Carole Swords was participating in a demonstration organised by a group called London BDS, who work alongside the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Carole Swords with “Natasha” of London BDS, August 13th 2011

Of course, Swords is responsible for her own actions, and her political allies in the PSC and London BDS are not guilty of attacking Harvey Garfield. What is instructive, however, is how the PSC and London BDS have portrayed the events of August 13th 2011. In order to understand this, we must understand something of the PSC’s policy of BDS against Israel.

On the “About” page of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, we read about the PSC’s Boycott Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel:

After few weeks campaign, we get real momentum,now . This Friday 5th August we will visit 4 Mosques. Join us to become a member of the glorious BDS movement.

Brent PSC will be at [...]

West London PSC and London BDS will be at [...]

Camden PSC will be at [...]

South London PSC and London BDS will be leafleting [...]

Clearly the PSC is proud of both London BDS, and its local chapters. You will notice that Holocaust-denier Gill Kaffash is still listed on the main PSC page, as the go-to person for organising the boycott of Israeli dates. (The date boycott, in turn, is driven by Ismail Patel,  and backed by the Shadow Justice Minister).

Here we see how the PSC co-operates with its local PSC chapters in anti-Israel activism, disregarding extreme political views or Holocaust denial.

Last year the PSC promoted the London BDS’ campaigning against the Ahava store in Covent Garden. The PSC also promoted the London BDS protests against Tesco in Covent Garden, due to Tesco stocking Israeli produce from settlements.

You can see the PSC promote these London BDS demos throughout 2011, including here, here, here and here.

Indeed, PSC director Sarah Colborne turned up at an Ahava/Tesco demo in July 2011, and started the chant,

“Dead Sea Mud: Palestinian blood”.

Here is footage via Richard Millett. Notice Colborne starting the chanting, with Carole Swords joining in:

This all demonstrates PSC support at a national level, both for London BDS’ campaigning outside Ahava and Tesco in Covent Garden, and for its local PSC activists.

On August 13th 2011, this is the footage that was recorded from the BDS action against Ahava and Tesco:

You will notice Carole Swords very prominently in the video. Two minutes in, you hear Swords joining in a song, to the tune of Hava Nagila, about boycotting Israeli goods. The camera appears to focus on Swords, throughout much of the video.

The video was posted by Seymour Alexander, of the (Atzmonite) Kingston and Richmond PSC. Lest anyone think that Kingston and Richmond PSC is somehow disconnected from the main Palestine Solidarity Campaign, consider this:

The national PSC has previously posted stateents from Kingston and Richard PSC, supporting their boycott action against Veolia. We read in April 2011 on the PSC website:

“SLWP’s decision is a victory for the coalition of Palestine solidarity activists, local human rights groups and concerned local residents from the London boroughs of Kingston-upon-Thames, Sutton, Merton and Croydon, who have been campaigning tirelessly for the past year against Veolia’s involvement in the procurement process due to its activities in illegally occupied Palestine. [...]  Samrina Mir (Merton PSC) and Ben Jamal (Chair, Richmond & Kingston PSC) said “This is a significant victory for the Bin Veolia campaign [...].”

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign are allies and supporters of Richmond & Kingston Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Here is Alexander’s description of his video -posted on the London BDS website:

Saturday 13th August 2011 – With London still in a state of shock, Zionist Federation counter-demonstrators at Ahava and TESCO tried to stir things up in their usual malign way, even though the similarity between the riots in London and the antics of the settlers on the rampage in the West Bank apparently passed them by.

Protesters at TESCO were entertained by a passing Hare Krishna group and by a nearby Zimbabwean demonstration.

We also read:

Last week, the Daily Mail published an article by Richard Waghorne, entitled “French downgrade shows that Marine Le Pen’s role in French public life is not just legitimate but increasingly necessary“.

The elegant and increasingly incisive leader of the French National [Front] appears to be free of many of her father’s drawbacks. She is additionally the only significant voice in France to diagnose the Euro-federalist threat to her country’s future accurately. Before yesterday’s sovereign downgrade, the prospect of her displacing either Nicholas Sarkozy or his Socialist challenger to make it through to the two-horse second round of the French presidential election was gaining in likelihood.

This has traditionally been viewed as a threat and is still spoken of with alarm in Parisian political salons. As France continues to decline on account of the European empire-building decreed by its established political class, however, it is becoming steadily more obvious that Marine Le Pen’s role in French public life is not merely legitimate but increasingly necessary.

