Rats And Lawyers. by Les May

QUESTION: What’s the difference between a rat dead in the road and a lawyer dead in the road? Answer: There are skid marks in front of the rat. Not a very nice joke, but a reminder that not every member of the legal profession always has the best interests of humanity at heart.

It appears that the largest supplier of textbooks to UK schools, the publisher Pearson, is halting further distribution of two books about the Israel/Palestine conflict published in 2020. The books concerned are not the original versions which were published in 2016 and 2017 and previously available to schools and others. The original text had been amended after a complaint from a group called UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI). The amendments were extensive amounting to more than 650 changes or more than three per page.

A description of the process by which these two books were altered is given in a statement issued by the British Board of Jewish Deputies last September. It reads a follows:

After initial constructive conversations with Pearson, the Board of Deputies worked together with UKLFI [UK Lawyers for Israel] to produce thorough comments on both textbooks, which Pearson have received and acted upon. After detailed and lengthy process over a number of months, the books have now been published for students to use in the 2020-1 academic year. Board of Deputies of British Jews President Marie van der Zyl said: "We applaud Pearson for their openness to constructive feedback and willingness to revise these textbooks. We are pleased with the final material which gives a balanced and accurate portrayal of the Middle East conflict. I would like to pay specific tribute and thanks to UKLFI for their hard work on this project and their collaborative effort with us to get these textbooks to where they needed to be.”

The decision of the publishers to pause further distribution of the altered version came in response to an eight-page report by Middle East specialists Professors John Chalcraft and James Dickins, which found hundreds of changes to the textbooks overwhelmingly favouring an Israeli narrative and removing or replacing passages that support Palestinian narratives.

Below is an extract which forms the last two paragraphs of that report.

The revisions have changed the presentation of the facts in ways which bolster pro-Israeli narratives, and make pro-Palestinian narratives less credible. Explanations of the events recorded have also been treated in a selective manner, with potentially pro- Palestinian interpretations removed, and pro-Israeli interpretations augmented. The revisions exhibit troubling double-standards at a very basic level: potentially unjust Israeli actions are dealt with in the language of perception and controversy, while potentially unjust Palestinian actions are dealt with in the language of fact and objective certainty. The revisions also offer distorted definitions of key terms, such as Jewish ‘settlers’, and mislead students about matters on which there is a wide consensus, such as international law. The revisions direct students towards activities and interpretations that favour and explore a pro-Israeli narrative.

In sum, we have found the process to have been biased and the outcome misleading. The outcome is two textbooks that distort the historical record, failing to offer students a balanced view of the conflict. These books, we conclude, are not fit for purpose. School children should not be supplied with propaganda under the guise of education.

What we have here is an organisation of lawyers advocating for a foreign country. We also have the Board of Deputies, which does not represent all the Jewish people in the UK, trying to determine what is taught in our schools. This is just as reprehensible as the actions of those Muslims who are trying to do the same at Batley Grammar School. It also gives further credibility to those who believe that the motivation of those attacking Jeremy Corbyn were motivated not by concerns about anti-semitism, but by a desire to remove someone who was an advocate for the Palestinians.

You can find the full text of the report from which two short extracts are given above at:

http://www.bricup.org.uk/documents/GCSE_textbooks.pdf

There is a more detailed discussion at:

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/textbooks-altered-line-by-line-at-uk-lawyers-for-israels-behest/

NV can no longer embed links in the text of articles. To use these links copy the full text of the link into your browser (Startpage, DuckDuckGo or Google) and search in the usual way.

An Appeal By David Graeber Re: Labour 'Antisemitism'

Pledges, Demands and Blackmail by Les May

I WAS recently chatting to an older lady who has actively supported Labour for the forty plus years I have known her. She tried to persuade me that the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn was a ‘right wing’ plot to remove someone who is widely considered to be on the ‘left’ of the Labour party, though as the economics journalist William Keagan pointed out some years ago the policies of Clement Atlee government in 1945 were more radical. I disagreed with her; so far as I am concerned the accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ which led to Corbyn’s downfall are a systematic attempt by a small number of Jewish people and organisations to ensure that Labour party policies are not critical of the actions of the state of Israel towards Palestinians.

