The fact that there has been a rise in anti-Semitic incidents across Europe and elsewhere is simply not a fact which can credibly be disputed. To take just two egregious examples.
In January 2015, an Islamist terrorist, Amedy Coulibaly shot dead four Jewish men at a kosher supermarket in Paris before security forces stormed the building, killing him and freeing the remaining hostages. These men were murdered solely for being Jewish.
In March 2016, six ISIS terrorists were detained in Turkey, associated with a threat to target Jewish schools, nurseries and youth clubs in Europe.
It is entirely reasonable therefore for Jews to be apprehensive of their safety, and in particular for Jewish parents to be concerned about security of the schools where their children are educated.
This is the context by which we should judge recent comments by Jackie Walker, Vice chair of Momentum, and a Labour Party member. The crassness of her comments at a fringe meeting at Labour Party conference questioning why one speaker had raised the issue of enhanced security at Jewish schools is staggering. It is certainly true that anti-Semitism is not the same thing as anti-Zionism; and that a critique of the political project of Zionism, as well as the specific actions of the Israeli state, is compatible with robust rejection of all forms of anti-Judaic prejudice. However, it is also true that the political and social roots of Zionism arise from the oppression, and persecution of Jews. Seemingly, the anti-Zionism of Jackie Walker has extended into seeking to belittle the experience of Jews facing hatred.
Her comments about the Holocaust were equally offensive. Speaking at the event discussing antisemitism at the Labour Party conference, Walker asked: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Holocaust Day was open to all peoples who’ve experienced Holocaust?”
Now, as Joe Mulhall has written, , factually Walker is ill-informed because Holocaust Memorial day already does just that:
Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) commemorates the Holocaust, victims of Nazi persecution and the subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. Even the most cursory of glance at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust website would reveal this information on the home page.
But it was not only ignorant, but deeply offensive. Not dissimilar to bursting into a funeral and demanding that the grieving congregation should think about all dead people, not just their own recently departed friend or relative.
The genocide against the Jews was historically unique, as of course are all instances of genocide. There are times and places where it is appropriate to discuss the historical comparitors, there are times and places where it is not. The Holocaust by the Nazis against the Jews was of intense ferocity, and it both drew on the deep well of anti-Jewish sentiment in European Christian culture, but also merged this with the modern industrial ruthlessness of European colonialist attitudes to their non-European subject peoples.
Let us be clear, there is not a current and live danger of racist hate crimes against Armenians, Hutus, Herero people or Native Americans on the streets of Britain today. The distinguishing feature that the Nazi anti-Semitism exploited centuries of prejudice, some of it woven into the very cloth of our culture, means that anti-Judaic stereotypes still abound, even among those in left and progressive politics. The rise of anti-Semitism, and concern by Jews for their own safety are live and real issues.
Jackie Walker had already caused controversy over her claims about Jewish funding of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Many on the left defended her. However, her comments were at least ill advised, if we consider that the majority of the slave trade was funded by Christians, and particularly in the early period from the 1680 to 1750s it was often by Quakers.
In Madge Dresser’s excellent work “Slavery Obscured, the Slave Trade in Bristol”, she observes that the later involvement of Quakers in the abolitionist movement obscures “the significant involvement of Quakers in the slave trade and the wider slave economy. Eight of the 20 largest contributors to Bristol’s new Quaker Meeting House built in Quakers Friars in 1747, were by 1755 members of the newly formed Society of Merchants Trading to Africa” – slavers. Dresser lists a number of prominent Quaker slavers, and traders dependent upon the exploitation of slave labour. But in Bristol, the crucible of the slave trade, Jews there were none. Indeed, in 1784 when a Tory candidate was standing for election in Bristol on an abolitionist ticket, he was popularly mocked for his association with stock caricatures of Jews. Crude popular stereotypes that had been used earlier in the century in the political campaign against the naturalisation of Jews were resurrected, conflating circumcission with emasculation, and presenting it as a threat to national virility. These anti-Jewish sentiments were coming from the pro-slavery camp, not the abolitionists.
For Walker to disproportionately stress the involvement of Jews in the slave trade is highly unfortunate, as it intersects with stereotypes of Shylock type ruthlessness. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that her discussion of the role of Jews in the slave trade was not related to the issue of the historical record, and was more related to her attitudes to contemporary Israel.
I don’t know whether Jackie Walker is anti-Semitic. But clearly she has shown lack of judgement in making statements that could legitimately be interpreted as anti-Semitic. What is more at a critical time for the Labour Party she should have had the self-awareness to be open to educating herself about what would and would not be offensive and could be open to interpretation as anti-Semitic.
Manuel Cortes, General Secretary of TSSA is correct. Walker’s position as vice chair of Momentum is untenable and she should go, and go now.
Andy Newman on said:
Manuel Cortes:
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Phil on said:
I’ve been baffled by the reaction to Jackie Walker’s various comments from a lot of people whose judgment I generally trust. I was hoping this post would tell me what I was missing, but it’s just added one more to the list.
Most obvious problem: how can Jackie Walker be criticised as anti-semitic for saying that Holocaust Memorial Day should commemorate other genocides, and at the same time be criticised as ignorant for not knowing that it does commemorate other genocides? Either it does or it doesn’t (it does – JW was mistaken); and that’s either a good thing or a bad thing (good – JW agrees). Put it another way: if we work on the basis that HMD does commemorate other genocides as well as the Shoah, and if – hypothetically – we then found that every reference to HMD we saw referred only to the Shoah, would it be anti-semitic to point out that the scope of the day is meant to be much broader? Surely not.
As for singling out Jewish involvement in the slave trade, I’ve read the original comment, and she’s writing as someone with Jewish ancestry – in other words, she’s singling out Jewish people involved in the slave trade because she identifies with them as a Jew, in just the same way that people of country X feel more responsibility for the past actions of that country than those of other countries.
I can’t see that she’s guilty of anything worse than insensitivity.
PhilQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
You have to listen to the recording of her, in which her criticism is – as I interpret it – that she devalues Holocaust memorial Day as being about solely the Shoah, and that she does not regard that there is anything special about the Holocaust of the Jews.
