That Leaked Labour Party Report – Craig Murray takes a view
JVL Introduction
Craig Murray, historian, former ambassador, human rights activist, has produced a stunning account of the revelations in the leaked Labour Party report and of their significance.
It is a serious contribution to our understanding of how the Party machine has been working.
On the issue of antisemitism, he is absolutely clear that there are horrific examples of antisemitism within the report “but also instances where I would query the categorisation as antisemitism not only of Labour HQ at the time, but of this report”. You don’t have to agree with everything he says about this, but if you don’t you would have to present reasoned arguments against him.
Murray draws two immediate conclusions, viz:
- Corbyn failed to be sufficiently ruthless in clearing out the quite extraordinarily right wing Blairites that he had inherited as Labour Party HQ staff; and
- Corbyn’s tactic of constantly attempting to appease the media on antisemitism was never going to work…
He intends to follow up this analysis with reflections on the nature of power and of political parties in general.
We can’t wait!
This article was originally published by Craig Murray's Blog on Mon 20 Apr 2020. Read the original here.
That Leaked Labour Party Report
Loading article text…
It’s a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant analysis – perhaps more detailed and rounded than anything we have seen so far – I commended it to everyone. It is marred by one failure of understanding. As your introduction says, “On the issue of antisemitism, he is absolutely clear that there are horrific examples of antisemitism within the report “but also instances where I would query the categorisation as antisemitism not only of Labour HQ at the time, but of this report”.
Later he specifically queries automatically treating as antisemitism providing links to quotes from Gilad Atzmon: “Several instances are given of quoting or linking to Gilad Atzmon as evidence of anti-semitism, seemingly with no need felt to analyse the particular Atzmon article being quoted. Atzmon is of course an Israeli Jew of controversial views particularly on Jewish identity, but it ought not to be axiomatic that to refer to Atzmon is anti-semitic”.
David Rosenberg has commented on this: . . . (Murray) is too understanding of people who fell foul of the disciplinary system for mentions of Gilad Atzmon. While there are still activists fooled by the basic facts that Atzmon grew up and did army service in Israel and is/was Jewish (he considers himself an ex-Jew), you really don’t have to look too deeply into Atzmon’s writings since 2003/4 to the present to see them replete with Jewish conspiracy theories and Holocaust revisionism, or to see how he has been denounced as an antisemite by many leading Palstinain commentators and organisations.”
I agree with David on this. If a person accused of antisemitism for quoting Atzmon says, “I didn’t know he was antisemitic”, my view is that person should be allowed to defend themself and not be kicked out or otherwise disciplined without the opportunity to provide any evidence in support of that defence. But s/he will have a bloody great hill to climb to rebut the antisemitism allegation. The evidence of Atzmon’s antisemitism is huge, and many people have taken his views apart. It’s worth going to http://jfjfp.com/gilad-atzmon-and-jewishness/
IN spite of this, Murray’s piece still stands head and shoulders above most others – it is to be hoped that he will take on board this criticism (which he has been told about) – and substitutes another example to make his very valid point. After all, it’s not if there aren’t many others, sadly.
Naomi Wayne is right; it is not pernicious to refer to ANY piece of writing. The GLU seems to operate on the exact principal – a McCarthyite one. Indeed, referring to, let alone denouncing the perpetrators of, the Nazi holocaust was from the late 1940s until ca 1967, regarded as evidence of communist allegiance or sympathy. After all the former (?) Nazis like Gehlen, Globke, Oberlaender, Kiesinger, Rauff, Skorzeny, Speer etc usw were allies of the ‘free world’ against godless communism, were they not?
So the McCarthyite activities and indeed rhetoric of the Blairite agents of capitalism within the LP and its apparatus have a clear lineage. The class struggle within the LP has reached a new inflection. How it develops depends on the understanding as well as the determination of us as socialists.