Plus ca change.

As Hitchens said himself during his destruction of Galloway in New York:

“There comes a point where what some people say just becomes self-discrediting and requires no further comment”.

A reminder: While Hitchens was attacked by thugs of the fascist Syrian Social Nationalist Party for daring to deface one of their neo-swastika signs in Beirut, Galloway was pleased few years earlier to address a celebration of SSNP supporters in Canada.

The SSNP of course is standing firmly behind the murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad in his efforts to crush the Syrian uprising.

“[A] fucking guttersnipe… and thug and liar and ponce for fascism”

–Hitchens accurately describing Galloway

Update: Expressing a sentiment similar to Galloway’s– who appears to believe that Hitchens is deservedly burning in Hell– Inayat Bunglawala titles a blog post: “Christopher Hitchens – The World Is A Better Place Without Him.” He quotes another Harry’s Place acquaintance, Craig Murray, who wrote:

The world will undoubtedly be a duller place without Christopher Hitchens. Oh, and a better one too.

British journalism is full of people of the same generation who have lurched from the Trotskyist far left to a crazed neo-con agenda with no intervening period of sanity. I suspect the available riches for zionist propagandists are a major factor. Hitchens, Aaronovitch, Phillips, Cohen. You can probably think of others. A strange and extremely unpleasant manifestation of intellectual prostitution.

Given Hitchens’s own lack of respect for the dead he despised, I am sure he would not have expected (or wanted) his own enemies to behave any differently.

But to call Hitchens “a zionist propagandist”? If you’re going to hate someone, at least be accurate.

Atzmon encourages his audience to chant “NO” to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who had voiced opposition to racism.

Atzmon, of course, doesn’t have the guts to encourage his audience to chant “NO” to Britain’s leading anti-racist and anti-fascist campaign, Hope not Hate.

Hope not Hate leads the campaign against Gilad Atzmon’s racism and promotion of Holocaust denial.

There is no substantive difference  between those who joined with Gilad Atzmon at this rally, and those who jeer and attack anti-fascists at a British National Party or English Defence League rally.

If you can identify any of those in this video, feel free to post their names below.

Meanwhile, I see that the official Palestinian Mission in Britain is a fan of Gilad Atzmon.

I wonder how the Palestine Solidarity Campaign feels about that.

Until his remarkable outburst in Parliament, in which he suggested that Jews who supported Jewish self-determination were disloyal to Britain, I had largely associated Paul Flynn with cannabis.

The JC’s editorial puts it well:

There is no more classic antisemitic trope than the idea of the Jew as agent of a foreign power, lacking loyalty to his ‘host’ country. Add to that the idea of a Jewish conspiracy and you have a double whammy. In accusing Matthew Gould, the British Ambassador to Israel, of acting not on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government but the government of Israel, and of conspiring with the Mossad, Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, is guilty of an unambiguous antisemitism of a directness not seen from an elected politician for many years. It is good to see Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, making clear his disgust at his colleague’s remarks. But we need now to see the same from Ed Miliband, who has so far refused to condemn Mr Flynn, despite repeated entreaties by the JC.

But what is most disturbing about this whole episode is that a senior and experienced politician such Mr Flynn can utter words which a neo-Nazi might shy away from speaking in public, and yet have no compunction in defending them when challenged and no conception that he has said anything in any way offensive, let alone antisemitic. There has been a sense for some time in which certain antisemitic themes have appeared to become acceptable in polite society, as if positing a Jewish conspiracy and the issue of dual loyalty is not antisemitic, merely a statement of fact.

Flynn’s remarks have been broadly attacked, by MPs of all parties including Labour:

The Foreign Office and MPs from across the political spectrum sprang to Mr Gould’s defence and condemned the remarks.

Middle East Minister Alistair Burt said: “Paul Flynn should take some time to consider his comments, which could easily be misconstrued. There is absolutely no reason why our ambassador to Israel should not be Jewish. Any allegations about Matthew Gould’s conduct are utterly unsubstantiated. He is a first-class ambassador.”

Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “The faith of any British diplomat is irrelevant to their capability to their job. To make suggestions otherwise is wrong and offensive.

“On a personal note I know from my time in government Matthew Gould embodies all that is good in British diplomacy.”