Your predicate logic is impeccable, but Jackie’s argument could only be interpreted as either being so crass as to be insulting, or deliberately dismissive of the weight of the Holocast on Jewish sensiblity.
With regard to the slave trade, her comments are unfortunate and open to interpretation as anti-Semitic because i) Jews were either peripheral or absent in reality (Jews for example largely excluded from some ante-bellum US slave states for example), and ii) that the associaition of Jews with slaver trading is at the very least an unfortunate echo of the common Shylock type tropes.
Well she is certainly insensitive, and in politics that can be enough to finich you off. It would not have been unreasonable for her to have reflected on why her remarks about the slave trade caused such offence, and sought a lower profile on the issues. rather than going to a training event on ant-Semitism and acting like a provactive fool
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Omar on said:
I do believe Ms. Walker’s comments were ill-judged but not factually inaccurate, insofar as the slave trade is concerned.
While it is perhaps the case that there was little Jewish involvement in the British slave trade, my understanding is that they were a major part of the Dutch trade which the British were in competition with and ,eventually, supplanted. The Dutch trade was also intertwined with the trade in gold and diamonds.
OmarQuote text Reply
John on said:
The problem comes with the inference that there was or is a cultural predisposition that informed Jewish involvement in financing the slave trade. This is clearly a form of essentialism. The fact is that Jewish participation in banking and financing from the Middle Ages on was itself a symptom of antisemitism; Jewish density in this particular industry was entirely due to them being prohibited from involvement in every other industry in states in which they were considered an alien presence. Since banking and finance was considered an immoral and dirty activity in this period, we see thow it was only a small step from there to depicting Jews qua Jew as immoral and dirty.
Those Jews who financed the slave trade did so because they were financiers not because they were Jewish.
JohnQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
John,
Correct John, but in addition to the suggestion of essentiaism – that there was somehow something about Jews that made them comfortable with slavery – there is the deflection of real responsibility.
When people talk about British values, let them look at the grand mansions, the squares and civic architecture in Bristol and Liverpool, and reflect that this was paid for by grotesque savagery by British Christian folk, who literally enslaved, tortured, raped and defiled black Africans to build these temples to mammon
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Petter Matthews on said:
Andy Newman,
In an interview with Cathy Newman on C4, Jackie Walker explained that her criticism of HMD is that it does not commemorate holocausts that occurred before the Shoa, including importantly, the African Holocaust. In that she is correct.
Her comments about Jewish involvement in financing the slave trade were made in a private exchange on Facebook, not a public posting. Her remarks were obtained by the Israel Advocacy Movement which hacked her account, and published in what appear to be sensationalist terms by the Jewish Chronicle. The allegations were investigated by the Labour Party and she remained a member.
Like you Andy, I have not seen evidence sufficient to convince me that Jackie Walker is anti-semitic. And in an environment in which anti-semitism has been weaponised and used to attack critics of Israel (those of Jewish origin coming in for particularly virulent attacks), I’m inclined to give her the benefit of any doubt.
Petter MatthewsQuote text Reply
John on said:
Agreed.
JohnQuote text Reply
John on said:
Yes.
JohnQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
Petter Matthews,
Jackie Walker was reinstated by the Labour Party previously, over the comments about Jews in the slave trade. It would be a sad day if people could not explore and discuss history. It would be a sad day if people cannot be wrong on the Internet.
However, politics is a tough game. It is naive to think that FB is ever private. It is naive to think that a training event at Labour conference about anti-semitism is a private space.
Given the furore over the previous remarks, Jackie Walker needed to be reflective about what had happened, and learn from it. Going to thAt training event and being provocative was foolish.
I don’t know if she is anti Semitic, I do know that she is cavalier in saying things which are sufficiently ambiguous to cause concern, and in circumstances which cause wider problems for the movement.
She has made the story be about her, and that is a price too high.
It smacks to me of individualism and lack of self discipline
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Omar on said:
Agreed, though to further clarify, some Dutch Jews were also slave traders/owners in fairly significant numbers,particularly in Dutch Guyana.
Ms. Walker’s comments,however clumsily delivered, aren’t an essentialist attack on Jews but a re-framing of the discussion along the lines how the oppressed can become oppressors,etc.
OmarQuote text Reply
Andy newman on said:
Omar,
“How the oppressed can become oppressors” is hardly a new direction for discussions about Israel though, it is a tired and worn out path, and a perilous one to walk without stepping into areas of Jewish identity liable tibcausr offence.
Andy newmanQuote text Reply
Omar on said:
Andy newman,
Well, ignoring the link is likely to cause an equal amount of offence to those who advocate on behalf of those oppressed by a state that views itself as as the protector of Jews worldwide and any criticism of itself as being of the same ideological origin as those who engineered the Holocaust.
As a Black and Jewish woman, Ms. Walker can take steps toward re-framing this discussion and diffuse the obvious attacks from the pro-Israel Right of the party who are cynically using this issue as a stick with which to beat Corbyn and his supporters.
OmarQuote text Reply
jock mctrousers on said:
” I don’t know whether Jackie Walker is anti-Semitic. But clearly she has shown lack of judgement in making statements that could legitimately be interpreted as anti-Semitic.”
There’s the rub. Just about anything ‘could be interpreted’ in such a way if convenient, so maybe better to just keep quiet? I don’t think that’s the way to go. Jackie Walker’s remarks, like last time, were completely innocuous. It’s Jon Lansman that needs to go, for his betrayal of Ken Livingstone. Enpugh of this abject surrender to the Israel lobby.
jock mctrousersQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
No, there is a difference between saying something which is close to the knuckle, and something which is measured and considered. A distinction that is necessary when navigating contested waters.
Jackie Walker has said things which sound very similar to the things that anti-Semites say. If that is not her intention, then she needs to reflect on why people are offended.
