Main menu:

Recent posts




To help keep HP running


Or make a one-off donation:

The Republican Jewish Coalition’s cop-out

Responding to the antisemitic abuse and threats aimed at Jewish journalists who write critically about Donald Trump, and which caused one conservative writer to buy a gun for self-protection, the Republican Jewish Coalition issued a statement:

We abhor any abuse of journalists, commentators and writers, whether it be from Sanders, Clinton or Trump supporters. There is no room for any of this in any campaign. Journalists, regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity should be free to do their jobs without suffering abuses, anti-Semitic or otherwise.

The statement, of course, is an utter cop-out. There simply is no massive antisemitic assault aimed at journalists who write critically about Sanders or Clinton– as some journalists took to Twitter to point out:

The RJC statement reminds me of those in the UK Labour party who insist on combining antisemitism and Islamophobia into a single issue– when of course they are completely different, and the former is far move prevalent than the latter in Labour’s ranks.

The strange (or perhaps not-so-strange) thing is that Trump could probably put an end to most of this by saying he doesn’t want the support of antisemities, and they should all fuck off. After all, he is quite capable of talking in such blunt terms about his political opponents. Instead all we get from him, when given the opportunity, is “I have no message to the fans”– a response which was gleefully reported by the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer.

To some conservatives, the presence of antisemitism on the American Right has come as a revelation. Ben Shapiro wrote in The National Review:

Donald Trump’s nomination has drawn anti-Semites from the woodwork. I’ve experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump’s candidacy than at any other time in my political career. Trump supporters have threatened me and other Jews who hold my viewpoint. They’ve blown up my e-mail inbox with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They greeted the birth of my second child by calling for me, my wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber. Yes, seriously. This isn’t a majority of Trump supporters, obviously. It’s not even a large minority. But there is a significant core of Trump support that not only traffics in anti-Semitism but celebrates it — and god-worships Trump as the leader of an anti-Jewish movement.

We’re past the point where Jews or anyone else concerned about Jew-hatred can simply point to Trump’s daughter’s conversion to Judaism and breathe a sigh of relief. People like Sheldon Adelson may be willfully blind to what Trump has come to represent to a significant number of his supporters, but the rest of us have no excuse.

Update: Those who deceive themselves that Trump’s antisemitic and white nationalist supporters are a mere handful, or that the antisemitic abuse aimed at anti-Trump journalists is the product of nefarious leftwing provocateurs, should read James Kirchik’s disturbing and enlightening piece in the conservative Commentary.

To take but one of countless examples, one of the most active pro-Trump Twitter accounts, with 27,000 followers, goes by the handle @Ricky_Vaughn99. Unlike many of his Internet brothers-in-arms, who utilize the likenesses of obscure interwar European fascists and nationalists as their avatars, this troll features the visage of actor Charlie Sheen from the film Major League. What he lacks in visible nostalgia for the Third Reich, @Ricky_Vaughn99 makes up for in his concern about “#whitegenocide,” interpreted as any sign of nonwhite racial advancement. “The Trump presidency will probably be bad for neocon jews, bad for liberal jews, but good for jews who are believers in the nation-state and American nationalism,” he told Armin Rosen, of Tablet magazine, via Twitter.

Also check out this article about Ben Shapiro, a former writer who is disgusted with the direction that pro-Trump website has taken– including its championing of the “alt-right” movement.

Finally, this from Jonathan Weisman of The New York Times, another victim of Trump supporters’ antisemitic abuse:

I understand Mr. Trump has a son-in-law who is an Orthodox Jew, and a daughter who converted to her husband’s religion. Mr. Trump has bragged about his Jewish grandchildren. Yet I also see tweets from Mr. Trump like the 2013 missive that re-emerged Monday promising “that I’m much smarter than Jonathan Leibowitz — I mean Jon Stewart,” and I cannot help seeing another belled cat.

I grew up in Atlanta in the 1970s, when friends spoke of “Jewing down” a price and anti-Semitism was casual, if not nearly as omnipresent as racial prejudice. My parents joined a synagogue that had been bombed by the Klan. My father opened his medical practice in Marietta, where Leo Frank was lynched in 1915 at the age of 31.

All of that seemed like buried history until now. In Mr. Trump, many in the alt-right have found an imperfect vessel for their cause, but they have poured their rage into his campaign without impediment. Mr. Trump apparently takes all comers.

On Cornel West and the Democratic platform

Whatever respect and admiration I had for Bernie Sanders (for, among other things, putting the issues of wealth and income inequality and excessive corporate and financial-industry power front and center) is rapidly disappearing.

I’m not sure what was behind his selection of the egregious Cornel West to serve on the Democratic platform-writing committee. West has made a name for himself in recent years by denouncing Barack Obama as a war criminal and as America’s first “niggerized” president. He criticizes prominent African-Americans who support Hillary Clinton as “neoliberal politicians,” which he defined as “a politics that proceeds based on financializing, privatizing and militarizing.” He calls Clinton herself a “milquetoast neoliberal.”