John Mann MP, another Labour MP has been fierce in his criticism of Flynn:

John Mann, the chair of the group on antisemitism, said he was in no doubt “that when candidates are selected for parliamentary constituencies under new boundaries that Paul Flynn will be summarily retired”.

Mr Mann, also a Labour MP, added: “I suggest he starts his retirement with a workers’ education course on understanding racism, its language and its impact.”

There is also an article by Tory MP, Robert Halfon MP here.

I want to make two brief observations about Paul Flynn MP’s conduct.

First, have a look at what this obnoxious man had to say for himself when challenged on his racism.

“In the past there hasn’t been a Jewish ambassador to Israel and I think that is a good decision – to avoid the accusation that they have gone native.”

Mr Flynn added that the same question of divided loyalty would apply to anyone with a “foreign” family background, including former Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane, whose father was Polish.

“Imagine Denis MacShane as ambassador to Poland? Heaven forbid,” Mr Flynn said.

Let’s take a closer look at this statement. Paul Flynn MP appears to be arguing that he is not simply an anti-Jewish racist, but believes that all British people of non-British heritage are to be suspected of divided loyalties.

That hardly excuses his racism. In fact, it makes it worse!

But here’s the thing. I don’t believe Flynn. I don’t think he would raise similar objections to a public servant of any other ethnicity. In other words, Flynn is pretending to be an equal-opportunities racist, to cover his specific racism against Jews. Isn’t that both surreal and disgusting?

The second point I’d like to make is this. Paul Flynn MP raises this racist argument in support of Pippa Bartolotti.

He said doubts had been raised about Mr Gould’s loyalty by two of his constituents, Pippa Bartolotti and Joyce Giblin, who had been held in prison in Israel after taking part in the “flytilla” demonstration against the Gaza blockade in July.

“When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met the ambassador, and they strongly believe… that he was serving the interest of the Israeli government, and not the interests of two British citizens,” he told the committee.

Here is Pippa Bartolotti with the Hamas leadership:

Here is Pippa Bartolotti with Hamas’s Mahmoud Al Zahar, a founder and leaders of Hamas:

Zahar is of course the man who said Jewish children around the world should be murdered to avenge Israel’s attack on Hamas in the Gaza war.

“They have legitimised the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine,” Mahmoud Zahar said in a televised broadcast recorded at a secret location. “They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people.”

Not that any of this troubles Bartolotti. This is from her blog:

Mahmoud al Zahar was clearly a knowledgeable man, well educated and by the nature of his knowledge, anti Jew. It seemed to me that he no longer separated Zionism from the ordinary Jew, but living under siege as he did with warplanes and warships continually threatening his people, killing his children and destroying his homes one could hardly blame him.

Here is some more of Zahar’s wisdom, this time about the West, shared in an interview with Reuters.

We have the right to control our life according to our religion, not according to your religion. You have no religion. You are secular.

You do not live like human beings. You do not [even] live like animals. You accept homosexuality. And now you criticize us?

We are the ones who respect women and honor women … not you.

You use women as an animal. She has one husband and hundreds of thousands of boyfriends. You don’t know who is the father of your sons because of the way you respect women.

We understand you very well. You are poor people. Morally poor. Don’t criticize us because of what we are.

And here is Pippa Bartolotti waving the flag of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Its symbol is reminiscent of the Nazi Swastika – deliberately so. The SSNP is influenced by the philosophy of German Nazism: hence the give-away inversion: “Social Nationalist” rather than “National Socialist”.

Here’s a little background on the SSNP. Here’s some more.

And here is Bartolotti talking to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s propaganda station, Press TV:

“It’s only the people that are going to make a difference because the governments are pathetically weak. They’re in the pockets of Big Money and Big Money supports Israel”.

More Pippa here: smashing the doors at Tel Aviv airport

So, to draw a parallel: what Paul Flynn MP has done is the equivalent of a Labour MP expressing concerns about the trustworthiness of non-Anglo Saxon British public servants, at the behest of a British National Party activist.

Labour List reports:

Paul Flynn has been called in by the Chief Whip Rosie Winterton to discuss his comments. The Labour leadership are thought to be unhappy with the remarks – a Labour source said that “Ed [Miliband] thinks these comments are totally unacceptable.”

He really ought to go, and soon.