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Are some of these people who are in uproar now really offended though? Or are they just using this incident to continue their attacks on the Corbyn wing of the party? Apparently, this latest controversy happened at a training event at the Labour Party conference, which was being run by the Jewish Labour Movement, an organisation that seems to have links to the pro-Zionist Israeli Labour Party (it had invited some of their members to the conference). During the training session it had been suggested by them that the current standard definition of anti-Semitism included elements that conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and that it was anti-Semitic to compare Israel to other racist polities e.g. it would be anti-Semitic to talk about Palestinian bantustans. However, this definition of anti-Semitism has been abandoned by most organisations in recent years so the training being given was wrong.
I am only just finding all this stuff out and I am staggered that the JLM would be allowed to hold such a session and something else I have just read suggests that the session was in contradiction to what the Chakrabarti report had recommended (I have not read that report).
I don’t believe for one moment that Jackie Walker is an anti-Semite and I think she should be defended by Momentum and not removed from her post. We should not appease the Zionists by abandoning a dedicated fighter against racism and fascism. They will not stop with Jackie Walker, next week it will be somebody else.
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/jewish-labour-activists-defence-jackie-walker/
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
Petter Matthews on said:
stockwellpete,
There is a concerted effort by right wing political forces to use allegations of anti-Semitism to undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party and silence critics of Israel. I don’t agree with some of what Jackie Walker says, but I don’t see evidence that she is anti-Semitic. I do however see evidence that she is the victim of a smear campaign. The Labour movement will pay a heavy price for acquiescing to false and unsubstantiated allegations of anti-Semitism.
Petter MatthewsQuote text Reply
John on said:
This is absolutely correct. This synthetic furore is less to do with antisemitism and more to do with BDS.
JohnQuote text Reply
Tony Greenstein on said:
A previous comment of mine on this list was deleted by Andy Newman. Such is the confidence he has in his own despicable and racist position vs a vs Jackie Walker. From the Socialist Alliance to foot soldier of the GMB bureaucracy.
Fine, but I shall mention it in my response to Jon Lansman! What a contemptible person you are Andy Newman, dishonest and contemptible.
Tony GreensteinQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
As regards Jewish people from Europe the African slave trade this is an interesting and controversial area. If they were they originated in Amsterdam or as a result of their expulsion from Spain and Portugal. I have to say getting concrete evidence is quite hard. The problem is that Zionist publications have an interest in denial and saying that there was no involvement, whereas Black Nationalist groups in America have an interest in saying that they did. Of course many of these groups are anti–semitic so it’s quite easy to discount their evidence. There one or two unorthodox Rabbis in Holland who have been prepared to argue that there was involvement but predictably they are discounted by Rabbis. There was also a Profssor from Wellesley College in North America who seems to have caused an big fuss in the 1990s by providing evidence for Jewish owned ships transporting slaves to places like Surinam, Curacao, Nassau and even Jamaica. He was then immediately attacked by the Zionism Lobby and the conflict was quite sharp. His response was either anti-Semitic or extremely unadvised as the title of his response was “The Jewish onslaught on WEllesly”. If you look at the document on line he does appear to provide a list of ships whose owners are of a “Jewish” type names.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
http://www.rense.com/general69/invo.htm
As you can see Professor Martin is black. I can find no real evidence for Jews involved in slaving the Dutch East Indies. Where the trade seems to be centred around spices, and wealthy goods. Which isn’t to say that they didn’t treat the locals very badly.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
http://www.kulanu.org/suriname/amongmaroons.php
here’s another link. FYI
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
There is no doubt that some of the concern about anti-Semitism is exaggerated, and in part supporters of Israel are exploiting an opportunity where they have the attention of the mainstream media focus on Corbyn, to seek to promote their own definition of anti-Semitism.
There is also no doubt that lots of stupid stuff gets said, especially on the Internet, and some of it is anti-Semitic.
In such cirrcumstances, it really is inexplicable why Jackie walker – as a senior post holder in Momentum – did not take the opportunity after the last furore about her comments to step back , reflect, take counsel, and become more considered.
Politics is tough sport, and she failed to raise her game when the left were promoted into the Premiership.
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
Hebrew names, such as Isaac were common among protestants in the 17th and 18th century.
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
Why did Jackie Walker go then, and contribute, given the wisdom of avoiding further controversy over the subject?
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Well, of course, I can’t answer that, only she can. I suppose, if she hadn’t gone, then far fewer of us would have found out that anti-Semitism training was being undertaken by an organisation affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation for a start.
Do you have any information about how this “training event” came about? Would it have had to be voted through the various structures and committees of the party? Or would the Jewish Labour Movement have been entitled to use conference space for whatever they had decided to do? They are an affiliated society, aren’t they? Presumably the session would have been advertised at some stage? Do we know how it was presented to people attending the conference?
A couple of things strike me as particularly odd – firstly, I think I am right in saying that the Chakrabarti report came out against this type of training – and secondly, why were the “trainers” using a discredited definition of anti-Semitism and presenting it as standard? How could this happen?
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
David Hillman on said:
Jackie said nothing about “the Jews”, no tropes, no essences, nothing antisemitic. Why all the crap about quakers. She was making no general points about the number of Jews involved in slavery but talking about the complications of her feelings and the world on finding that her own Jewish ancestors were involved in the Dutch Caribean slave trade. It was a hacked private facebook conversation with a Zionist friend about their feelings. No=one contests the truth of the facts involved – about 12% of Dutch slavetraders were Jewish but this says nothing of any Jewish essence ( or quaker or whatever).
The more recent controversy was just entrapment – a training session improperly filmed in which she asks questions rather than assertions.
I am disappointed in Andy Newman
David HillmanQuote text Reply
Roy de Boy on said:
Talking of the dangers of being ‘wrong on the internet’, Andy might wanna rethink the reference to ‘Hutus’… unless we’re shedding tears for the perps now
Roy de BoyQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Right, I have found the answer to your question now . . .
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/jewish-activists-criticize-labour-anti-semitism-training
It seems to me that the most controversial aspect of all this is that the Labour Party has allowed a pro-Zionist organisation to run anti-Semitism “training” at its conference. Jackie Walker and others were quite entitled to attend and to ask questions during the session when they were encouraged to do so by the “trainers”.