Strangely enough West called Republican Sen. Rand Paul “our dear brother” when the senator appeared on a radio show he co-hosts.

What is especially disturbing to supporters of Israel (critical and otherwise) is West’s endorsement of the anti-Israel BDS campaign.

The good (or at least reassuring news) is that West will be only one of 15 members of the Democratic platform committee. And while party platforms give people who care about them a lot to squabble over, traditionally they have no detectable impact on policy.

Best of all, the chair of the platform committee is Elijah Cummings. The African-American Congressman from Baltimore is a solid friend of Israel. He founded the Elijah Cummings Youth Program in Israel, which provides an opportunity for mostly African-American young people to spend a month in Israel and “to further historic African-American and Jewish bonds.”

The alarming suggestions that West will single-handedly write the Democratic platform are way over the top.

A comment on Hiroshima Revisionism

There is no getting round the fact that over 100,000 people and possibly as many as 200,000 died as a result of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of them innocent civilians. People are entitled to their own moral judgement on these acts, but that does not mean to say that the historical record should be distorted to justify a preconceived moral position against the bombs. The purpose of this revisionism is to deny the bombs were necessary to end the war. I do not wish to delve into all the revisionists’ claims here, but I am moved to write because the political commentator Mehdi Hasan recently went on a two minute rant with an argument promoting certain claims of the revisionists [1]


Hasan asked “Did you know that a number of leading US military and political figures at the time were hugely critical of President Harry Truman’s decision to nuke the Japanese?” The video then posts a list of numerous of these figures.

There is no evidence that any of the people listed, including Dwight Eisehower, criticised the moral decision before the bombs were dropped: they announced their reservations later, in some cases many years later. [2] To show how distorted Hasan’s claim is, among others, the following people’s names are mentioned as those who were critical of the decision: Chester Nimitz, Curtis Lemay and Carl Spaatz. All three of these people not only did not oppose the decision to drop the bombs at the time, they each recommended that a third atomic bomb was used on Tokyo.[3]

Hasan promotes the idea put forward in the post-war produced United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) that “Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.”
The cited conclusion of the USSBS was a speculative one. The narrative of the survey suggests that the atomic bomb and Soviet entry to the war was more critical in forcing Japan to surrender. Testimonies from key Japanese leaders supported the possibility that war would have dragged on much longer. “The survey authors, however, chose not to use this testimony; evidence that challenged their conclusions stayed in their unpublished files.” [4] Moreover, the compliers of the USSBS failed “to obtain and use the massive pre-surrender intelligence gathered” that pointed to a different conclusion. [5] In a detailed look at the USSBS and its omissions, the historian Robert Newman concluded that “there is no basis” for the USSBS claim: “No one can ever know how long the war would have gone on.” [6].

Hasan promotes the idea that Tsuyoshi Hasegawa espoused in his 2005 book, “Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman and the Surrender of Japan,” (Harvard University Press, 2005) that it was Soviet entry into the war, not the atomic bombs that caused Japan to surrender
The evidence does not back up Hasegawa’s claims. As I have previously written on this point, complete with numerous references, to save time, I will just direct anyone interested to my own post. [7]

Hasan promotes the idea from Barton Bernstein that the second atomic bomb, the one dropped on Nagasaki, was unnecessary.
There are numerous contemporaneous statements from officials in Japan that suggest that the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was not sufficient to end the war. For reasons of time and space, I cannot quote them all here, but I will detail one. Hayashi Saburo was the military secretary to Anami, the Japanese minister of war. He argued that while the Hiroshima bomb was formidable, the Japanese military believed that they had counter measures against it. Notably, Truman’s broadcast claiming that the bomb was atomic was rejected by the Japanese military as “strategic propaganda directed against Japan.” It was not until the second bomb was dropped that “City dwellers were gripped with great fear that their own communities might become the next target.” It was “the psychological effect” of this that led to sentiment of the Japanese to surrender.[8]

Hasan is not the first and I doubt he will be the last commentator to engage in Hiroshima revisionism. The problem is that it distorts the historical record. It is, in other words, a travesty.


[1] [From 12 minutes and 15 seconds in to 14 minutes and 38 seconds].
[2] Barton J. Bernstein, “Ike and Hiroshima: Did he oppose it?” Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1987, pp.386-387.
[3] Robert James Maddox, “Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision,” (University of Missouri Press, 2004), p.143.
[4]Gian Peri Gentile, “Advocacy of Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan,” in Robert James Maddox (Ed.), “Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism,” (University of Missouri Press, 2007), p.123.
[5] Robert P. Newman, “Truman and the Hiroshima Cult,” (Michigan State University Press, 1995),p.55
[6]. Ibid. p.56.
[8.] Newman, “Truman and the Hiroshima Cult,” Op. cit., p.110. NB Truman denotes a whole chapter to the question of the necessity of the second bomb. (pp.105-113.) See also Sadao Asada’s essay “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration,” Pacific Historical Review Vol. 67, No. 4, (November 1998) pp. 477-512.

