned existed in the 18th and early 19th centuries, based upon rampant free market competition.  But, he is right, the capitalist state is not neutral, and all of the furore over Kim Darroch over the last week, and Johnson's refusal to back him, along with the attacks on other anti-Brexit civil servants are a part of that same narrative.

The right-wing populists like Trump, Orban, Netanyahu, and Johnson along with the reactionaries like Rees-Mogg in alliance with them, have done the Left an involuntary but valuable service by setting out this truth that the state is not neutral, but is an organ of class rule.  Another example of it, can be seen in Israel today, where as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times describes, it is facing turning into a "Jewish Banana Republic", as Netanyahu has called for the Prime Minister (him)  to be above the law, and unindictable, as with the US President, and has said that, if his right-wing coalition is reelected he will legislate for that.  And, as with the right-wing regime of Orban in Hungary, which has stripped away the independence of the judiciary, so too Netanyahu has said that of the Israeli Supreme Court struck down such legislation, he would move against the Supreme Court, allowing the government to override it.  This is an extension of the "illiberal democracy" that Orban has described, and which has been advanced by Putin.  It is a common theme amongst these right-wing populists, as they resort to Bonapartism. 

What this signifies is that the reactionary Right understand by their natural class instinct that the state is not impartial, and that state is hostile to the reactionary direction in which they seek to tread.  They understand that to pursue their agenda they cannot be constrained by the normal rules of liberal democracy that have applied for the last half century, because those rules will see the state and its institutions undermine them at every step.  So, they seek not to acquiesce in the interference of those state and quasi state institutions, but to by-pass them, to shackle them.  That is what was behind the leaking of Darroch's missives, it is what was behind the attacks on the Courts over Brexit and so on.

For socialists, it is important not to be confused into thinking that just these right-wing populists and reactionaries are seeking to undermine the state for their own interests, we should drop our own criticism of the state, or our own understanding that it is not impartial.  That is what the Blair-rights and other liberals would have us do, and it is why, now, they are so motivated to organise their attacks on Corbyn and the left of the party.

We should agree with the likes of Mogg that the capitalist state is not neutral, and as a consequence we should reject all suggestions that there can be any "impartial" "independent", external inquiry into the Labour Movement's procedures over anti-Semitism or anything else.  Our affairs and our procedures are our responsibility and no one else's.  If there are deficiencies then it is up to the Labour Movement itself, and its members to resolve, and certainly not some external body, whose membership will undoubdtedly be comprised of elements hostile to Socialism.

The Labour Right have repeatedly failed to win the political arguments and battles inside the Labour Party.  The experience of the Chukas demonstrates what fate awaits them should they leave the Party, especially now that Corbyn's belated move begins to cut off the path to a realignment around the Liberals.  They have only the hope of using the bosses state and its organisations to fight their battles for them.  The clear hope of inserting an alien "independent" panel will be to begin with wholesale expulsions of Left-wing members of the party, and if that succeeds, a whole wave of further spurious charges against members will follow, leading ever closer to the door of Corbyn himself.  As with many of those already expelled, where no charge of anti-Semitism could be made to stick, members will be expelled as with Jackie Walker on the grounds of the catch-all, bringing the party into disrepute.

Its time, for the Labour Leadership to grow a back bone and begin to take on the Labour Right.  Every concession made to them has simply led to them coming forward with ever more scurrilous attacks and demands.  Its time to stop the rot, and to on them, and their prince across the water, Watson. 

The Latest Willsman Tape

I haven't heard all of the latest tape leaked to the press, for obvious political purposes, by enemies of the Labour Party, but from what I've heard from it, on the news, there is nothing that is anti-Semitic or warrants Pete Willsman's suspension let alone immediate expulsion.

The accusation that what Willsman says on the tape is overtly anti-Semitic comes down to his speculation that the Israeli Embassy was probably behind the campaign against Corbyn, and his supporters by creating a moral panic about rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, which had become institutionally anti-Semitic under Corbyn.  Its claimed that this is overtly anti-Semitic, because it falls into established anti-Semitic tropes about Jews controlling important institutions.