I have also found out this evening that this session was not part of the fringe, but an official session that had been advertised in the conference magazine. It was entitled “Confronting Anti-Semitism and Engaging Jewish voters” and it was described as being “developed with the Jewish Labour Movement”. So who developed it with them then?
The Chakrabarti Report came out against “narrow anti-racism training programmes which could be seen as patronising or otherwise insulting.” It seems that the right wing of the Labour Party are just ignoring this report.
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
On the subject of Jewish involvement in the slave trade, this is quite interesting and, if correct, suggests to me that Jackie Walker was not as accurate as she might have been on this point, although to suggest her over-estimation of the Jewish role proves that she is an anti-Semite is just plain ludicrous. It is just a matter for historical debate as far as I am concerned . . .
http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/how_culpable_were_dutch_jews_in_the_slave_trade
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
Jock mctrousers on said:
Yes!
Jock mctrousersQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
That is really very unremarkable, fringe events ARE in the conference programme
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
But she was very specific about the nature of the alleged Jewish involvement as the “chief financiers”. It is impossible not to notice the stereotype being employed there.
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
I noticed that myself, it should of course read Tutsies, the trouble with the Internet is you don’t have a good sub-editor. Though ironically, Mahnood Mamdami’s excellent book on the Rwandan genocide, “when victims become killers” discusses the exact issue of how the historically oppressed Hutus came to be dominant in Rwanda and Burundi.
Post genocide Rwanda, and the Rwandan government excursion into DRC also continue to be controversial
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
Who could have predicted that such a thing might happen.
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
Agreed
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
Quite Stockwellpete but as a historian and archaeologist I get quite interested in these things. The only trouble is I get distracted from the politics.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
John Grimshaw,
Although if Jackie Walker did use the phrase “chief financiers” not only is that a dangerous road to go down but I doubt very much weather it’s true.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
I understand Jackie Walker has now been kicked out of Momentum and suspended from the LP. And it was all over the Radio 4 news. I wonder where they got there info. from? And why do they think it’s so newsworthy?
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
I think you are being a bit uncharitable here. She was just wrong about it, in my view. Of course, we shouldn’t forget that this issue relates to her first suspension from the Labour party and it did not prevent her from being re-instated.
Given the decision taken by the Momentum steering committee last night, do you think she is likely to be re-instated a second time? What are her chances?
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Yes, OK, what I am trying to get at is that this was well advertised in advance in the conference programme rather than being an impromptu session (or something arranged at very short notice) that people might have just wandered into on the day in question. I would still like to know how it was that the JLM were considered appropriate “trainers” for a session on anti-Semitism. Who would have given the green light for this to take place? The NEC? The Conference Organising/Arrangements committee? Or some other part of the Labour Party?
And given that the JLM were deliberately (and deceitfully) using a discredited definition of anti-Semitism (that conflated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism), is it the case that the session was primarily intended by them to be controversial in order to cause more difficulties for Corbyn? If Jackie Walker hadn’t said anything then perhaps someone else would have done? I don’t think the JLM are suitable to be used in any training capacity in future. Perhaps this is something the left inside Labour should try and prevent from happening again?
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
1. The original inhabitants of the area were pygmy bush hunters, some of whom still exist.
2. Bantu tribes moved into the area much later. The Huts, the TWa and the Tutsis. No historian is clear about where the distinction came from. It could be that the three were related but differentiated over time. Some others believe the Tutsis came from further north. Tutsi literally means “one who is rich in cattle”.
3. The 1884 Berlin conference gave the region to Germany. They ruled through the king. Europeans believed that the Tutsi came from Ethiopia and were therefore racially superior. The Germans therefore gave them the more important jobs. After WWI the Belgians took over and were more interventionist. Hutu land was seized and Hutus forced into large scale labour. Finally the Belgians introduced indentity cards stating which tribe you from which effectively ended Hutu social mobility.
4. After WWII a Hutu emancipation movement started. In 1959 it became violent. In 1960 the Belgians replaced all Tutsi chiefs with HHUtus. They then departed granting independence. The king was replaced and a republic was declared however the violence carried on. The Tutsi began to leave to neighbouring countries fearing the purges and by 1964 there were 300,000 outside Rwanda. They then began to organise themselves into resistance armies called “cockroaches”.
So it can be seen that the imperialist powers were directly responsible for the later genocide. I hope this concurs Andy with your understanding?
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Have people seen this? Links are being suggested between Cortes and leading members of the JLM. Anyone know any more? The disciplinary hearing was held at the TSSA building and there is a TSSA person on the Momentum Steering Committee as well.
https://muchaboutlabour.wordpress.com/2016/10/02/response-to-jackie-walker-suspension/
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Sorry, I have messed up the post above. I was trying to get the text that Andy put in the very first post on this thread that had the statement by Manuel Cortes.
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
You mean this?
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
To mean this last bit sounds like arm bending. No?
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
I found this on the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website where Jackie Walker has previously clarified her position on Jewish involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. I can see why she was re-instated by the Labour Party on the first occasion – and she should be re-instated again as nothing she said at the JLM’s “training” session was remotely anti-Semitic . . .
“Yes, I wrote “many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade”. These words, taken out of context in the way the media did, of course do not reflect my position. I was writing to someone who knew the context of my comments. Had he felt the need to pick me up on what I had written I would have rephrased – perhaps to “Jews (my ancestors too) were among those who financed the sugar and slave trade and at the particular time/in the particular area I’m talking about they played an important part.” The Facebook post taken by itself doesn’t, and can’t possibly reflect the complexity of Jewish history, of the history of Africa, the history of people of the African diaspora and the hundreds of years of the slave trade. The truth is while many peoples were involved in this pernicious trade it was the rulers of Christian Spain and Portugal that ordered the massacre and expulsion of thousands of Jews from the Iberian Peninsular who forced Jewish communities to seek refuge in the New World and the Caribbean. It was European and American Christian empires that overwhelmingly profited from the kidnap, enslavement and death of millions of Africans and I’m happy to make explicit and correct here any different impression my Facebook post gave. The shame is, at a time when antisemitism has been weaponised and used against certain sections of the Labour Party, nobody asked me before rushing to pin the racist and antisemitic label on me.”