Overt scepticism amongst Jewish people about Labour party policies towards Israel predate Corbyn’s election to the leadership in September 2015. In April 2015 the Jewish Chronicle (J.C.) published an article by Marcus Dysch when the Labour leader was Ed Miliband which said:

‘Around 73 per cent of Jews said the political parties’ attitudes to Israel were 'very' or 'quite important' in influencing how they would vote.

'The polling revealed that Mr Miliband’s approach to Israel and the Middle East is seen as toxic within the Jewish community. Just 10 per cent of people said he had the best approach, compared to 65 per cent who favoured Mr Cameron’s stance.

'The Labour party itself fared worse than its leader, with its Israel policy attracting only eight per cent of Jewish voters. The Tory approach was preferred by 61 per cent.’

I should however caution that the survey from which the above was derived questioned only 580 Jewish people and we do not know how this sample was obtained.

The day after, 8 April 2015, the website Forward carried an article Liam Hoare with the title ‘How Ed Miliband Lost Britain's Jewish Voters’.

Hoare tells us: ‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge. ‘The British Jewish community is a middle class community and the Conservatives are the traditional home of the middle class...’

‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge’ and .The nadir of Miliband’s relationship with the Jewish community then came in October when Labour backed recognition of Palestinian statehood during a symbolic vote in Parliament. Miliband thought it good politics, but the fact that attitudes toward Israel influence the vote of 73% of British Jews apparently wasn’t taken into account.’

I have no doubt that Ed Miliband’s critical stance was a response to the scale of the casualties inflicted by Operation Protective Edge.

Wikipedia says this: 'Between 2,125 and 2,310 Gazans were killed and between 10,626 and 10,895 were wounded (including 3,374 children, of whom over 1,000 were left permanently disabled). Gazan civilian casualty rates estimates range between 70% by the Gaza Health Ministry, 65% by United Nations Protection Cluster by OCHA (based in part Gaza Health Ministry reports), and 36% by Israeli officials, The UN estimated that more than 7,000 homes for 10,000 families were razed, together with an additional 89,000 homes damaged, of which roughly 10,000 were severely affected by the bombing.'

Now whilst I disagree with the seemingly uncritical support for Israel which seems to be offered by many Jewish people in Britain I believe they are entitled to hold such views and if they so wish vote accordingly at the ballot box. Although it would be quite untrue to say that the late Jim Dobbin courted Catholic voters, I doubt that his public stance against abortion did him any harm with them. Voting for an MP whose views you share is what parliamentary democracy is about.

But this is very different from the attempts being made by a small number of Jewish people to manipulate Labour into being a party which will never be critical of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. And if you think my choice of the word ‘manipulate’ is too strong or ‘cue anti-semitic trope here’, then consider this.

In January of this year the Board of Deputies of British Jews published ‘Ten pledges to end the antisemitism crisis’ directed at the Labour party. Though I think that all the ‘pledges’, which are in reality demands, are attempts to circumscribe the freedom of action of the Labour party and the freedom of expression of its members, I will highlight two of these which I think are particularly pernicious.

Number Seven reads: ‘Deliver an anti-racism education programme that has the buy-in of the Jewish community. The Jewish Labour Movement should be engaged by the Party to lead on training about antisemitism.’

Number eight reads: ‘Engagement with the Jewish community to be made via its main representative groups Labour must engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations and individuals.'

The first thing to note here is that these two are inter-related. Both seek to define the ‘Jewish Community’ by excluding many Jews – evidently the wrong sort. We are left to assume that the right sort include those who run the Board of Deputies, which does not speak for the 70% British Jews who are either secular or Charedi, and those who control the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Organisations like the Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) and individuals who do not align themselves with the Board of Deputies, are to be ignored. Just to make the meaning of this ‘pledge’ absolutely clear the Jewish Chronicle of 12 January described JVL as a ‘fringe’ organisation.