But our understanding will be clouded if we accept Craig’s prohibition of any investigation of the Ha’azara Agreement and its relevance for interpretations of national and ethnic chauvinism, colonialism and imperialism. Consistent socialists must regard all social and political life as needing clarification, and can accept no taboos. Indeed, those taboos cry out for thorough investigation – not only Craig’s timid warning against following Ken Livingstone’s somewhat blundering summary (Edwyn Black’s The Transfer Agreement {Dialog 1983, 1999, 2001, 2009} provides – no doubt unwillingly, for Black is an explicit Zionist and a Jewish chauvinist -a great expansion, clarification and development of KL’s remarks, as, even more unwillingly, do Francis Nicosia’s two books: Zionism and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany {CUP 2008 and The Third Reich and the Palestine Question {Transaction 1985, 2000}}but also the crass and reactionary taboo embodied in the so-called IHRA’s ‘definition’ of antisemitism. Decisive critiques of the IHRA’s propagandistic and pilpulesque misrepresentations by its originator – Kenneth Stern – and other learned lawyers such as Stephen Sedley are easily referenced.
Do not laugh, do not weep; try to understand; then the point is not (only) to interpret the world, but to try to change it.
An amazing analysis! I am baffled to learn that Craig has publicly acknolwledged that he has read the report and is asking anyone with similar info to send to Wikileaks. In fact, he has sent a copy of this report to the EHRC!!! But according to Mark Lewis of law firm Patron Law, even just circulating the leaked document contravenes the Data Protection Act. Can anybody explain this contradiction?
If any other country such as Russia interfered with the UKs ‘free and democratic election’ the right wing media would have screamed the house down but when billionaires and media moguls lie and cheat to undemocratically influence an election their opponents are the ones who are crucified. Surely there must be a legal restriction on their actions or if there is then why is it now enforced? If you cheat on your tax you get arrested. If you cheat on the sports field you are shamed but if you cheat the British public out of a fair election by openly lying about another party nothing is done. If the left tried those tactics the prisons would be overflowing so how come these traitors to democracy and their fantastically wealthy mates can rob us at will of true and honest democracy. Simple answer is democracy cannot exist in a capitalist country. Money buys elections not truth.
If there were a ‘Factual Information Act’ that made it illegal to make statement without irrefutable evidence then the lies and propaganda would be stopped and most of the present government and their friends would be in the nick!
I have clearly been badly misunderstood. If it’s the way I have expressed myself, my apologies. Let me try again.
It MIGHT WELL BE PERNICIOUS to make reference to or link to a piece of writing, depending on the piece of writing, its content both in the general and the particular, the context etc. Having read most of the leaked report, I do accept that Labour was (mostly) dealing with extreme right wing and classic antisemitism, where it is very hard to envisage that the members under investigation might possibly have any defence at all. (These ‘classic right wing’ cases appear to form the bulk of the antisemitism allegations – the supposed ‘left antisemitism’ cases, which got such massive press profile, are actually very few in number).
However, the previous Labour leadership was, in my – and Craig Murray’s view – far too willing to deny any rights to those accused of ‘left’ antisemitism. I part company with Murray over his view of Atzmon and those ‘left’ members who have got into trouble for citing him. For Murray to describe Atzmon as “an Israeli Jew of controversial views particularly on Jewish identity” is extraordinary – Atzmon’s writings have been comprehensively demolished by many (mostly Jewish) writers as being unquestionably antisemitic – see the Jews for Justice for Palestinians link that I cite.
So, to repeat, if someone whose alleged wrongdoing is referencing Atzmon says – I am sorry, when I referenced Atzmon, I had no idea about his wider story – I would give that person a chance to make a defence. But, also to repeat, that person would have a bloody great hill to climb to rebut the allegation of antisemitism.
I agree that the entire unredacted report should be sent to Wikileaks.
The right wing of the party went to war against the socialists; these people have no place in our Labour Party.
I have no faith in Keir Starmer dealing with this leaked report forcefully.