“If my historical understanding is shown to be wrong by future research I will of course adapt and change my views as necessary. For the record, my claim, as opposed to those made for me by the Jewish Chronicle, has never been that Jews played a disproportionate role in the Atlantic Slave Trade, merely that, as historians such as Arnold Wiznitzer noted, at a certain economic point, in specific regions where my ancestors lived, Jews played a dominant role “as financiers of the sugar industry, as brokers and exporters of sugar, and as suppliers of Negro slaves on credit, accepting payment of capital and interest in sugar.”
No people are exempt from truth. No people are better, more moral than any other. None deserve higher protection from the eye of history. All of us are subjects, products of material historical development. As Kagan & Morgan point out, “Jews in the Atlantic constituted a stateless minority, a ‘nation within a nation,’ the counterpoint to imperial cultures of early modern Europe; and yet from the fifteenth century onwards, Jews were also key participants in the effort to expand European empires into the western hemisphere and the broader Atlantic world. In short, they were, as Jonathan Israel has noted, simultaneously agents and victims of empire.”
This was the point I was attempting to make on Facebook, in a comic-strip, abbreviated, inadequate, deficient sort of conversational way. This was my point, as the Israel Advocacy Movement could see even as they decided to weaponise my words. No peoples have a monopoly of suffering or virtue. No peoples are special or free of the complexity of history. That is as true in the Middle East now as it ever was anywhere, in all places, with all peoples, across the diversity of our globe and so it will remain until, and unless, we achieve the goal of all internationalists – the liberation of humanity.”
http://jfjfp.com/?p=86378
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
Sussexlabourleft on said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/04/jackie-walker-ruling-betrays-momentum-members
Letter to the Editor of the Guardian 4.10.2016
As Jewish members and supporters of Momentum, we do not believe that what Jackie Walker said during a training event at Labour party conference was antisemitic (Walker stripped of Momentum role, 4 October). You report Jackie as saying that “she had not found a definition of antisemitism she could work with”. This is not surprising – there isn’t one. The Jewish Labour Movement, which ran the event, states that the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism’s working definition on antisemitism is the standard definition, despite the fact that its successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency, has junked this definition, which equates criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism. Jackie also stated that Holocaust Memorial Day should be more inclusive of other acts of genocide. Why is this antisemitic? It has always been a principle of the Zionist movement that the Nazi Holocaust was exclusive to the Jews. Yehuda Bauer, professor of Holocaust studies at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, has argued that “the Nazis only attempted to annihilate one people, the Jews”. According to Bauer, “the Holocaust is very much a unique case”.
Jackie’s arguments were made in good faith. They may be right or they may be wrong. What they are not is antisemitic. The decision of Momentum’s steering committee and its chair Jon Lansman to remove Jackie Walker as vice-chair is a betrayal of the trust of thousands of Momentum members. Momentum’s grassroots members overwhelmingly support Jackie.
Tony Greenstein
Professor Haim Bresheeth
Professor Emeritus Jonathan Rosenhead
Leon Rosselson
Ruth Appleton
Rica Bird
Mike Cushman
Dr Merav Devere
Mark Elf
Sylvia Finzi
Ken Fryde
Leah Levane
Claire Glasman
Selma James
Michael Kalmanovitz
Helen Marks
Elizabeth Morley
Diana Neslen
Ilan Pappe
Martin Parnell
Roland Rance
Dr Brian Robinson
Amanda Sebestyen
Glynn Secker
David Selzer
Sam Semoff
Sam Weinstein
Naomi Wimborne-Iddrissi
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
SussexlabourleftQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
That is again, very unremarkable at Labour Party conference, where a very wide range of organisations present fringe events, all of which are organised well in advance, all of which are in the conference programme. This will include organisations as diverse as the Countryside Alliance, various trade associations, all sorts.
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
John Grimshaw,
I recommend Mamdani’s book, which expands on that framework. Howeve,, while imperialism and colonialism created the context, the responsiblity for the genocide does lie with those who committed it
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
stockwellpete,
It seems to me that Jackie Walkers problems come from her propensity to discuss Jews.
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
So it is a conspiracy? Involving Jews?
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Is it? How do you know this? I would be careful making statements like that – you will get yourself suspended.
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Sorry, I don’t know why my posts keep coming out incorrectly. Can you tidy it up for me please?
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
How? Is Manuel Cortes Jewish? I know he’s from Gibralter.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
Thanks. Don’t suppose you have an ISBN? He says cheekily!
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
Well the trouble with this link Stockwellpete, now I’ve thought about it, is it’s a bit thin. First, it doesn’t prove any link between Cortes and the JLM (it doesn’t even mention the JLM). Secondly whilst it may be that Cortes needs to come clean about his links to an ex-colleague who now works for the bosses, this link doesn’t prove anything untoward. Besides corruption in the higher echelons of unions is nothing new.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
Ah! My mistake. Apologies to Stockwellpete and Andy. I couldn’t see from both your perspectives what you were getting at. I didn’t realise that this Mike Katz is a vice chair of the JLM.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
No, there is no proof of anything at all. Just a series of questions that need to be answered really. I haven’t said anything more than that either.
But it did seem rather odd that Manuel Cortes came out very quickly to call on Jackie Walker to resign and if she didn’t then TSSA would withdraw its support from Momentum – presumably he hadn’t discussed it formally with other members of the TSSA executive (unless they happened to be meeting at about that time). Another question is whether the TSSA person on the Momentum committee was mandated by TSSA to vote against her, or whether they voted in a personal capacity. And then it is suggested on a couple of blogs that a leading member of the JLM (Katz) had worked both for the TSSA and the company that TSSA negotiates with . . . and then we find out that Momentum meeting took place in the TSSA building. It doesn’t seem to be too unreasonable to ask questions about all this to me.