Jackie Walker readmitted to the Labour Party

For those who didn’t follow the early reports of Jackie Walker’s suspension from the Labour Party following allegations of antisemitism, this article provides some background.  Briefly, apparently in response to someone arguing that people should shun BDS because of the Holocaust, she invoked slavery as the African Holocaust and observed that ‘many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade’.

She went on to ask ‘what do you think the Jews should do about their contribution to the African Holocaust? What debt do they owe?’

The precise role played by Jews in the slave trade is contested – but, whatever the precise  historical statistics, Jackie Walker’s nasty rhetoric implies a very specific relationship with slavery, one which justifies singling Jews out today for special responsibility. The issue is one which has certainly attracted its fair share of antisemites.

Jamie Stern-Weiner accused her detractors of acting in bad faith:

Jackie Walker was a tempting target for the antisemitism-mongers because of her public sympathy for the Palestinians and her prominent role in Momentum.  But even setting these positions aside, her critique of ‘Jewish particularism’ was bound to ruffle some well-plumed feathers.  The doctrine of unique Jewish victimhood—the Holocaust was uniquely evil, and so the State of Israel cannot be held to normal standards—is a central dogma of the antisemitism industry.  In the hands of Israel’s apologists and many Jewish communal organisations, the Nazi holocaust has become an instrument, not to inspire compassion for the oppressed, but to trivialise the oppression of non-Jews, and—in the case of the Palestinians—to justify it.

These statements distort  the concerns many hold about antisemitism in the Labour Party and elsewhere – ‘antisemitism-mongers’ indicates dishonesty and ‘well-plumed’ echoes digs at wealth or influence.

She has now been allowed back into the party.  This has caused some Labour members to resign in disgust.  Some, while condemning her remarks, think on balance this was the right decision.  Whatever your views on this, the unpleasant responses the controversy has triggered are very concerning.

Rather than at least acknowledge that she said something wrong – that ‘it is not unreasonable … to believe that the content of her posts was antisemitic’ – to adapt the formula the NUS used after its investigation of Malia Bouattia, these supporters are gloating over the distress of other members.

Deborah Fink has an interesting take on the issue.

Here’s a good comment on the double standards in play.

Finally, here’s an interview with Jackie Walker – on that beacon for progressive values, Russia Today.

On looking down, not up

This is a guest post by JewishLabourMole

There is wilfull blindness to the top-down institutional propagation of Labour’s Antisemitism

I was brought up to beware the following set of circumstances: an economic recession; the emergence of a populist leader with an antisemitic following and the inexorable flow downwards to an increase in antisemitic abuse, violence and murder. That sequence is no fable: it’s history on repeat, and it’s happening now.

It’s true that Antisemitism is a society-wide phenomenon: but it rarely flourishes unless sanctioned by leaders and institutions. The caveat in this classic narrative is that the conditions required for that evil to triumph is that Good Men Do Nothing.

I was given to believe that never again would ‘Good Men Do Nothing’. I was sold a pup.

On the day of Corbyn’s coronation as leader, we Jews waited to see how he would handle his well-known antisemitic inheritance, an inheritance that was news to the wider public, but not to Jews nor his fringe antisemitic fan-base. The Jewish Chronicle immediately published a list of some of those items on their front page. But in the weeks that followed, as Jews were engulfed by the ensuing overflow of antisemitic sewage online, we heard Yvette Cooper, for example, speak up about the rise in online misogyny: but there was no public defence of the Jews. Ditto Burnham. Ditto … all of them.

The silence of those first few weeks still stuns me, and makes me feel viscerally sick for having pledged my allegiance to Labour. It wasn’t so much the promotion of Corbyn & his tribe, whose Soviet-infused Marxism’s embrace of ‘Anti-Colonial’ Islamism had brought together two smouldering brands of antisemitism & re-kindled a phoenix-fire of Jew-hate: no, we knew about that. It was that mainstream Labour leaders were silent on the eternal hatred that they knew full-well was now encamped in their home.

Perhaps, like us, they wanted to give the crank-rank outsider — a man who’ddefied the whip 428 times — a chance to readjust to his lottery win and to re-assess his past associations in the context of the moral responsibility of leadership … but five months later, at an ‘acid test’ meeting with the Board of Deputies he moved not one jot. The event for the Jewish community was seismic; yet the press and Labour Party barely registered a tremor.