Are other actors outside the Labour Party involved? I agree it’s imperative that every thing is put in the public domain. We need to know if these bad actors colluded with others. Tory’s MI5 Mossad. News International? We need to know the extent of the forces against a socialist Labour party
Vexatious claims are hate crimes and should be prosecuted
We still dont know the identity of the person responsible for 50% of claims in 2019
Unless there is evidence claims were destroyed or lost, we can safely assume they have now been dealt with and the level of AS in the party
Would like that clarified because if they did lose claims deliberately then there are no words
My opinion is it blows out of the water the EHRC investigation and Panorama Drama legal cases
I agree an excellent piece, and you are right to identify Murray’s two main conclusions.
I know nothing of Atzmon beyond that he is a musician, and having read before the kind of comments Naomi makes here. I’m quite happy to accept those.
However as a general point it does not seem to me that if A approves, or agrees with, something that B says, and B is an anti-semite, it does not follow that A is also an anti-Semite. I’m not sure if this what is being claimed in relation to Atzmon, but it seems wrong to me.
Adrian – I absolutely agree with Murray that there’s been far too much guilt by association, which has been permitted, even encouraged, by the former Labour leadership – which is very disturbing.
But regarding Atzmon, here’s the thing. If somebody cites an acceptable paragraph from a known fascist – someone like Hitler or Oswald Mosley (and there are usually the odd sentences or paragraphs which right wingers, including known fascists, write which are unexceptionable), it’s not unreasonable to deduce that the citer is trying to make a bigger point, and allying him/herself with the known fascist. I accept that there are people who dont know about Atzmon’s politics – but most people who choose to quote him ARE choosing him precisely because they do know who and what he is and they approve of/like/accept his antisemitism (while covering up by saying – oh, he’s a great musician).
But for those who don’t know Atzmon, I am prepared to say that people quoting Atzmon should be allowed to run the following defence: ‘I didn’t know Atzmon, I had no reason to check him out when I saw the quote I have referenced, and, because providing a negative is difficult, I will demonstrate from my history to date that I am likely to be telling the truth’.
Why does this matter? Because Murray has written a truly superb article, and made a very good point about guilt by association cases, then spoilt it by choosing a very poor example.
The trouble with Naomi’s argument is that Chris Williamson wasn’t linking to any quote of Atzmon’s at all. He was protesting at what appeared prima facie as a musician being banned from playing his music. There was no reason for Williamson to have known about Atzmon’s record – and when it was pointed out to him he immediately wihdrew his suppport.
You could argue he should have known – but why should he have known? Should he have known that when Atzmon plays his music he intersperses it with ongoing conversation of an often unacceptable kind? Once I didnt – now I do. And I’m not one who is soft on Atzmon, as my review on the JfJfP page you linked to, shows.
Whilst I have every respect for Craig, he is completely wrong regarding what Ken said on the one hand – ie that Ken was wrong to say something about Hitler supporting Zionism – and Jeremy appeasing the media attacks on the other hand. In his piece he says the following in relation to Ken:
‘Of course there may have been contact at some early stage between Nazis who wished to eradicate Jews from Europe, and Zionists who wished Jews to move to Israel. But what purpose is there in pointing that out?’
Ken wasn’t pointing anything out, as such. Vanessa Feltz brought up Hitler, not Ken. The following is from Ken’s resignation statement:
‘At 8.50am on 28th April 2016 I was asked by Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio London to respond to a social media post by the Labour MP, Naz Shah, quoting Martin Luther King, that ‘what Hitler did was legal’. King’s point, obviously, having been that just because something is legal (talking in the context of racist segregation laws in the US in the 1960s) does not mean it is right. I saw no relevance between Hitler and Labour so I responded in under 40 words pointing out that in the 1930s Hitler had supported Jews leaving Germany – including moving to Israel and he had arrived at a practical agreement with Zionist organisations on this.’
And the following is what Ken said in the interview:
‘Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932 [it was 1933, in fact], his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.’