UPDATE

Sarka asks:

Could someone find out whether Paul Flynn spoke up bravely against the following:

Anwar Choudhury (Bengali: আনোয়ার চৌধুরী; born 15 June 1959) is the Director of International Institutions at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. He was a High Commissioner to Bangladesh (2004-2008), and was the first British Head of Mission to be of Bangladeshi origin. Although born in Sylhet Division, in north-eastern Bangladesh, he is a naturalised British citizen; Choudhury has dismissed suggestions of a conflict of loyalty, stating that he would support the English cricket team against Bangladesh…

UPDATE

Now the idiot racist Paul Flynn MP responds. Apparently, some of his best friends are Jewish.

Hysteria rampant.

If you are in politics long enough, I suppose everyone is accused of everything.

Today’s accusation is  that I have made an anti-Semitic remark is ludicrous. I have been a lifelong friend of Israel and Jewish causes.I have visited Israel on four occasions  including a private family holiday. Never before in my long political life has such an accusation been made. But I have been accused of being too friendly to Israel on many occasions.

I would advise those making these accusations to read my blog and that of my friend Robert Halfon’s . There they will read the substance of my criticism. It is a demand for a legitimate inquiry into the Liam Fox/ Werrity affair by Phillip Mawer to include a full probe into the USA  anti Neo-con groups influence in advancing their agenda. The Neo-cons groups financed Werritty.

The issue is the possibility of the UK stumbling into a war with Iran.

Others are active fascists. How about an inquiry into that?

Judy in the comments below points out that Paul Flynn’s “grand neocon Jewish conspiracy” argument appears to be based on an article from Counterpunch by Jonathan Cook.

Jonathan Cook is a supporter of Gilad Atzmon. Gilad Atzmon is the subject of a campaign by Britain’s leading anti racist and anti fascist group, Hope not Hate.

Counterpunch itself is a strong supporter of Gilad Atzmon. Here is an article on Counterpunch in support of Atzmon by the lunatic racist, Kathleen Christison. Here one by his one time fan, Mary Rizzo. And another one by Southampton based academic, Oren Ben Dor. And another by Jeffrey St Clair.

Here are some articles by Gilad Atzmon on Counterpunch. They are only a few of those they have published. In this piece, Atzmon bigs up the neo Nazi, Eric Walberg! In this one Atzmon attacks the veteran Jewish anti-Zionist, Lenni Brenner (and identifies Jews with Christ killers).

Counterpunch also repeatedly publishes the neo Nazi and Holocaust denier who calls himself “Israel Shamir”

Paul Flynn MP has fallen in with the Far Right. He doesn’t even realise it.

I hope you’ll forgive a short diversion. I became interested in anti-Zionist politics in the United Kingdom, not because of  concern for Israel, but because I was astounded by the extent to which parts of the Left were not only “in solidarity” with genocidal antisemitic movements like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, but had also allied itself with domestic far Right racists. The promotion of Gilad Atzmon by the Socialist Workers Party, and the denial that he was an antisemite, was a moment of clarity for me. That was the point at which I realised that there are parts of the Left which are not to be trusted on the question of anti-racism: which are not only silent about antisemitism, but which play an important part in normalising and promoting racism against Jews.

The leadership of the PSC knew full well that a certain percentage of its membership are attracted to pro-Palestinian politics because, to be frank, they hate Jews.  The Socialist Action leadership have no enthusiasm for Nazi style antisemitism for reasons of both principle and tactics. However, until the last few months, the PSC have failed to address racism in their own movement. Indeed, the PSC voted down a motion opposing Atzmon’s friends, the Holocaust deniers Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir, proposed by Sue Blackwell, Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance. Remember, Greenstein and Rance are opponents of Israel’s existence in any shape or form, and were a faction within the PSC who openly spoke out against Fatah’s historic agreement with Israel at Oslo.

As far as the PSC is concerned, the important thing is to build the movement. In doing so, they have gone for quick growth by encouraging semi autonomous local branches. Those local branches, at Lauren Booth points out, contain  activists who are openly racists and supporters of Gilad Atzmon. The PSC leadership, to its credit, have responded by expelling a number of its high profile activists who are racists, including their former Chairman, Francis Clark-Lowes.

