Corbyn's Da Joos Crisis: items from an archive

As Jeremy Corbyn sinks deeper into the mire (hat tip Ian) allow me to  link to my latest Tuesday post on the Elder of Ziyon site.

The image at top left here appeared at the top of the article in The Times (7 March 1985) by Peter Bradley that I quote from in that Elder post.

Mr Bradley's article shows what a growing problem antisemitism was in the British Labour Party at that juncture, and of course (though the usual suspects have gone into overdrive to deny it, and turn their wrath on the estimable John Mann in crude and despicable fashion) it has hit crisis point now.
 
In the Elder post I quote from an article by the erudite Dr James Vaughan of the University of Aberystwyth.

I'll do more than hat tip Dr Vaughan.

I take my hat right off to him for the ensuing recent items I've borrowed from his Twitter page, items that help to illuminate the depth of Labour's antisemitism problem and are instructive as far as my Elder post is concerned.

So, should you happen to see this, Dr Vaughan, Diolch yn fawr!

The following is the cartoon that is referred to in Mr Bradley's article as appearing in Ken Livingstone's Labour Herald in 1985.

A retweet by Dr Vaughan (the [Sir] Richard Evans mentioned is this gentleman):

 The following item refers to Andrew Faulds, I believe, also mentioned in my post; I remember him well (even had an exchange of correspondence with him regarding his stance towards Israel).  This item from the notorious California-based Institute for Historical Review could have been innocently acquired and kept by him, of course.

 One from my own archive:

Getty image

 The photo shows the erstwhile Labour Secretary of State for Wales and Middle East minister Hain the Pain (also mentioned in my Elder post) in those radically socialistic "Young Liberal" days of his during which he did his best to demonise Israel and even opposed the right of persecuted Soviet Jewry to find respite there.

That was when this odious little man with the huge ambitions nauseously advocated replacing Israel with a "secular democratic state" (a goal to which he's openly returned).

Let's be grateful that he never fulfilled the prediction that he would one day become a Labour prime minister.

And let's hope that we'll be able to say the same of Corbyn and his ilk.

Meanwhile, a look at the archive of Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger:

Jew-baiting Corbynistas Bait John Mann

Labour MP John Mann, a doughty long-time fighter against antisemitism, on why he confronted fellow MP Ken Livingstone for the latter's outburst regarding Hitler and called him a "Nazi apologist":

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/called-ken-livingstone-nazi-apologist-7854534

Richard Littlejohn on Jeremy Corbyn's handling of the current crop of vocal antisemites in his party:

'When accused of anti-semitism, [Ken Livingstone]  resorts to semantics, just as he did yesterday. And until now, his brothers-in-arms have been happy to indulge him and the rest of the Jew-haters in the party.

Consider Corbyn’s initial reaction to the Nazi [sic! i.e. Naz] Shah comments, which he dismissed as ‘historic’.This is a man who sits on the front bench alongside his plus-sized deputy, Nonce Finder General Tom Watson — a muck-raking, dirt-throwing, smear-monger who has spent the past few years accusing assorted Tories of ‘historic’ sex crimes dating back decades and using his position to demand full-scale police investigations.Yet as far as Corbyn was concerned, anti-Jewish remarks made by a Labour politician two years ago were ‘historic’ and thus unworthy of further comment....

But what else should we expect? I’m prepared to concede that Corbyn doesn’t consider himself an anti-semite — despite counting among his ‘friends’ the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, whose sole purpose in life is wiping Jews off the face of the earth.

He spent most of yesterday hiding behind the sofa as the crisis unfolded and the Boys In The Bubble went into a feeding frenzy. Assorted Labour MPs came out of the woodwork to demand strong action against Livingstone and insist that he wasn’t representative of their party.

Two questions. Where have they been for the past ten years? And what makes them think that Livingstone’s abhorrent views are in any way ‘unrepresentative’?

When I was making my documentary, almost nobody would come forward to speak out publicly. There was one hero prepared to put his head above the parapet — the Bassetlaw MP John Mann. And yesterday he was again front and centre in denouncing Livingstone — a crime for which he was reprimanded by the chief whip.'

Read more here

Meanwhile, here are some whacko reactions from the usual suspects towards antisemitism in the Labour Party.

First, from "Jews for Jeremy".  Anti-Israel activists figure among this bunch. Of course Jews of that stripe are well-liked by the Corbynistas.