I understand that the Jewish Labour Movement refused to campaign for a majority of Labour MPs at the 2019 general election and that it does not require its members to be either Jewish or in the Labour Party!

I find it difficult not to believe that both the so called pledges, which are in fact a thinly disguised attempt at blackmailing the Labour leadership, and the constant attacks on Corbyn using accusations of anti-semitism, are anything other than attempts to shift Labour policies to a position favourable to a foreign power, in this case the state of Israel. This is not new; I am old enough to remember and have known people who wanted to shift Labour to a line more favourable to the foreign policies of the USSR. They were recognised for what they were and called ‘fellow travellers’.

Let’s recognise the problem for what it is and not make the lazy mistake of turning Corbyn’s suspension into yet another left/right battle. The blackmail seems to be working.

The many articles on the website of the Jewish Voice for Labour are well worth reading. Attitudes to Labour are more diverse amongst Jewish people than you may have been led to believe. Remember the Board of Deputies does not speak for all British Jews.

******************************************

Ken Loach forced out of charity competition following Zionist lobbying!

Film Director Ken Loach

The 83-year-old film director Ken Loach, has been forced to withdraw as a judge in the 2020 School Competition run by the anti-racism charity 'Show Racism the Red Card'(SRtRC).

At the beginning of February the charity announced that Ken Loach and the former children's laureate Michael Rosen were to judge this year's competition which involves thousands of schoolchildren from various schools, producing poetry, drama and films, and other creative work, on combatting racism. The Chief Executive of the Charity and its trustees, said that both Loach and Rosen, were ideally qualified to choose the competition winners.

Rosen and Loach were then subjected to a torrent of abuse and an aggressive campaign - both on-line and in print - making allegations of baseless anti-Semitism, particularly directed at Ken Loach, who for decades through the medium of film, has consistently campaigned to expose inhumanity, inequality, and injustice, in films like 'Cathy Come Home' (1966), and 'Kes' (1969), and more recently, 'I Daniel Blake' (2016).

Among those who demanded the removal of Ken Loach as a competition judge, was the 'Board of Deputies of British Jews'. But during discussions between Loach and SRtRC, it became evident that the charity had been the subject of an aggressive campaign to persuade trade unions, government departments, football clubs, and politicians, to cease funding and supporting the charity and its work. It is understood that behind the scenes pressure threatened to wreck not only the competition and the charity's existence, but the reputation of Ken Loach. It is also alleged that members of the charity's staff were insulted and threatened along with members of Loach's family who were subjected to personal abuse on-line.

More than 200 eminent public figures, including Eric Cantona, Sir Alex Ferguson, Sir Mark Rylance, the film director, Mike Leigh, and Steve Coogan, have come out publicly in support of Loach. Steve Coogan said:

"His entire career has been to shine a light on the plight of the dispossessed and the disenfranchised. His films give a voice to the voiceless...Ken Loach's legacy will remain long after his critics have gone."

The allegations made against Ken Loach, stem from his support for pro-Palestinian Labour party members who have been accused of anti-Semitism and are directly linked to the attempt to redefine anti-Semitism and conflate it with any criticism of Zionism and Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, as the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, seeks to do.

For decades, Loach has been seen as something of an hate figure for Zionists and a thorn in their side. In 1987, the play 'Perdition', written by Jim Allen and directed by Ken Loach, which dealt with the alleged collaboration between the Zionist movement in Hungry and the Nazi's, was cancelled on the day before the first preview performance at London's Royal Court Theatre, following outside pressure on the theatre to cancel all performances of the play. Loach told a newspaper that he "hadn't tangled with the Zionist lobby before" and "what is amazing is the strength and organisation and power of the lobby."

North West TUC Snubs Peterloo Rally over Chris Williamson MP!

