Labour leadership accused of targeting anti-zionist Jews
JVL Introduction
We are grateful to the Canary, Skwawkbox and the Morning Star for carrying reports on JVL’s latest submission to the EHRC.
Niall Christie in the Morning Star gives a brief summary of the issues at stake and we repost his account below.
Joe Glenton for the Canary produced a longer report, spelling the issues out in greater detail in an article called Equality commission steps in after Labour accuses nearly entire Jewish Voice for Labour board of antisemitism.
Skwawkbox broke the news by making extensive sections of the submission available here.
You can read the full JVL introduction here and download the full submission here.
This article was originally published by the Morning Star on Thu 2 Dec 2021. Read the original here.
Labour leadership accused of targeting anti-zionist Jews
The party’s ‘campaign of stigmatisation of innocent left-wing Jews for factional reasons is totally unacceptable,’ Jewish Voice for Labour tells EHRC
Loading article text…
And the Guardian?
Well you know my views – they are targeting anti-Zionists not Jews. It just happens that a lot of anti-Zionists are Jews for obvious reasons. This as we say is correlation not causation.
Still, I’ll be interested to see if this approach to the EHRC proves to have weight.
Dave – they are anti-Zionist Jews – a very specific
belief. However I’m sure someone more knowledgeable
about the subject than myself can explain better!
EHRC claimed that Livingstone harassed people – am not
clear who? It is VERY clear thatJewish people have been harassed by the Labour Party in this case.
If Dave is correct, and I think he is, then it is still anti-Semitic as its indirect discrimination. In other words there is an apparently neutral PCP (provision, criteria and practice) viz. that you shouldn’t be an anti-Zionist, but because more Jews than non-Jews are anti-Zionists the PCP discriminates against Jews. (s.19 Equality Act 2010).
Evidence presented shows that, grotesque as it seems, Jewish non-Zionists are being particularly victimised by nasty Labour Party management by means of false claims of ‘antisemitism’ to erase them as Jewish people with valid views.
Tony Greenstein, you do see the perils of that kind of argument, don’t you? Lets try a slight amendment of it, keeping its form but changing one word:
“there is an apparently neutral PCP (provision, criteria and practice) viz. that you shouldn’t be a Zionist, but because more Jews than non-Jews are Zionists the PCP discriminates against Jews. (s.19 Equality Act 2010).”
This was, as far as I can see, one of the main arguments used when the UCU was bought to an employment tribunal in 2013, accused of antisemitism. It was pretty resoundingly struck down. Thankfully. It’s also not a million miles away from the argument I’ve heard that because support of Israel is an integral part of many Jews’ beliefs, opposing or criticising Israel is antisemitic. Finally, it seems to be an accepted argument used by the Labour party in its witch hunt, perhaps tacitly.
Of all these arguments, one might say that they represent an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.
Which isn’t to say that I disagree with the JVL’s submission. But I believe it is necessary to discern to what extent they have been persecuted because they hold particular political beliefs – anti-Zionism – which is legitimate, however repugnant it may be to us, and to what extent they have been targeted because they are Jews who hold these particular political beliefs, which is illegitimate and comes under the purview of the EHRC. I believe you can make a case for the latter.
I do doubt the ability or willingness of the EHRC to be this discerning, however.
Sir Keir Starmer has clearly stated that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. No criticism of Israel allowed; no support for Palestinians & a one Party State solution as the need for purity of race & religion must exclude all others.
This is a significant intervention that I fully support and sympathies with it from many angles but, in this case, specifically as a member of the Sikh community which faces all sorts of discriminatory practices in India.
No doubt Starmer would argue that even if Israel committed the most unspeakable atrocity, criticism of Israel would still be “antisemitic”. What Starmer actually means is that Israel should be regarded as being above and beyond all normal moral boundaries. So some Jews relate to Israel? Perhaps some Catholics relate to Italy. But if Italy were to invade Switzerland how could criticism of Italy be anti-catholic? Starmer`s reasoning is as flawed, nonsensical and twisted as his ethics. His whole agenda is the destruction of the Labour Party. I pray for his political demise.