Second, a very small taste of the nauseating personal abuse, much of it laced with antisemitism and perceptions of "Zionist" money, that has been left on John Mann's Facebook page, with many angry Corbynistas accusing him of being in the pay of the "Zionists" and telling him he deserves de-selection as a candidate for his Bassetlaw constituency before the next election.  The abuse of him is spilling onto all his recent posts, irrespective of their topic. (I'm sure that, being a politician, Mr Mann is thick-skinned; nevertheless, please consider going to Mr Mann's Facebook page and leaving a supportive comment, for his stand against antisemitism has been tireless and unremitting):

 

And a few of the representative common-or-garden comments by some old mates of ours, Sean (ranting on the streets of Dublin against Israeli "blood" diamonds is his shtik), chieftain Mick and Pam being stalwarts of the PSCs in Ireland, Scotland and England respectively:

And, amid the many posts linking to articles and videos that relate to this crisis in the Labour Party, here's a think-outside-the-box comment by pro-Israel blogger David Collier:

"The Supporters of Israel Have The Whole Political Class Now Dancing To Their Tune"

Well, they're certainly deep in it, Jeremy Corbyn and the gang.

(Update: See this!!!  hat tip: Ian G)

And of course Corbyn's troops are rallying.  (I've even seen one, albeit inconsequential, Livingstone apologist linking to an item in the deranged arsenal of the notoriously antisemitic, Holocaust-denying California-based  "Institute for Historical Review" in an attempt to support Red Ken's disgraceful remarks about Hitler, though I won't give it oxygen by linking to it.)

Here's a familiar demagogue, from whom my header is a quotation:

As comic relief, a pertinent video!

Meanwhile, if the following whets your appetite, please go here to see the rest.

"The Livingstone Formulation" & Its Application

"Holocaust Inversion" in Germany

Writes British pro-Israel academic David Hirsh on his well-known Engage website:

"....In February 2005, Ken Livingstone, then the mayor of London, became involved in an apparently trivial late night argument with a reporter after a party at City Hall. Oliver Finegold asked him how the party had been. Livingstone was angry because he felt Finegold was intruding.  After a little banter to and fro, in which the reporter said that he was only trying to do his job, Livingstone retorted by asking him whether he had previously been a ‘German war criminal’.  Finegold replied that he hadn’t, and that he was Jewish, and that he was offended by the suggestion.  Livingstone went on to insist that Finegold was behaving just like a ‘German war criminal’, that his newspaper, The Standard, ‘was a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots’ and that it had a record of supporting Fascism.

Instead of apologizing for his comment in the sober light of day, Livingstone responded to charges of antisemitism which had been made in relation to the Finegold affair with the following words:

‘For far too long the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government, as I have been.’ (Livingstone 2006)

This is a formulation which often appears in response to an accusation of antisemitism, which I have called The Livingstone Formulation (Hirsh 2007; 2010).  It is a rhetorical device which enables the user to refuse to engage with the charge made.  It is a mirror which bounces back an accusation of antisemitism against anybody who makes it.  It contains a counter-charge of dishonest Jewish (or ‘Zionist’) conspiracy.

The Livingstone Formulation does two things.  Firstly, it denies the distinction between criticism of Israel on the one hand, which is widely accepted as being legitimate, and discourse and action about which, by contrast, there is concern relating to its alleged connection to antisemitism, on the other.  The Livingstone Formulation conflates everything, both criticism of Israel but also other things which are allegedly not so legitimate, such as repeatedly insulting a Jewish reporter by comparing him to a Nazi, into the category of legitimate criticism of Israel.

Secondly, the Livingstone Formulation does not simply accuse anyone who raises the issue of contemporary antisemitism of being wrong, it also accuses them of bad faith: ‘the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical…’ [my italics].  Not an honest mistake, but a secret, common plan to try to de-legitimize criticism by means of an instrumental use of a charge of antisemitism.  This is an allegation of malicious intent made against the (unspecified) people who raise concerns about antisemitism.  It is not possible to ‘use’ ‘the accusation of antisemitism’ in order to delegitimize criticism of Israel, without dishonest intent.

The raising of the issue of antisemitism is often claimed to be an ad hominem attack, an accusation of antisemitic intent on the part of the ‘critic of Israel’.  Yet while there is fierce resistance to the possibility of unintended antisemitism, those who employ the Livingstone Formulation accuse those who raise the issue of antisemitism of doing so with malicious intent and of knowing that their concerns are not justified...."

Read the full article here

British lawyer and academic Lesley Klaff is associate editor of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism and serves on both the Academic Advisory Board of the Louis D Brandeis Center for Human Rights under Law and the Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism.   She has written an article titled "Holocaust Inversion" in which she cites the "Livingston Formulation":

Regarding one of those British LibDem parliamentarians who just can't seem to avoid slurring Jews and Israel, she observes at the end of her article:

"Criticised for his Holocaust Memorial Day comments, David Ward hit back by accusing his critics of bad faith: ‘There is a huge operation out there, a machine almost, which is designed to protect the state of Israel from criticism. And that comes into play very, very quickly and focuses intensely on anyone who’s seen to criticise the State of Israel. And so I end up looking at what happened to me, whether I should use this word, whether I should use that word – and that is winning for them.’