Rally in Albert Square - Photo: Mark Rowe/FB

LAST SUNDAY more than 1000 people came to Albert Square, Manchester, to support the 'March for Democracy' which was organised to mark the 200 years since the Peterloo massacre on 16th August 1819.  Many of the people who came to support the event had marched from surrounding towns such as Wigan and Bolton.   The proposals of the March for Democracy, included the Chartists demand for annual parliaments and the abolition of the House of Lords.   

Among the key speakers who addressed the rally, was Chris Williamson MP, the Member of Parliament for Derby North, who was suspended by the Labour Party, readmitted, and then suspended again, following complaints from the Board of Deputies of British Jews who called his readmission to the Labour Party 'an utter disgrace'.  In June, Amanda Bowman, the Board of Deputies Vice President, said:     
'This is an utter disgrace. Despite years of baiting the Jewish community - calling antisemitism allegations 'proxy wars and bullshit', actively supporting people suspended and expelled from the party for antisemitism, attacking the Board of Deputies on the day of the Pittsburgh attack, and saying the Labour has been 'too apologetic' over antisemitism, Chris Williamson has reportedly been readmitted to the Labour Party. This is yet more damning evidence for the EHRC's inquiry into antisemitism in the Labour Party.' 

There are many people who feel quite sympathetic towards Chris Williamson. They believe that he, along with others, are the victims of a witch-hunt and that the charges of anti-Semitism are both spurious and aimed at supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. They argue that the term 'anti-Semitism has been 'weaponised' and is being used as a device to undermine political opponents and those who oppose Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. Likewise, they argue that merely expressing an opinion, however unpalatable one finds it, doesn't necessarily amount to anti-Semitism.


It wasn't altogether certain that Chris Williamson would be invited to address the rally on Sunday. Just over a week ago, Williamson was forced to address a crowd of supporters in Regency Square, Brighton, after an orchestrated and thuggish campaign led to bookings being cancelled at venues because staff claimed that they had received threatening and intimidating phone calls. Similar tactics have been deployed in other areas to stop Williamson having a platform.


Among those who wanted to stop Williamson speaking in Manchester on Sunday, was Steve Hall, the Chair of the Greater Manchester County Association of TUC's (GMATUC's).  Last Wednesday, Hall told a meeting at the Friends Meeting House in Manchester, that though he didn't believe Williamson was an anti-Semite, his presence at the rally would be a distraction as the attention would be focused on him and not on the rally and the reasons for it. A majority at the meeting disagreed and Williamson was invited.


Two days later, Jay McKenna, Acting Regional Secretary of the North West TUC, wrote to the Secretary of GMATUC's Stefan Cholewka, informing him that the NW TUC would not be supporting the event because of the presence of Chris Williamson.  Although he didn't say why Williamson was objectionable, he wrote:


'the late addition of Chris Williamson to the speaking line up has raised concerns. It brings unnecessary attention and is diversionary from the event that we have agreed to support as a TUC...  Given that there is no planned change to the line up, I am letting you know that the TUC North West will not be accepting our speaking lot and will be unable to support the event moving forward. We believe that the changes would have the potential to bring the TUC and others into disrepute... The event was an opportunity to commemorate an important anniversary in our movements history. This has unfortunately overshadowed that and risks damaging relationships between many in the region.'


Unlike the Chair of the GMATUC's who appears to have toed the official line of the NW TUC regarding Chris Williamson, Stefan Cholewka, the Secretary of GMATUC's told McKenna:
'
The fact that you cannot spell out clearly and articulately the reasons or give any explanation for your objection to Chris Williamson MP speaking, speaks volumes. The fact that you cannot even reference Chris Williamson in your letter as a Labour Member of Parliament is a disgrace.  You also seem to think that you can override the democratic decision of the lead body across Greater Manchester that has been building this event over the last 18 months. Today is the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre and all you can do is send an email about a socialist MP speaking at a rally to remember the dead and murdered working-class victims by the state.  Your place in history is assured as the writer of the most irrelevant letter of 2014.'