All of his behaviours signalled antisemitism, but none were antisemitic acts per se. However, on the 5th of April, 2016, as chronicled here, Jeremy Corbyn crossed a line. In short: when the Antisemitic fringe that he had so emboldened led to a Jewish MP complaining of antisemitic abuse, Jez agreed with his brother Piers that her complaint was disingenuously got up as a plot to defend ‘Zionist’ interests. The Jews are crying wolf. The Jews have other motives. The Jews are not what they seem. With three words: ‘He’s not wrong’, in defence of a sibling so antisemitic he believes ISIS is a Jewish creation, he flagrantly and publicly moved from fulsome backer of antisemites to antisemite.

I watched, knowing that Jewish leaders, senior members of the Labour Party and newspaper editors would have understood exactly what they had witnessed. What would they say?

The Board of Deputies spoke, but all they could coax from dry lips was to pronounce his statement ‘Deeply disturbing’. As for the rest of the polity:


Perhaps some were distracted by Jan Royall’s (now supressed) review, as Labour HQ insisted that her investigation was in place to address the issue. Some were somewhat stupified by Ken’s volcanic Hitler eruption. But while a stream of mostly Muslim Councillors were suspended for stupidity (that is, being so utterly ignorant of what constitutes antisemitism that they left their Jew-hate up in public for anyone to find) — the leadership’s racism marched on in plain sight.

And so, on May 1st, enabled by the Labour Party and the press’s reluctance to call out its leader, Diane Abbott was able to state on the Andrew Marr show to an audience of millions that ‘it is a smear to say that the Labour Party has a problem with antisemitism.’ On the same day, Len McCluskey, the Unite chief, complained on BBC Radio that the antisemitism row had been “got up” by the right-wing press, “aided and abetted by … Labour MPs”. Ken (of course) and the MP Rupa Huq, averred.

Do read the rest here

The Middle East needs to stop blaming Western imperialism for everything

Cross-posted by Joe

When ISIS changed its name to “the Islamic State” and proclaimed a Caliphate in the summer of 2014, it captured global attention by exploding an outpost marking the modern border between the states of Syria and Iraq. These borders, ISIS told us, had been imposed upon the Arab-Muslim world by the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in which Britain and France had divided the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence.

One of the Islamic State’s stated goals, then, was to reverse the effects of Sykes-Picot, and they have marketed an “anti-imperialist” historical reading of this treaty, hoping it will be readily consumed by Western liberals anxious to blame their own legacy for everything.

ISIS and other Islamists borrow anti-(Western) imperialist rhetoric from Marxists, while they themselves are nostalgic (Eastern) imperialists. ISIS want to restore the Caliphate, modelling themselves on the Ottomans, who used the words “emprie” and “caliphate” interchangeably.

The diplomatic efforts led by Britain’s Mark Sykes and France’s Francois Georges-Picot made moderate progress in mapping out a post-Ottoman Middle East. Yet far more significant was the San Remo Conference of 1920, which was attended by the prime ministers of Britain, France and Italy: David Lloyd George, Alexandre Mitterand and Francesco Nitti respectively, with ambassadors from Japan, Greece and Belgium also in attendance.

Reaching for a modern example, which is more significant — a meeting between diplomats on the sidelines of the UN, or a G8 summit with world leaders present?

According to the Islamist narrative, nationalism was imposed upon the region by the Western “imperial” powers. It’s worth remembering that Sykes-Picot and San Remo were only needed because of the fall of an Eastern empire — that of the Ottomans.

After Britain defeated the Ottomans and forced them out of Syria, Arab nationalists felt pretty confident. Their call for an Arab nation stretching from Syria across Mesopotamia and Palestine went out via the Syrian National Congress in 1919. Ottoman Syria at the time was a significant part of the Ottoman Empire, and Palestine was its southern region. King Faisal of Mesopotamia — who affirmed his sympathy for Zionism to Chaim Weizmann! — was announced as the head of this notional state.

The San Remo Conference, then, was a hastily-arranged response to Arab nationalism, rather than the cause of it. At San Remo, Britain, France and Italy affirmed the Balfour Declaration promising a national homeland to the Jewish people in Palestine, whilst Britain took responsibility the mandate for Iraq and Palestine, and France did the same for Syria and Lebanon.

After San Remo, the Treaty of Sevres began to take shape, laying out the partition of the Ottoman Empire in concrete terms. Following Sevres and the Turkish War of Independence which followed, the Middle East began to take shape as we know it.

What does this history prove? It shows that imperialism itself was not solely a Western phenomenon, and shows that the birth of the modern Middle East was as much a result of the death throes of Ottoman imperialism as it was a projection of European imperial values. This ought to make us skeptical about claims that Western imperialism is to blame for everything.

Of course, if any of the above seemed dispassionate, boring and slightly technical, that’s because history isn’t always a tale of goodies and baddies, or oppressors and oppressed.

The Middle East looks like it does today because of Western imperialism and Eastern imperialism, Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism, Sunnis and Shias, secularism and fundamentalism, capitalism and communism; internationalism and isolationism.