And THAT was it, and he was alluding to The Haavara Agreement, an historical fact, and the fact that Craig says ‘…. there may have been contact at some early stage….’ etc, implies that Craig is not aware of the agreement AND that Ken, in passing, was alluding to it. Craig then goes on to say the following: ‘The Jew-hatred of the Nazis is indisputable, and any misguided Zionist who tried to deal with them was not therefore a Nazi supporter’, which further implies that Craig is not aware of The Haavara Agreement. The Haavara Agreement came about because there was a Zionist boycott of Nazi Germany, and the German Zionists ended their boycott as a consequence of the agreement. The following is from the wikipedia entry regarding the agreement:
‘The Haavara Agreement was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939.’
And what is ‘misguided’ about THAT. And that is all that Ken meant when he said that Hitler was supporting Zionism – ie that the Nazis had worked on and reached an agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany, and needless to say, it wouldn’t have come about if Adolf Hitler was opposed to such an agreement. In other words, he supported the agreement (so as to end the boycott).
As for Jeremy appeasing the smearers, Craig says the following:
‘We will never know what would have happened if he had come out and denounced the witch-hunt…..’, and shortly afterwards says: ‘Whether a firm line on Palestine and calling out the witch-hunt would have had a better result than giving way before ten thousand unfair attacks, we can never know.’
Well I think it’s all to obvious what would have happened……. the smearers would have denounced Jeremy and castigated and vilified him in no uncertain terms, along with mountains of faux outrage. Of COURSE they would. I mean it’s absurd to think that all of the individuals and groups and organisations and the MSM and the Jewish newspapers who had conspired in the smear campaign were going to go along with Jeremy exposing THEM and concede that Jeremy is correct in what he says. Jeremy would have been denounced as a conspiracy theorist and, as such, an anti-semite, or conclusive proof that he is an anti-semite, and I have little doubt that dozens of ‘moderates’ would have penned and signed a letter to the Guardian etc, etc, etc.
Richard – I wondered afterwards whether Murray was referring to Chris Williamson. But his point in the piece you have posted appears to be as I characterised it. I quote in full: “Several instances are given of quoting or linking to Gilad Atzmon as evidence of anti-semitism, seemingly with no need felt to analyse the particular Atzmon article being quoted. Atzmon is of course an Israeli Jew of controversial views particularly on Jewish identity, but it ought not to be axiomatic that to refer to Atzmon is anti-semitic.” I am right in thinking that Murray is referring to a person or people quoting or linking to Atzmon article(s), am I not? Maybe he is referring to Williamson (or rather, Williamson solely) and perhaps he thought that’s what Williamson had done, but he doesnt say so, and he doesnt name Williamson.
I agree with your point about the degree of Atzmon’s notoriety: he is nowhere near as well known as Hitler, except, perhaps among some jazz aficionados. Which is why I argue that posting a link or reference to Atzmon without either the context or the content referred or linked to being the really nasty antisemitism that Atzmon engages in (as distinct from silly, childish or unwitting stuff) should not bar someone from the right to provide a defence.
I have since received a very nice email from Murray saying he didn’t know till I told him how Atzmon was viewed by Jews generally (I had, by the way, said it wasn’t just Jews). But even in his email, he writes: “I suspect many of those linking to him had read as little Atzmon as I”
I suppose this all goes to show what a tangled web we weave when we get into discussions about antisemitism, and how so much is a matter of culture, context, nuance, intent etc etc. Which is what the former Labour leadership seems to have lost sight of in their desperation to prove their non-antisemitic credentials.
Refer to “The transfer agreement” a work by Black on the matter referred to by Livingston
Allan Howard has invented a ‘Zionist boycott of Germany’ out of whole cloth. Edwin Black makes it clear that the worldwide – not Zionist, nor indeed only Jewish – boycott of Nazi Germany resulted from spontaneous mass indignation at the disgusting persecution of Jews – boycotters demanded that Nazis stop that persecution. German Zionists – a tiny minority of German Jews – in no way boycotted the Nazi party; rather they more or less forced their way into meetings at which Goering proposed to tell German Jews through their representatives that there would be no place in Germany for them – a place which the vast majority of German Jews thought they had a full right to, and to which they were committed. Zionists disagreed:far from boycotting the Nazis, German Zionists sympathised with German nationalist racism, which they regarded as parallel with their own. They agreed with the Nazis that there was no place in Germany for Jews.