The Peterloo march and rally that took place on Sunday to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre in August 1812, was billed as the 'March for Democracy'.  Yet if democracy means anything, then it means the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression which is understood to be fundamental in any  democracy.  The attempt to 'No Platform' Chris Williamson, to deny him a platform to speak at the Peterloo rally, is the sort of filthy censorship that is becoming all too commonplace  in today's Britain.


Helen Steel, the activist who with Dave Morris, took on the Corporate giant McDonald's in the now famous McLibel trial, was recently chucked off a mass trespass on the moors because she was told that others felt 'unsafe' to be close to someone with her views. Ms Steel has been attacked because she has expressed the view that to be of the female sex is a question of 'basic biology' and that to self-identify as a woman is not the same as being born a woman. Most people would find this common sense and yet, the academic and feminist Germaine Greer, has been 'No-Platformed' by university students for expressing similar views.


Similarly, people who criticise Israel as a 'racist endeavour' and an apartheid state or speak out against the murder of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators, are now accused of anti-Semitism.  In the summer of 2018, the Board of Deputies supported the massacre of over 200 unarmed demonstrators in Gaza and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has stated that Israel is not a country of all its citizens but a nation-state of the Jewish nation.


It is well documented that the state of Israel as a foreign power does meddle in British politics. Two years ago, Al Jazeera's programme 'The Lobby', revealed how an agent operating out of the Israeli Embassy in London, had discussed how to bring down Sir Alan Duncan, the then Deputy Foreign Secretary, because he had supported Palestinian statehood and had compared Israeli attitudes towards the Palestinians as akin to apartheid in South Africa. Alan Duncan is not the only politician the Zionist want to bring down, Jeremy Corbyn is also on the list and Chris Williamson.


If one does believe in democracy then you must believe in the right of free speech.  What we are seeing today in Britain with bans, proscriptions, and politically correct censorship mainly by the life-style left, and social liberals, is a form of creeping and subtle totalitarianism that must be resisted.  To submit, would be like allowing the inmates to take over the mental asylum.  The Labouring classes who attended the rally in St Peter's Field, Manchester in August 1819, would have recognised this only too well, unlike some of today's trade unionists.

***********

Dear

Stefan and Step

hen

I am writing to you regarding the Peterloo March & Rally taking place in Manchester this

Sunday.

When our annual

conference passed the GMATUC motion in March, calling for support

for th

e event, ourselves and our regional council were looking forward to working

together to have an inclusive and important commemorative event. That has been

evident in the support, finan

cial and physical, from ourselves and affiliates.

However, the late add

ition of Chris Williamson to the speaking line up has raised

concerns. It brings unnecessary attention and is diversionary from the event that we

have agreed to support as a TUC.

I’v

e contacted you a number omes this week, to express these concerns

nd seek a

change. I’ve said that if the speaking line up remains as it is, then we would have to

consider our support. I understand that affiliate unions in the region have done simila

r.

Given that there is no planned change to the line

-

up, I am letting y

ou know that the TUC

North West will not be accepting our speaking slot and will be unable to support the

event moving forward. We believe that th
e changes would have the potential to

bring

the TUC and others into disrepute.

Dear

Stefan and Step

hen

I am writing to you regarding the Peterloo March & Rally taking place in Manchester this

Sunday.

When our annual

conference passed the GMATUC motion in March, calling for support

for th

e event, ourselves and our regional council were looking forward to working

together to have an inclusive and important commemorative event. That has been

evident in the support, finan

cial and physical, from ourselves and affiliates.

However, the late add

ition of Chris Williamson to the speaking line up has raised

concerns. It brings unnecessary attention and is diversionary from the event that we

have agreed to support as a TUC.

I’v

e contacted you a numbesss

nd seek a

change. I’ve said that if the speaking line up remains as it is, then we would have to

consider our support. I understand that affiliate unions in the region have done simila

r.

Given that there is no planned change to the line

-

up, I am letting y

ou know that the TUC

North West will not be accepting our speaking slot and will be unable to support the

event moving forward. We believe that t
he Ichanges would have the potential to

bring

the TUC and others into disrepute.