Sitting around twiddling our thumbs looking for someone to blame as the root of all evil in the region is fun intellectually, but ultimately pointless. There comes a point where you have to say: well all that happened, but grievances have their limits don’t they?

Anti-Zionism is a variation on this theme, which conveniently airbrushes out the Ottomans from history: the Jewish Zionists were the imperialists, and there was no empire around here before they showed up!

Today, Syria is in turmoil as thousands flee barrel bombs and terror devices, and Iraq reels still from the past decade of conflict. More than ever, now is time to think rationally about the steps that the region needs to take in order to escape its cycles of doom.

Rejecting Islamist jihadi terrorism, accepting Jewish and Kurdish national autonomy, tolerating freedom of worship and conscience for Christians, atheists, and all types of Muslims, promoting democratic rights and building democratic systems of governance are a few practical steps that the Middle East can take.

The Middle East doesn’t need to liberate itself from Sykes-Picot; instead it needs to unburden itself from its navel-gazing, self-defeating “anti-imperialist” narrative that it has indulged for far too long.

Cage: Vacancy for Managing Director

This is a guest post by Amjad Khan


Vacancy for Managing Director

Main Purpose of the Role

-       Mislead the public into believing that there is no such thing as extremism, unless it is far-right extremism.

-       Convince gullible non-Muslims that brutal acts (such as stoning women) are fine and racist to criticise.

-       Infiltrate liberal and leftist movements whilst simultaneously campaigning for an Islamist theocratic state. (It’s actually not that difficult these days).

-       Stand up for all Muslims regardless of what they have done. This includes detained Al-Qaeda foreign fighters and convicted ISIS terrorists in the UK – All Muslims are victims – always…unless they are liberal Muslims in which case they are definitely guilty of something.

-       Completely render any nuanced discussion of Islamist radicalisation null and void by asking questions like: What does extremism really mean? Why is calling for a theocratic state a bad idea? What is the meaning of life? Is up really up?

-       Infiltrate student movements, making sure CAGE are listed in the NUS manifesto and seen as a strong partner to elected leaders.  

-       Secretly progress the Islamist agenda by using “human rights” language and render any critique of CAGE Islamophobic and engineering by Zionists and their minions.

-       Undermine the Prevent agenda by pretending it’s all part of a Zionist/masonic/illuminati-led conspiracy to undermine anyone who is brown.

-       Attack any Muslim who believes in countering extremist ideology and link them to Zionism.

Key Responsibilities

As you can imagine, being managing director of an organisation that works closely with “Jews are monkeys” Haitham Al-Haddad can be a PR nightmare! But fear not, people are gullible these days and you can dig yourself out of a hole by citing Moazzam Begg’s experience in Guantanamo Bay because remember most people still think victims of the US military can do no wrong.

You will have to be cunning and able to meander out of tough questions such as being asked whether you condone FGM live on air. You will also need to raise funds for vital and ground-breaking research like our recent £15,000 report that revealed RICU supports Muslim groups that challenge extremism and is linked to the Home Office. No-one knew about this until we revealed it as an exclusive, David Cameron didn’t mention this in an October 2015 speech, any suggestion that he did is a Zionist conspiracy.

Speaking of Zionist power, you will also need to remind everyone that the government is out to get them. The Zionist UK government have become an Orwellian nightmare, which only serves to alienate Muslims and forces them to join groups that want to rape Yazidi women and behead Shia Muslims. This government needs to be replaced by a theocracy based on what the noble and righteous Taliban did in Afghanistan before it was ruined by imperial western powers. But remember, our liberal non-Muslim partners are not ready for that message yet so make it very subtly. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hide the fact that we received government funding because that renders our recent attacks on government hypocritical.

A free coffee mug (because coffee was invented by Muslims) and a plate of posh baklava will be given to the successful applicant.

PS. This article is a parody (though it is hard to tell these days), the real CAGE ad can be found here.

Euphoria In the Extreme


Greetings all. Benjamin Button John Nicolson MP called it right when he described opponents of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act as “sectarian dafties“. All fans are in favour, except for the great many who are not, but they are sectarian dafties as the Sage of Bearsden informs us.

He was being restrained. Had he not been, he may have called them window-lickers or something more fruity.

The need for the Act became clear at final whistle at the Scottish Cup final. Scottish Police Federation general secretary, Callum Steele can be seen showing South Yorks levels of insight in his description of Hibernian fans’ on pitch celebration. Not to mention their offer of physical consolation to defeated Rangers fans.

Steele absolutely gets the root cause of the problem as seen in this instructive images. Routine involvement by the Unionist Rangers fans in far right rammies on 19 September 2014. Apart from the matter of there not being a shard of evidence for this. Or this isolated event also containing rival street-thugs not seen in this isolated picture.