So, let's examine that.  What is the "important institution" that Willsman is suggesting is controlled by Jews here?  It is the Israeli Embassy!  Is the Israeli Embassy controlled by Israeli Jews?  Of course it is.  Who else would you expect to control the Israeli Embassy, Outer Mongolians?

The other "anti-Semitic trope" associated with this is that this Jewish controlled Israeli Embassy, is accused of acting in a manner to further the interests of the Israeli state, by seeking to undertake actions in concert with others, in Britain.  Shock horror, states attempt to further their own interests, by all sorts of means including covert and conspiratorial means, and the Israeli state itself acts in that manner.  One element of actual anti-Semitism, particularly "Left anti-Semitism", is holding the Israeli state to a different set of standards and requirements than any other bourgeois state.  That swings both ways.  It is not "anti-Semitic" to claim that the Israeli state, and its Embassy acts to further the interests of Israel by all sorts of means, including covert and conspiratorial means, it is to claim that it acts in exactly the same way as every other state in doing so.  It is, in fact, anti-Semitic to expect that the Israeli state would somehow act differently to every other state in that regard.

And, of course, not only would we expect the Israeli Embassy, like the Embassy of any other state, to act in whatever way it saw fit, to further the interests of Israel, including trying to undermine the position of anyone it saw as an opponent of that state, but we know that the Israeli State, and its agents, working out of its Embassies, has a long record of doing that, including assassinating its opponents across the globe, kidnapping Israeli citizens that spoke out about the nuclear programme of the Israeli state, and of course, yes, the Al Jazeera video that the British media have been far less forthcoming about than the Willsman tape, showing a representative of the Israeli state offering £1 million to British politicians to undermine other British politicians it saw as hostile to Israel, and its policy in respect of the Palestinians.

So, what is anti-Semitic about pointing out well known facts, and drawing conclusions from them.  When the Skripals were poisoned, everything we knew about the vile regime of Putin in Russia pointed the figure immediately in that direction.  There was, at the beginning, no evidence to back it up, and in the days and weeks that followed, the actions of the British state itself gave rise for questioning whether the obvious conclusion that Russia was responsible was valid.  Yet, the facts meant that it was always going to be the case that speculation pointed the finger in Putin's direction, and quite rightly.  So, given that the job of the Israeli Embassy is to promote the interests of the Israeli state, given that the Israeli state, like other states, has a long track record of intervening across the globe to assassinate, and undermine its political opponents, given that there was video footage of the Israeli state offering a £1 million slush fund to undermine British politicians that are critical of Israel, why wouldn't it be quite rational to speculate that the Israeli state, via the Israeli Embassy, and its contacts with sympathisers in Britain, would try to further its interests by undermining its opponents, one of whose most visible is Corbyn, by such means.

Here is the problem with the extension of the definition of anti-Semitism, in that it means that its no longer possible even to accuse the Israeli state of acting in the same normal methods of any other state, without being accused of anti-Semitism, purely on the basis that it is the Israeli state that is being criticised.

The other element of the accusation of anti-Semitism is the suggestion that Willsman in his comments was denying the existence of anti-Semitism, in the Labour Party.  But, Willsman has done no such thing.  He has merely argued that claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party have been grossly exaggerated, and have been so for overtly political reasons so as to undermine Corbyn and his supporters.  He may be right or wrong in believing that to be the case, but it is certainly not prima facie anti-Semitic to speculate that it may well be the case given the other evidence to support such a belief.  Considering the facts, Willsman's speculation seems at least to have the potential for being correct.

After all, claims of the Labour Party being institutionally anti-Semitic, of anti-Semitism being rife across the Labour Party has itself become a trope repeated ad nauseum by the Tory media, and by Corbyn's opponents at home and abroad.  Yet, on the basis of the actual cases brought before the NEC, they constitute only 0.1% of Labour Party members.  The instances of anti-Semitism in the Tory Party, not to mention the instances of Islamaphobia, even highlighted by Baroness Warsi, are much greater than is the case with the Labour Party, and the same would probably be true of any large organisation in Britain.  Yet, it is only the Labour Party that has been singled out as having this problem, which obviously raises the question why, and who it is that is pushing that agenda, Cui Bono?

