Reject the Board of Deputies’ Ten Pledges
JVL Introduction
In this article reposted from rs21, Sai Englert explores what he describes as “ the five year-long assault, by both the right of the party and the mainstream press, on anti-imperialism in general and Palestine solidarity in particular, often through a cynical weaponisation of claims of antisemitism in the party”.
This is the context to understand the 10 demands of the Board of Deputies of British Jews which has by its deeds exonerated the vile politics of racism and hated encouraged by Boris Johnson. It prefers the open racism of the Tory party – because that Party isn’t calling Israel to account or supporting the Palestinian struggle.
Shameful. And shameful, too, that all candidates in the Labour leadership and deputy leadership elections, apart from Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler, have rolled over in the face of the Board’s demands.
This article was originally published by rs21 on Tue 21 Jan 2020. Read the original here.
Reject the Ten Pledges
Every candidate for the Labour leadership has endorsed the Board of Deputies’ Ten Pledges. Sai Englert argues that what is at stake here, rather than any desire to tackle the growth of antisemitism in the UK, is the continuation of a politically motivated weaponisation of antisemitism to attack the left and the Palestine solidarity movement.
Loading article text…
It seems that the author would favour a Labour party which would “fight Israeli apartheid and its British allies” while also working to “break all economic, diplomatic, and institutional links with Israel and all those who profit from its dispossession of the Palestinian people” and I am sure many can be found to agree with this. I do agree that raising the issue of antisemitism here is, at the least, confusing. But surely any Jew who regarded him or herself as any kind of Zionist would be rightly concerned if not frightened by a Labour party which unequivocally took such a stance. I viewed the party under Corbyn in such a way and I was indeed deeply worried that it might win the Election – even though, with the benefit of hindsight, I now see that this was unlikely to happen.
This creates a problem of whom to support for Labour leader. I can’t support Long Bailey now. Emily Thornbury is a No go and Keir Starker doesn’t sound right. But it now seems a choice between him and Nandy. I would like to have a vote for Burgon as leader. Dark days ahead for the Left!
I am very disappointed that not one of the leadership candidates were prepared to stand up and oppose No 5 demand that hits at the heart of justice and due process of an accused person being allowed the right to call their witnesses, without those witnesses being put at risk, purely on the basis that they wished to provide support and thus potentially ending their own party membership.
That type of justice would be typical in a right wing dictatorship. That is what the BoD want to impose on my party. A Guardian columnist today was arguing that the party must be pragmatic and prepared to compromise. He implied that Burgon would not be prepared to meet Jewish people who support settlements, but in effect that is the BoD and JLM do, despite their rhetoric. The journalist should have posed the question , why will the BoD not meet with other Jewish groups who support an independent Palestinian state and the Party. It is they who have stalled progress on this issue by refusing to discuss but continuing to issue demands
A sobering summary of one of the worst periods in the history of the Labour Party.
“The near total silence on this issue – including from the left – beggars belief”
Indeed. But ‘this issue’ isn’t just the antisemitism scam. It is the utter corruption/sequestration of the media, of which everything else was a part. And yet the Labour Party in all its manifestations is engaged in mickey-mouse soul-searching that ignores the mastodon sitting on the sofa in the living room.
I can’t be alone in feeling massively ashamed of my country, but also despairing of my Party where all candidates for the leadership have ruled themselves unfit for the role on the grounds of cowardice in the face of the enemy.
Jeremy Corbyn has, at least, refused to mouth platitudes about the Trump/Netanyahu neo-colonial stitch-up dressed as a negotiation. But that is small comfort in the face of potential successors bending the knee to the racism and deception of the Board of Deputies.
What say Long-Bailey and Starmer on the issue? Have I missed something?
I am a hated and vilified person according to many of JVL supporters.
Why is that I ask myself though the answer is pretty self evident.
I am a religious Jew who believes in a two state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
I am never given the right to express my views without being vilified and shouted down.
I am called terrible names and treated as an unthinking bigot without values.
Given the Deal of the Century announcements I hopelessly hope that the U.N. passes a resolution: Enough is Enough ….. We Have Gone Along With This For Far Too Long …… We’re Through With The Apologies …. They could call it the Williamson Resolution.
How could we get the JVL to replace JLM in the LP?
https://labourlist.org/2020/01/new-antisemitism-data-shows-labour-is-taking-decisive-action-says-party/
Labour List have a link to a document ‘Labour Party Disciplinary Processes on Antisemitism – Statistics’ giving figures to the end of 2019.
The report suggests a big increase in numbers, but that is dealt with in the Labour List report. It shows only one expulsion for anti semitism in 2017. Was that because there was no specific offence of ‘anti semitism’ before that?
In 2019, 149 members were removed from the party as a result of disciplinary processes relating to antisemitism, either being expelled or quitting the party as proceedings progressed. This includes 49 members actually expelled – so twice as many resigned/lapsed (75/18) as were expelled – and one in 5 was members lapsing rather than resigning – after all, who would want to continue to pay subs to an organisation which had suspended you?
We do not know how many of those were genuine instances of antisemitism or cases where forceful anti zionism was equated with anti zionism and the resignation was in disgust with the process. No examples are given of criteria so we just don’t know, but I have seen anecdotal stories of the latter on social media.
Speaking of which the report has some interesting statements near the end,
“The vast majority of complaints pertain to social media activity, often going back several years. A third of all cases in 2019 have the same single individual as the main complainant.” That individual is not identified.
This is thus almost exclusively social media led and at least partly historic. In other words there has been a large media trawling going on (not big news, simply confirmed here).
“ All complaints relating to protected characteristics are logged, regardless of merit. Some do not meet the threshold of a rule breach and no further action is taken”:
For some reason, these are not part of the main table.
It looks as if in 2019 there were about 1100 complaints, about a quarter (255) were found to be groundless, about a third (296) were suspended, another third (283) were given notices of investigation, about 20% (184) were given reminders (“Reminders of Values are issued where complaints do not meet the threshold of a rule breach, but the party deems it appropriate to remind the member(s) involved of our values “).
So about 50% of complaints did not constitute a rule breach. About 300 – 400 complaints were from a single person. It looks to be over a complaint a day from that person. There is no information about how many additional complaints by that person turned out to be about people who were not actually Labour Party members.
In the 274 cases actually heard in 2019 only about 10% (26) were clear enough to justify immediate expulsion, though about half (230) were referred to the NEC.Again, no criteria. About 20% (50) had formal warnings and a slightly higher number (68) were given Reminders, or had no further action taken, i.e. they had not broken any rules> So about 40% were ‘acquitted’.
The Tables appear to be inconsistent (or I am misunderstanding them). Table ! states 49 expulsions in 2019 (nearly all in the final quarter), Table 3 says 26 expulsions.
The Party does not appear to find it important enough to publish any information on the incidence of general racism or sexism complaints/investigations/suspensions among members.
I have asked the Labour party to comment on the individual responsible for over a third of complaints, which reflects the industrial level of trawling going back years, the vast majority of which were dismissed
I have asked them how they treat members who make vexatious claims of anti semitism against other members