But still, the Duckenfieldesque chosen narrative of identifying one group as social/political enemies deserving of police crackdowns. No, that is not entirely true. Duckenfield was not particularly anti-LFC. This is concentrated on Rangers.

Stung by unkind souls who saw his tweets as partisan and inflammatory, Steele puts his foot down and says anyone not wanting to be spat at or decked at their place of work – or, in the case of departing fans, not be almost knocked over by panicking officers running en masse up the emergency exits to reach the pitch – should pay for security.

The preemptive chosen narrative of drunkenness being to blame was articulated by Justice Minister, Michael Matheson. Calling for alcohol ban at matches to remain. So obvious is this that, even though the fans were by definition, not drunk, it should remain.

The OBFA clearly is working. Yes, a few eggs are being broken such as schoolboys arrested for swearing, or Aberdeen fans being proportionately the largest group arrested, but it is needed to prevent wide scale disorder at matches. This display of euphoria

Instigator of the Act, Kenny Macaskill is quite correct. The OBFA needs to be strengthened. Although he might be misreading the Official Secrets Act.

So, despite the legislation being present to deal with violent disorder, it is right and proper than the Act should be scoured for one compliant section.

Hey PSC, No Antisemitism? You are Having a Laugh!

From David Collier’s blog Beyond the Great Divide

On Monday night (23/5), I went to a PSC event held at the P21 Gallery in Euston. Miko Peled was speaking at a book launch for the latest edition of his book ‘The General’s son’. Peled outdid himself; nastier than Blumenthal, more distortion than Pappe, more unhinged than Barkan.

Miko Peled is lost. I am not a great believer in generalisations, so dislike the all-inclusive labels such as ‘self-hater’. Each of these individuals has taken a different journey along the way, but there are clearly deep personal issues with them all. Miko Peled bathes in the perverted adoration of the similarly inflicted. Like a Big Brother winner, Peled profits through what is wrong with him. It is highly unsettling to witness.

I do not need to go into detail over all the distortions of yesterday’s talk. The trap Miko Peled fell into is evident from the outset. He realised that some of the Zionist tales were myth, which to him made the Arab narrative pure gospel. This argument I have heard from them all, the flawed logic of the true believer – one false idol replaced by another. The classic ‘non sequitur’ of the ignorant.

For Peled, Israel has to be removed from the map, no question. The ‘settlers of Tel Aviv’ could become, if the Arabs are willing to forgive them, just the ‘polite guests’ inside the new state. His historical narrative is so false it has to be deliberate, his description of the present seems designed to mislead.

Miko Peled overstepped the mark several times, most notably when he spoke of antisemitism and Islamophobia. It was this, rather than the fake stories about the conflict, that I found the most objectionable. I’ve become immune to the constant distortion about the historical conflict, and more attuned to the underlying messages. Peled did not disappoint.

The video of the event will shortly be released by the PSC. I suggest you bookmark it for reference to use, if anyone dares suggest the PSC or BDS are not war movements, or that the true aim of both is not the total destruction of Israel.

Jews causing trouble

Miko Peled suggested that the crisis in the Labour party is caused merely by ‘Zionists’ stirring up trouble. He said “Everyone knows this entire antisemitism thing is nonsense”. Then he pointed out that ‘Islamophobia’ is also a strategic creation of the Zionists:

“If anyone has any doubt, that this entire Islamophobia thing isn’t coming directly from pro-Israeli groups, then excuse me you are out of your mind.  Absolutely. And when you look at each case, individually you will see, the hand, the fingerprints of some Israeli lobby, some pro-Zionist groups”.

Those pesky Jews stirring up trouble. Antisemitism doesn’t exist, Islamophobia does and both of these issues are the fault of the Zionists. Peled returned to the theme of non-existent antisemitism on several occasions. Similarly, at another PSC event on Saturday, I heard the same tune played. So, rather than dissect Peled’s flawed narrative, I will turn my focus on those listening. Those inside the hall. I will show that antisemitism and the PSC are Siamese twins.

Antisemitism and the PSC

One thing you notice straight away about these people is many focus almost exclusively on the conflict. Their Facebook pages are simply all about Israel. It is by any definition an obsession. They consider Israel to be demonic, all powerful and all controlling. The accusations are relentless. The comparisons with the Nazis are pervasive.

(I have used Facebook posts and the PSC event listing as an indication of those that attended. Apologies to those that said they would go / went, but didn’t. Importantly I have also ignored all posts related to the conflict itself regardless of how obscene they may have been. These posts have nothing to do with the conflict.)

At the event itself, in one of the front rows sat Pamela Hardyment. Well known for years as part of the active boycott movement, Hardyment was visibly popular amongst the other delegates. On Facebook, Hardyment apparently changed her Facebook name to Pam Arnold, having apparently switched identities after being caught last year hurling vicious obscenities on a video.