I am actually trying to find out what is going on at the top of Momentum with regards to this vote to remove Jackie Walker from the Vice-Chair position. I have looked at various websites and blogs that have covered it but I have only managed to get a partial picture. The vote was 7-3 against her so who were the 7? Jon Lansman was one, then I have read that there are 2 AWL members on the committee (Michael Chessum and Jill Mountford) and 2 others “close to the AWL” (I don’t know who these people are), so, if that is correct then that makes 5; then there is the TSSA person (Sam Tarry) making 6 and Christine Shawcroft of Labour Briefing making 7. The three voting against removing her from the vice-chair position included Matt Wrack of the FBU and I am not sure who the other two were. I know the names of 3 other people on the committee but I’m not sure where they fit in to the voting or what their political affiliations are – Cecile Wright, MarshaJane Thompson and Sam Wheeler.
All this information is important because there is tremendous anger among the rank and file of Momentum now. I was reading the contributions on their website yesterday and it was getting on for 3:1 saying that they disagreed with what had been done. Some were talking of resigning from Momentum. This issue will not go away and it will certainly be raised at the founding Momentum conference next February where I assume all the places on the various committees will be up for election.
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
First Stockwellpete see my comment above. Until I looked it up on Wiki I din’t know that Katz was a vice chair of the JLM. Interesting that the AWL were antis. Although in a situation like this I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. Sounds like opportunism as well to be honest. Wasn’t Mountford suspended from the LP recently?
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Well, the AWL have always taken a pro-israel position and some of their members are very keen to accuse people of anti-Semitism when issues around Zionism occur. Some of the stuff I have read from them about Jackie Walker is very unpleasant, to be honest. And it is a bit strange as the labour right would like to witch hunt them out of the Labour Party yet they seem very determined to drive other left-wing socialists out as well. Perhaps the strangest thing though is Andy Newman lining up with them in this witch hunt even though he wrote an article on here a few years back describing the AWL as a “malignant cult”.
The AWL do seem to be over-represented on the Momentum steering committee at the moment, particularly if it is true that the 2 others “close to the AWL” usually vote in a bloc with the two official AWL representatives. So I think that definitely needs to be changed at the February conference.
Yes, I think she was suspended recently. Apparently, the AWL have de-registered as a political party so they can enter the Labour Party but they obviously continue to exist as some sort of formal political grouping/organisation.
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
Petter Matthews on said:
Perhaps we should all modify our criticism of Israel in order to avoid such controversy? Does it not trouble you that what you are advocating is precisely the outcome that the Jewish Labour Movement and the Israel Advocacy Movement desire?
No one should be cowed into silence, particularity black Jewish women, like Jackie Walker, who know through their own experience what it means to be subject to bigotry and racial hatred.
Petter MatthewsQuote text Reply
Sussexlabourleft on said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/04/jackie-walker-ruling-betrays-momentum-members
Letter to the Editor of the Guardian 4.10.2016
SussexlabourleftQuote text Reply
Tony Greenstein on said:
Andy Newman’s article is thoroughly disgraceful. There hasn’t been an increase in anti-Semitism in Europe or Britain. 2 terrorist attacks prove nothing. More to the point is the weaponisation of anti-Semitism such that what we are seeing is the political lynching of a Black Jewish women who supports the Palestinians.
It is a measure of Andy Newman’s cowardice that he deleted my last post. The Guardian can carry different opinions on its letters page but Newman has m oved so far to the Right that he appeases the Zionists and blocks anti-Zionists.
Tony GreensteinQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
stockwellpete,
For the sake of accuracy I am reliably informed that only one person on the steering committee is a member of the AWL which is Jill Mountford. Chessun is apparently sympathetic. I can’t comment on there being two others who “bloc” with them. I haven’t found out yet. This doesn’t get round the fact that Jackie Walker is not anti-semitic. Although I do think that the more I hear what she says (see interview on channel 4 for example) that she does come across as “clumsy”. Who knows maybe she winds people up?
That being said this is not an individuality contest. Her being stripped of the vice chairs role and then being suspended from the LP became high profile news. This and other similar manufactured incidents have now been exploited by Theresa May in her speech yesterday. The Labour Party is anti-Semitic she says and it is now the “nasty party”. In my view this suits the right-wing of the LP down to the ground as I am sure they would rather have Tory victories in the foreseeable future so as to get rid of Corbyn and then get on with “normal” business. I even heard one PLP member ( sorry can’t remember which one) saying without irony that deselection would ruin MPs careers (sic). It is sad that the Momentum steering committee whether by design or without thought has made a small contribution to the Tories propaganda machine.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
They have but they do.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
https://jillsmomentumblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/jackiew-2/
FYI
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
You’re obviously reading different stuff to me Tony. According to various sources there was an 11% increase in ant-semitic “incidents” in the first six months of 2016. And in 2015 a 60%+ increase in London (somewhat oddly in the same year it went down by 50% in Manchester). Obviously the figures focus on London and then Manchester as they have the countries largest Jewish communities. By incidents, as I’m sure you know, it doesn’t just mean physical attacks (there are very few fortunately) but it does mean verbal abuse, digital attacks, graffiti etc. etc.
Well that’s alright then.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
I should’ve said that the recent spikes in these attacks have coincided with the “high” points of the ” anti-Semitic” debate within the LP. Since I don’t believe that the LP is fundamentally anti-Semitic it must mean that in some warped way the false accusations are providing cover for the real Jew haters. By extension since the accusations are being made by variously the media, the right wing of the LP and the Tories they are actually (presumably not deliberately) encouraging these attacks.
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
John Grimshaw,
Thanks for that clarification, John.
I read from a link provided in the Jill Mountford article that you posted that the voting on Jackie Walker was as follows . . .
Against Jackie Walker
Jon Lansman
Marshajane Thompson
Sam Wheeler
Michael Chessum
Jill Mountford
Christine Shawcroft
Sam Tarry
For Jackie Walker
Matt Wrack
Darren Williams
Cecile Wright
I have also found this on the structure of the Momentum Steering Committee . . .
Steering Committee . . . the eight representatives from England are: Jill Mountford (London), Michael Chessum (London), Marsha Jane Thompson (Eastern), Jon Lansman (Left Futures), Sam Wheeler (North West), Jackie Walker (LRC), Christine Shawcroft (Labour Briefing) and Cecile Wright (BAME). There are also four trade union representatives and one representative from both Scotland and Wales – so 14 in total.