This is an example of ‘The Livingstone Formulation’, a term coined by David Hirsh to refer to the practice of responding to claims of contemporary antisemitism by alleging that those making the claim are only doing so to prevent Israel from being criticised; in other words, they are ‘playing the antisemitism card.’ Ward’s statement is a perfect illustration of the Livingstone Formulation because while Ward claims that an ad hominem attack is being made on him by a ‘huge operation out there, a machine almost,’ it is, in fact, he who is making an ad hominem attack on those who question him. Rather than a ‘huge operation’ deflecting criticism of Israel, it is actually Ward who is deflecting legitimate concerns about antisemitism in the form of the Holocaust inversion.

By inverting reality and morality, and by recklessly spreading accusations of bad faith, Holocaust Inversion prevents us identifying the changing nature of contemporary antisemitism and is an obstacle to marshalling active resistance to it."

Read all of her article on "Holocaust Inversion" here

"London[istan]'s Better Off With Ken"

The London mayoral election's on 3rd May and the indications are that the present incumbent, buffoonish Conservative Boris Johnson, is set to finish well ahead of Labour rival "Red Ken" Livingstone.  Let's hope so.

Despite Red Ken's well-known antipathy to Israel, and eyebrow-raising comments regarding Jews, he's found a Man in Black to endorse him on this election video, labelled "London's better off with Ken":

Life peer Lord Winston succinctly appraises Ken:

This video (hat tip: Michelle) of Ken, who vowed recently to make London "a beacon of Islam", addressing an audience of Palestine Solidarity Campaign supporters in Tower Hamlets (a slice of Londonistan if ever there was one) is being hawked around Israel-demonising circles in the capital, and provides a further reminder as to why Ken (see George Galloway on him and the Muslim vote here) should be rejected at the ballot box.

Mayoral Candidate Livingstone Pledges To Make London "A Beacon Of Islam"

Ken Livingstone, who was London's mayor from 2000 until 2008, when the Conservative Party's Boris Johnson became the city's first populace-elected mayor, is the Labour Party's candidate for that office.  The election is on 3rd May.

Ken's an atheist.  He's a Socialist.  He doesn't like Israel very much at all.  And apparently - as the Jewish Chronicle reports - he told some of his Labour colleagues just recently that Jews are too rich to vote Labour, an alleged statement that has prompted a letter of protest to Labour leader Ed Miliband from a number of Jews who support the party.

Ken Livingstone's courting the Muslim vote - and how!

Never mind that certain aspects of Islam sit uncomfortably with secular democracy and with the equality of the sexes.  Ken has pledged to make London "a beacon of Islam".

Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group, explains:

'Speaking to Muslim worshippers on March 16 at the North London Central Mosque, one of the most hardline mosques in Europe, Livingstone pledged that if elected, he would "educate the mass of Londoners" about Islam.

...."I want to spend the next four years making sure that every non-Muslim in London knows and understands [Mohammed's] words and message. That will help to cement our city as a beacon that demonstrates the meaning of the words of the Prophet."

Livingstone's electioneering tactic may earn him the support of Muslim voters in London. But by speaking at the North London mosque, Livingstone has also succeeded in reviving long-standing suspicions that he is closely linked to Islamic fundamentalists.

The North London Central Mosque, also known as the Finsbury Park Mosque, has a well-established reputation for being a center for radical Islamism in Britain. The mosque was once controlled by Abu Hamza al-Masri, an Egyptian jihadist who is now in prison in Britain for "instigation to acts of terrorism." The Finsbury Mosque is currently being run by the Muslim Association of Britain, an Islamist organization tied to the Muslim Brotherhood as well as the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

One of Livingstone's main links to radical Islam is through an organization called the Islamic Forum of Europe

(IFE), an Islamist group dedicated to changing the "very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam."

The IFE is especially active in the East London borough of Tower Hamlets. Also known as "The Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets," the area is brimming with extremist Muslim preachers, the Tower Hamlets' Taliban, who are seeking to impose Islamic Sharia law on large swaths of the British capital.

The Tower Hamlets' Taliban regularly issue death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with bright yellow posters declaring "You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced." And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims is regularly vandalized or blacked out with spray paint....'

Read all of Soeren Kern's illuminating (and alarming) article here 
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2967/ken-livingstone-london-islam
Hat tip: reader Shirlee