Hardyment, who said of Lieberman that “he makes Hitler look like a good guy”, also posted these:


Andrew Nelis, was also present. Nelis, who thinks Winston Churchill was a war criminal, posted this


On his timeline, Nelis posted a photo of himself with Ovais Mughal at the event. This is from Mughal’s timeline:

antisemitism at PSC

Another at the event was Tony Gratrex. Like Hardyment, Tony was also welcomed by several members. Gratrex is a conspiracy theorist. At the infamous Palestine Return Centre event that saw Kaufman speak of ‘Jewish money’, Tony asked a question about the 1913 Federal Reserve act, asking ‘who really controls the money?’. This is a classic antisemitic myth. These are some of Gratrex’s Facebook posts:


Sarah Brookes was also there. Brookes shares many of Tony’s posts, including a recent ones that suggested the antisemitism crisis in the Labour party was nonsense and that Israel’s ‘global reach’ threatens free speech. Brookes also posted about 9/11 conspiracies and also posted this:

rense antisemitism

Viviana Lombardi was also there at the event. I think she asked one of the questions during the Q&A session. These are her posts:

lombardiChoci Mckenzie was there too. Mckenzie is another one who has posted 9/11 conspiracy videos. Here Mckenzie is sharing posts comparing the ‘Zionist lobby’ with Cointelpro, ‘a series of covert, and at times illegal,projects conducted by the FBI aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting and disrupting domestic political organizations’. He also pushes Atzmon’s ‘Elders of Labour’ onto his friends and shares posts on ‘how the Israel lobby drives US policies’:

choci3Alan Niel also apparently attended:


On Paula Milton’s page, there is a photo from the event titled “a fabulous gang of wonderful human beings”. Pamela Hardyment is in the forefront. Nice crowd. Milton herself posted a wonderful conspiracy piece after the Brussels bombing. It implies Israel was involved in Brussels, Paris and of course 9/11. It even links Israel to the 7/7 London bombings:


Karen Mint was also in the photo with Hardyment. In March, also after the Brussels attack, Mint also shared a conspiracy tale, suggesting that the bombing was possibly related to European nations voting on Palestine:

mintThis is another of Mint’s posts:


Sandra Watfa was tagged in a photo and also seemed to have been there. Sandra holds nothing back. This is one of her recent posts:


Notice too that both Pam Arnold and Andrew Neils, two of the other attendees ‘like’ the ‘#Jewnitedstatesofterrorism post. Here are a few more of Wafta’s posts:


Seymour Alexander also seems to have gone to see Peled speak.  Meet Alexander:


and this is worthy of note more for the response:


Padma Sol Mera was also tagged as being at the event:


This is one incomplete look at just some of those in one event, one room. One gathering of PSC supporters.  This isn’t marginalised, nor is it simply a few that cling to the skirt tails. Just these people alone have tens of thousands of friends between them and make hundreds of posts *every day* on the subject of ‘Zionists’. This is an engine room. These are the people in the front row, the ones with selfies taken standing next to Peled, some of those that went out with him to dinner:

peled dinner

Control of the media, control of the banks, control of governments, false flag operations, conspiracy theorists. Even Fagin and Shylock got a mention. This is the power, part of the driving force of ‘pro-Palestinian’ activism here in the UK.

Just a few days ago, I was evicted from the HQ of the National Union of Teachers (NUT).  These are the people that were let in, it was this type of gathering that was sponsored, hosted, supported, by the union of those that educate our children.  Are you paying attention Christine Blower? Both you and the PSC say you ‘challenge’ antisemitism. Really? You should be ashamed of yourself.

The question is not ‘does ‘ antizionism equate to antisemitism’. That is a straw man argument designed to derail and defocus. That question provides cover for real antisemites. The real question is how many antizionists are antisemites? How many inside every single gathering of the PSC carry the age old disease?

Labour MEP Afzal Khan, Jamaat-e-Islami and Responsibility

Here’s Labour MEP Afzal Khan comparing the Israeli government to Nazis in 2014:

This stupid, base and hurtful slur has earned Mr Afzal nothing more than a mild rebuke from the Labour party rather than suspension. He has simply been “reminded of his responsibilities as a Labour representative”. Mr Khan himself has refused to comment, as far as I know. Not even some sort of half apology.

Really this is no surprise. Look into his career and you will find that Mr Khan has long been close to the UK Islamic Mission (UKIM).

UKIM is a fixture on the Islamist scene and runs mosques up and down the country. It is essentially this country’s face of the South Asian extremist group Jamaat-e-Islami.

Here you go. This is a poster for a UKIM event last year featuring Siraj ul-Haq, the current leader of Jamaat, and Zahid Parvez, UKIM’s president. The third speaker is Afzal Khan.

Here they are on the big day.

This was one of at least three UKIM events Mr Khan has attended in recent years.