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
Ed on said:
Petter Matthews,
No, what they desire is precisely that activists should continue shooting themselves in the foot by saying foolish, insensitive things. Does anyone really believe that pro-Israel groups are in any way put on the defensive by what Jackie Walker said? They’re delighted, they’re laughing their heads off. What we have here is a situation where they invite us to shoot ourselves in the foot, hand us the gun, and instead of saying ‘actually guys, we’d rather not’, some people are shouting ‘we won’t allow them to silence us, hand me that gun right now and let’s get shooting!’
EdQuote text Reply
Petter Matthews on said:
Ed,
Of course pro-Israel groups rejoice when we shoot ourselves in the foot, but the most controversial remarks attributed to JW were in a private nessage, hacked from her Facebook account, taken out of context and mispreresented as part of a smear campaign against her. As far as I’m aware gaining unauthorised access to a social media account is illegal. You should save your opprobrium for those responsible, not their victim.
Of course we should avoid shooting ourselves in the foot, but it is possible to do that and to remain principled and outspoken in opposition to Israeli apartheid. Your solution to “avoid further controversy” seems to be to keep quiet. That response would be cowardly and defeatist in my view.
And let’s not lose sight of the fact that those of Jewish origin (like JW) who speak out against Israel, come in for particularly vicious attacks by pro-Israel groups. Look at how Ilan Pappé, Noam Chomsky and Avi Shlaim have been vilified. Would your advice to them also be to avoid controversy?
Petter MatthewsQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
Petter Matthews,
Mordechai Vannunu?
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
Tony Greenstein on said:
Well I took Andy Newman at his word and went to the HMD web site. Sure enough, under Holocaust it says ‘Between 1941 and 1945, the Nazis attempted to annihilate all of Europe’s Jews. This systematic and planned attempt to murder European Jewry is known as the Holocaust (The Shoah in Hebrew).’
Nothing there about the extermination of the Disabled from 1939-1941 which led on to the subsequent final solution of Jews and Gypsies. Nothing about the Gypsies either. In practice disabled and Gypsies are also-rans. An after thought.
Of course no prior holocausts or genocides, such as the Armenian once, are remembered and the Zionist movement, people like Elie Wiesel, were adamant that there was no such holocaust. As for Africans, they don’t get a look in despite 10 million dying Belgian Congo itself.
The terrorist attacks in France prove nothing. British Jews are not under attack and it is arguable that the present of enhanced security around Jewish schools in the UK is merely heightening fears of terrorism and anti-Semitism. Either way what happened in France is evidence of nothing other than that the West should stop creating enemies that then attack the West in blow back.
Andy does not seem to comprehend that a ‘training event’ run by the JLM, contrary to the recommendations of the Chakrabarti Report, was in reality a honey trap. Secret recordings of particicpants handed over the media. What kind of training event is that?
The JLM has persistently tried to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Its Rule Change amendment to the LP has included the ‘use of Zionism as a term of abuse’ with anti-Semitism and it has also deliberately twisted and distorted the meaning of the MacPherson principles in order to fool people that MacPherson recommended that a ‘victim’ of a racist attack could in effect determine a conviction of the assailant. MacPherson advocated only, in terms of the Police only, that where someone claimed to be the victim of a racist attack, then the Police should record that and treat it seriously. MacPherson did not say that in the investigation period and during any court process, the word of a victim was to be taken as persuasive regardless of what the defence may be.
Jackie questioned the lie that Michael Katz told at the ‘training event’ that the standard definition of anti-Semitism was the EUMC Working Definition. This was a lie because the European Union’s Working Definition was junked by the EUMC’s successor organisation the Fundamental Rights Agency, in 2013.
Why was the WD junked? Because it conflated criticism of Israel with anti-semitism and any comparison between Israeli practices and Nazi Germany was held to be anti-Semitic. A nonsense since Israelis regularly do just that.
Andy says that ‘Let us be clear, there is not a current and live danger of racist hate crimes against Armenians, Hutus, Herero people or Native Americans on the streets of Britain today. The distinguishing feature that the Nazi anti-Semitism exploited centuries of prejudice,’
There isn’t a wave of racist hate crimes against Jews on the streets otherwise. I don’t feel under attack and nor do most if not all Jews. State racism against Jews does not exist in Britain. It isn’t synagogues which r torched but mosques. Anti-semitism is a marginal prejudice in Britain.
Andy demonstrates that he understands nothing of anti-Semitism historically either. He says that
‘The genocide against the Jews was historically unique, as of course are all instances of genocide.’
In which the holocaust was not unique! The extermination of people in gas chambers was indeed unique, but the first to be gassed were the disabled, up to 3/4 million of them. At Auschwitz, t he first people to be gassed were Russian prisoners of war. Gypsies and others were also put to death by gassing.
Of course Jews were exterminated in their millions but the lessons we draw are that racism and fascism must be fought.
What is happening today is that the holocaust is being fashioned by the Zionist movement and the Western establishment and media, into an ideological weapon against the oppressed. Israel uses holocaust ideology in order to reinforce racism and nationalism, not to oppose it.
Andy says that ‘There are times and places where it is appropriate to discuss the historical comparitors, there are times and places where it is not.’
Wrong. history is about comparison or it is nothing. We only make sense of the holocaust by use of comparisons and we only make sense of Israel’s apartheid state by the use of comparison.
Yes Zionism came from Jewish experience of anti-Semitism but it also accepted as natural and indeed right that ant-Semitism existed.
Andy talks about the Nazis holocaust drawing on ‘the deep well of anti-Jewish sentiment in European Christian culture, but also merged this with the modern industrial ruthlessness of European colonialist attitudes to their non-European subject peoples.’ Precisely why we should compare what the Nazis did with imperialist atrocities.
It is also incorrect to say that what the Nazis did was an extension of Christian or feudal anti-Semitism. In many ways it was a break from it, hence the concept of the Christian Jews, a term that would be absurd in Catholic Europe.