Black is very clear that the boycott gravely threatened the German economy, already weakened by the depression and export-dependent.
The Zionists’ Ha’avara Agreement provided a lifeline for German exports and therefore for the Third Reich. Black is equally clear on this point; but an earlier end to Nazi rule would surely have been no disaster- except for Nazis . That aspect does not appear in wikipedia, and Allan Howard’s reliance on that source is light-minded indeed. 60,000 German Jews were pressured to leave Germany – was that preferable to a continuation of their settled life in Germany? Howard’s talk of mis/guided leads to a wilderness of ‘alternative history’.
But it is clear that far from boycotting Nazi Germany, Zionists broke the boycott – that is why Livingstone’s tactless but broadly accurate remarks triggered such an avalanche of ill-informed though perhaps genuine outrage – very useful for Corbynophobes and opponents of socialism.
RC, you are being more than a little disingenuous. Ken’s remarks were NOT tactless, and the avalanche of outrage was totally fake and phony and contrived. Are all the dozens of articles on the web about the Haavara Agreement tactless and worthy of outrage? Hmm……
I mean if anyone needs proof that the whole episode with Ken was completely and totally manufactured, look no further than the Big Black Lie that the smearers were disseminating almost immediately – ie that Ken had said that Hitler was a Zionist. Ian Austin even repeated the falsehood in a parliamentary debate!
As for the boycott, which led to the Haavara Agreement:
‘One of the German authorities’ principal goals in negotiating with the Zionist movement was to fragment the Jewish boycott of German goods. Although in retrospect we know the boycott had only a marginal effect on German economic development in the 1930s, at the time it was perceived as a genuine threat. Correspondence between Heinrich Wolff, the German consul in Palestine, and the German Foreign Ministry shows that shattering the boycott was a key motive for the German authorities in concluding the Transfer Agreement.’
https://yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203231.pdf
My problem is this. While over the past three or four yeas, I have witnessed (and immediately challenged) mild anti-semitism among acquaintances and even sadly a friend, I have never encountered it in the Labour party. I say this simply for the record. From the very start of all this, I have wanted someone to quote in direct speech a comment that they judge to be anti-semitic, then I can see for myself. I think this is true for many grass roots members. It would be enormously helpful Craig, if you would quote me an example. As I say, I am not trying to be clever or sly here. Genuinely I am bewildered.
Much of the above discussion is interesting but, in my opinion, besides the point. Opinions on such historical issues cannot possibly be the positive/negative markers for membership of a mass popular Party.
In any case, as I remember it, the attacks on Livingstone predated his pronouncements on Zionism. He had attacked a Daily Mail journalist likening him to a concentration camp guard, I think. Since the journalist was Jewish the idea was insinuated that Livingstone’s attack was anti-Semitic.
Those attacking Livingstone have no interest either in historical debate or truthful reporting.
RC is accurate. My late father took part in the boycott of German goods. The boycott was supported by non-Jews, as well as Jews, including moderate Zionists such as my father. The breaking of the boycott by the Yishuv (the Zionist organisation in British mandate Palestine) and their henchmen in Germany was an horrific act of scabbing during a struggle of huge historic portent. We can only guess how the course of history may have been altered if the boycott had been sustained to a point where German capital would be pressured into withdrawing its support for Hitler. Ken Livingstone’s articulation of this was tame compared to how my father explained it to me. Nevertheless, my father never grasped the ideological consistency between the treachery of the Haavarah Agreement and Zionism itself, undermining the struggle of worldwide Jewry in the interests of immigration to Palestine, and he remained a Zionist. On the other hand, like many other Jews of his generation, he maintained a rigorous personal, boycott of German goods by our family right through to the 1960s.
Excellent analysis from Craig.