There’s plenty of history too. Already a Labour councillor, in 2002 Khan represented UKIM at an angry demonstration in London against Israel, the UK and the USA. It brought Islamists and the far left together – Khan was with the disturbingly changing times. In his speech, he accused Israel of “genocide”.

He was also named as “head” of UKIM’s Khizra mosque in Manchester in 2005.

All of this is dispiriting. No mainstream politician in this country should have anything to do with Jamaat-e-Islami and Siraj ul-Haq, apart from opposing them. A few episodes in ul-Haq’s career should suffice to make this clear.

Saluting Mumtaz Qadri
The right kind of religious murderer will make ul-Haq a happy man.

Mumtaz Qadri
, for example, the extremist fanatic who shot Pakistani politician Salman Taseer to death.

JI Ameer Senator Siraj-ul-Haq, while addressing the march, paid rich tributes to Mumtaz Qadri. He said Qadri delivered a clear message by sacrificing his life that Muslim Ummah would not tolerate any attempt to safeguard blasphemers.

The Real Charlie Problem
Not long after the murders of Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris, ul-Haq was vexed by their cartoons rather than the atrocity, and he knew who to blame.

Sirajul Haq said that the repeated incidents of the blasphemy of the Noble Prophet and the mock trials of the Holy Quran and setting the holy book afire were chain of the Zionists plot to disturb world peace. The Zionists had always been at the back of the crusades as they had always hatched conspiracies to pit the Muslims and the Christians against each other.

Condemning the silence of the Muslim rulers on the issue, the JI chief however declared that the JI and its like- minded parties would continue to chase the blasphemers till they stopped this unholy practice. He said that the Muslims considered it greatest honour to lay down their lives for safeguarding the sanctity of the beloved Prophet

To the streets! Death!

Tens of thousands of Muslims took to the streets in Pakistan in anger at the Prophet Mohammed cartoons published by French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The largest rally was held in Karachi, where 25,000 people shouted slogans including ‘death to France’, ‘death to the blasphemers’ and ‘(We are) ready to sacrifice life for Prophet Mohammed’.

‘In Paris hundreds of thousands of people came onto the streets to support Satan’s agents and in response to that hundreds and thousands of people have come out here on the streets for love of the prophet,’ Siraj-ul-Haq said.

Protect Terrorists
While blasphemers deserve death, jihadi terrorists merit protection.

Last Saturday the US attacked Taliban leader Mullah Mansour in Pakistan, citing an “imminent threat”.

Siraj ul-Haq is not pleased. The real enemy is America.

He said that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had stated that he had been informed of the drone attack afterwards which was really shameful. This implied that the enemy had reached our Drawing Room but the rulers were unconcerned.

Here is a scene from 2011:

Hundreds of Pakistani tribesmen on Tuesday threatened the United States with holy war, lashing out at demands for action against Al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani extremists based in Pakistan.

On Tuesday, hundreds of tribesmen gathered in Landikotal, a town on Pakistan’s northwestern border with Afghanistan, mobilised by religious party Jamaat-e-Islami to protest against the United States.

Waving party flags and wearing ribbons, dozens of tribesmen joined the throng armed with Kalashnikovs, an AFP reporter said.

“We announce the holy war against America if they attack Pakistan,” Siraj-Ul-Haq, the party’s deputy head, told the gathering.

And another from 2008:

Maulana Siraj-ul-Haq, the Emir of Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province, has warned of a nationwide jihad if the U.S. forces attack the Pakistan’s tribal region in the pursuit of the Taliban militants.

According to a report in the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jasarat, Maulana Siraj-ul-Haq said that should the U.S. attack the tribal region, jihad will be launched in the region from Karachi through Chitral in the NWFP on the Afghan border.

According to the report, the Jamaat-e-Islami leader said that mosques and minarets are the fortresses of Islamic revolution.

The West Using Women Against Us
Even protecting women from violence is part of the enemy’s plot. Furious about a new bill to help abused women in Punjab, ul-Haq chaired a conference with fellow extremists earlier this year.

The chairman of Jamat-e-Islami (JI) Siraj-ul-Haq said Women Protection Act must be retracted, Waqt News reported. “The bill is totally against the Constitution of Pakistan and Sharia Law,” he said.

Domestic abuse, economic discrimination and acid attacks made Pakistan the world’s third most dangerous country in the world for women, a 2011 Thomson Reuters Foundation expert poll showed.

“The controversial law to protect women was promulgated to accomplish the West’s agenda to destroy the family system in Pakistan,” read the joint declaration issued at the end of the concrescence. “This act … is redundant and would add to the miseries of women.”

Responsible Politics
In a world ravaged almost every day by horrific Islamist violence and plagued by insane hatred, responsible politicians need to stand up against extremists, not with them.

I don’t think Mr Khan is any such politician.

Nor will his party call him to account.