Andy says he doesn’t know whether Jackie is anti-Semitic. I do know. Unlike Andy she has been a longstanding fighter against racism and fascism. She is not a well paid trade union bureaucrat. She is a fighter and it is scandalous that Andy Newman should attack her so. If h e had any concept of what shame is he would go and repent in some appropriate manner. I believe the rendering of clothes used to be in fashion.
This is a scurrilous little article and it is no surprise that Jon Lansman has commissioned it.
Tony GreensteinQuote text Reply
Ed on said:
I’m afraid this is completely nonsense. I am not talking about what she said on Facebook a few months ago; I am talking about what she said at the JLM meeting last week. Her intervention was completely inept and counter-productive, and I am sick to my back teeth of people telling me that I am advising activists to ‘avoid controversy’ when I am simply advising them to avoid picking up a shotgun and pointing both barrels at their own feet. You put ‘avoid further controversy’ in quotation marks as if it was a direct quote from what I said when it plainly was not. Jackie Walker was not being ‘principled and outspoken in opposition to Israeli apartheid’; in fact she didn’t say anything about Israel, the row is all about what she said about Holocaust Memorial Day and security for Jewish schools. What she said was stupid and insensitive and I am quite sure that our political opponents were jumping for joy and couldn’t believe their luck. To speak as if she was posing a strong challenge to their political arguments is utterly delusional; she was actively assisting their cause, they couldn’t have asked for more. I suppose it is easier to fabricate quotes about ‘avoid[ing] further controversy’ and knock down a ludicrous straw-man than it is to explain how and why it was necessary and effective for JW to say the things she said, where she said them. No serious person can do that, because it is blindingly obvious that her intervention was a total fiasco. And I will not be silenced in saying this by emotional black-mail and claims that I am telling activists to ‘avoid further controversy’. The mental gymnastics that some people have to put themselves through to avoid facing up to this beggar belief.
EdQuote text Reply
stockwellpete on said:
Tony Greenstein,
Just one small correction, Tony. The HMD website does mention the Armenian holocaust. If you click on the “Genocides” tab at the top you will come through to this text . . .
Atrocities against the Armenians
Between 1915 and 1918, the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire were systematically persecuted, deported from their homes and murdered. Following the Balkan War and start of the First World War, Armenian men, women and children were expelled and exterminated in an attempt to destroy their very existence. The campaign was waged against Armenians following a period of deterioration in relations between ethnic groups in the Empire and a number of political and financial upheavals.
It is unknown exactly how many Armenians were murdered in this period but estimates range from 1.3 million to 1.9 million. In 1933, the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, was so motivated by the lack of recognition and awareness of the crimes in Armenia which occurred only a few years before, that he presented a paper to the League of Nations. The paper outlined a way in which the International Community could condemn the crimes and atrocities in the Ottoman Empire, and provide a basis to prosecute the perpetrators behind such crimes. It wasn’t until 1946 that the UN recognised the term genocide and affirmed the cause that Lemkin had dedicated his life to. To date, the 1946 convention is still used to recognise the actions of a state-sponsored attempt to destroy a particular group of its people.
If you would like to find out more about the atrocities in Armenia we recommend a number of books on our bibliography and you may find the Fergal Keane documentary in our film reviews of interest. As part of a film for HMD 2011, we recorded the Untold Story of Astrid Aghajanian whose mother saved her from murder in Armenia by hiding beneath the bodies of those who had already been killed.
– See more at: http://hmd.org.uk/page/holocaust-genocides#sthash.89THjtlh.dpuf
stockwellpeteQuote text Reply
Nick Wright on said:
Why does Tony Greenstein undermine the very valid points he makes by ad hominem remarks of this sort which do not stand up to scrutiny or convince anyone who follows this blog?
Andy is not a well paid trade union bureaucrat but a lay officer with a normal job. I don’t happen to agree with his take on the Jackie Walker issue and I think she has been ‘monstered’ in an attempt to silence critics of zionism but the arguments Andy makes are consistent with his perspective that given the unequal balance of forces in the media and elsewhere that the left needs to exercise great caution in how it interpellates the public discourse in issues in which progressive ideas are not hegemonic.
It is a sign of Momentum’s unformed character that a combination of fear polluted by the AWL’s notorious ambiguity on zionism and its rampant opportunism has given such a hostage to this right wing ‘wedge’.
We need to get this ugly diversion behind us, restore Jackie Walker’s rights and focus energies on turning outwards to the millions, lost by Blair and Brown, who need to be won back to Labour.
Nick WrightQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on said:
Ed,
Exactly
Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Petter Matthews on said:
Ed,
“You put ‘avoid further controversy’ in quotation marks as if it was a direct quote from what I said when it plainly was not.”
“And I will not be silenced in saying this by emotional black-mail and claims that I am telling activists to ‘avoid further controversy’.”
“I suppose it is easier to fabricate quotes about ‘avoid[ing] further controversy’ and knock down a ludicrous straw-man . . .”
I haven’t fabricated anything. At #26 you say: “Why did Jackie Walker go then, and contribute, given the wisdom of avoiding further controversy over the subject?”
Petter MatthewsQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
With respect Ed you did in fact say the above. Thinking about it I am unclear exactly what you meant by this. The formulation you chose is vague. Did you mean people shouldn’t talk about the pernicious effects of Zionism? Judging by your later comments I assume not. Were you directing your comment at JW only or everybody or just some people? Or were you saying that people should not have gone to THAT meeting as it was a den of pernicious Zionists? Should Drake not have attempted to beard the King of Spain? Were you saying that people should exercise caution when the terrain is not exactly flat?
John GrimshawQuote text Reply
John Grimshaw on said:
Far be it for me to comment on internal LP matters, except in the sense that I’m on the left and these things matter to all of us, I do think that Stockwellpete’s point at #27 needs answering. There is a difference between a JLM fringe meeting and an official LP training session on anti-Semitism I would’ve thought. It is true as far as I can see that in her contributions at the meeting JW didn’t refer to Israel (as the AWL and others have pointed out) but then maybe that was not the subject of the meeting. Presumably if the meeting was run by Zionists then they’re not going to go anywhere near the subject of Israel. It would be interesting to know what JW was responding to?
John GrimshawQuote text Reply