If we look at the charges of anti-Semitism brought to the NEC, by some leading Labour MP's, it turned out, even at the first hurdle, that 80% of those listed in those allegations were not even Labour Party members!!  Of the rest, it was found that another 200 had no case to answer.  When such a large number of charges are brought that even prima facie should never have been brought forward, other than for reasons that those bringing them forward were seeking to create the impression that a much larger problem exists than actually does, it begs the question of what the real motivation of those bringing these spurious charges actually is.  The fact that, in every case, those bringing the charges are MP's that from the beginning have been hostile to Corbyn, and those that support him, is at least strong circumstantial evidence as to what those real motives are.  After all, the suspensions and witchunting of activists, has resulted in a proportionally large number of Jewish Labour Party members actually being the ones that have been expelled for "anti-Semitism"!

It may, of course, be merely coincidence that many of those MP's that have brought these charges, 80% of which were found to have no substance, are opponents of Corbyn, members of The Labour Friends of Israel, or have connections with BICOM, which itself on its website, shows that a number of its senior personnel are former members of the Israeli state, but if it were Corbyn and his supporters who were shown to be hobnobbing with say representatives of the Russian state, members of lobby groups in parliament and in the Labour Party supporting Russia, and if it was found that the Russian Embassy was offering large amounts of Russian gold to anyone who assisted in undermining its opponents in parliament, I wonder how far we would find any justified criticism, and suspicion of those links described as merely circumstantial, and nothing more than long-held, anti-Russian tropes.

The other element in the release of this tape is its timing.  The tape is reportedly several months old, and yet has only just been released, suggesting it has been held back for use at the most advantageous time.  It has, of course, allowed Corbyn's opponents to launch another attack on him, via their prince across the water, Tom Watson.  The reason for the release of the tape now is obvious.  The Corbyn/Stalinist Brexit agenda has led to catastrophe.  Surveys show that 60% of Labour Party members, let alone voters, voted for other parties than Labour in the European parliament elections.  Corbyn's disastrous policy of economic nationalism, and social democracy in One Country is destroying the party, which now stands in joint fourth place in the polls alongside the Tories, and only just above the Greens, with the Liberals have been resurrected by Corbyn, having a clear lead over all the other parties.

At the same time, the party kicked out Campbell for having voted Liberal.  On that basis it would have to expel more than half its members who did the same.  That, of course, is what Corbyn's Morning Star advisers are recommending!  Corbyn has undermined himself and the Left of the Party that until now has supported him, by poking his supporter base in the eye over Brexit.  He has isolated himself locked off behind his tiny cabal of Stalinist advisers.  Over the last three years he, and his leadership have continually buckled and backtracked when faced with opposition from the right.  he has stood by whilst the witchunting campaign has proceeded.  Now the forces of the right, as they always do are pressing forward further, as they see his obvious weakness following the Brexit disaster.  Corbyn will almost certainly buckle over Willsman too.

At the same time we see the same Stalinist trolls, and fake news sites coming out with infantile attacks on anyone like Paul Mason who even points out the disaster the Left in the Party,a nd the Party itself is being led into.  I don't do Twitter, and having read some of the tweets sent to Paul Mason, which read like the tantrums of petulant, spoiled young children, I can safely say I have no intention of ever wasting my life ever bothering with it.  As Corbyn's disastrous strategy weakens his position and that of the Left, allowing the right to reassemble and reorganise, as seen by the rsurgent Liberals, instead of recognising the errors they have made, the Stalinists advising Corbyn instead double down on the rejection of reality, and turn their attack on those that lift the curtain on it.

Fortunately, this is not the Stalinist Russia of the 1930's when that same phenomenon resulted in show trials, executions and assassinations.  The worst they can do is idiotic tweets.  It is time for the grown ups in the room to take control.