But there will come a point at which the PSC leadership loses control over its branches. Lauren Booth’s article indicates the extent to which members are unhappy at the sudden crackdown on antisemitism. How many more activists can the PSC leadership expel, before they have a full scale rebellion on their hands? For example, will they expel the officers of Exeter PSC who hosted Atzmon at a horrific meeting, at which he made a series of racist “jokes” and declared that he could imagine people saying “Hitler was right”? Will they expel Atzmon supporter and Bradford PSC organiser, Karl Dallas? How do they feel about their supporters attacking Hope not Hate, this country’s foremost anti-racist campaigning organisation?

More to the point, when push comes to shove, who will their members follow? The anonymous and grey Socialist Action leadership, or the  outspoken and high profile Lauren Booth?

The choice for the PSC should be an easy one. It is entirely possible to campaign for Palestinian self-determination, without invoking antisemitism. The PSC could emerge from this mess as a movement which does not tolerate racism or support for racists in any form. In doing so, it would lose a number of its lunatic and antisemitic supporters: but if it openly embraced both Palestinian and Israeli self-determination, then it would find itself fully in the political mainstream, and would end up a larger and stronger movement.

That will not happen, for a simple reason.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign is a “solidarity campaign”, not a campaign for a Palestinian state. To those on the far Left, solidarity politics is driven by anti-imperialism: in which the worth of a cause is judged by the extent to which it is an ally in the class struggle against capitalism.  These days, they’re happy to line up with Palestinian factions and individuals – including Hamas supporters – many of whom are antisemites and Holocaust deniers: as long as they’re seen to be “fighting imperialism”. However, as a “solidarity” campaign, the PSC does not see it as their obligation to criticise these hatemongers.

We saw this politics in action, with the PSC’s championing of the racist hate preacher, Raed Salah

This dynamic puts the PSC leadership in a double bind. As they expel members for supporting Atzmon and other antisemites and Holocaust deniers, their disciplined activists can fairly ask them why they’re being punished for saying things which are unproblematic when said by Hamas (and in some cases, Fatah) politicians. As Gill Kaffash notes:

‘How long do you think it will be until the Jewish Chronicle demands that PSC unreservedly condemn Hamas? And how long before PSC complies? After all, Hamas is obviously ant-semitic – most of the people it attacks are Jewish’.

By the nature of its politics, the PSC will never oppose racism within Palestinian politics. They will continue to tour racists around Britain. They will similarly attack any anti-racist who opposes that racism. While doing all this, they will attempt to keep a lid on the evidence that a significant portion of their own membership is fiercely antisemitic.

But when it comes to opposing racism within the PSC activist base, the leadership is caught between a rock and a hard place; in part of their own making. They will be attacked and condemned, as “Zionist tools” by some of the stars of anti-Israel politics. It is far from clear that the PSC will win this battle. After all, it is the PSC who has told its membership, repeatedly, that antisemitism is a mirage, cynically raised by “Zionists” in order to prevent criticism of Israel. Is it any surprise that, now the PSC had got around to accepting that antisemitism exists, that some of its activists have decided that it, too, must be “Zionist”?

It will be interesting to see what the PSC leadership does next. It has few options. I’d imagine that  to keep as quiet as possible and hope that the issue goes away.

That is most unlikely to happen.

The PSC is now facing a grass roots rebellion: a predicament, largely of its own making. Later this morning, I will publish an analysis of the PSC’s options. However it is worth reading Lauren Booth’s article, first.

Three people in this marriage. The PSC, the JC and Harry’s Place

This week, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has revealed itself to be ethically compromised at the highest level.

In recent months it has become clear that the central office of the PSC, are increasingly pandering to the whims of Israeli hasbara activists. Joining with the likes of the rabid Zionist site Harry’s Place in efforts to silence some of this movement’s most outspoken and popular, thinkers.

Last week the British media carried a rare report into the pressure exerted on British news outlets including BBC, Sky News and Financial Times pro-Israeli lobbying group, Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM). The report found that BICOM’s efforts had produced results, in that major channels and papers had “changed their narrative” to meet the Zionist regime’s demands. This week, we see the fruits of Zionist labours in a more surprising arena. Sarah Colborne, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, was quoted in the pro Israeli paper, the Jewish Chronicle, as supporting a boycott of the highly renowned musician and academic Gilad Atzmon. Atzmon was booked to perform in his professional capacity as a saxaphonist at an event celebrating political song in Bradford, called ‘Raise your Banners.’ The musician/author has recently published his best selling treatise on Jewish cultural identity called ‘The Wondering Who’. A work that, unlike Sarah Colborne, I have actually read, and can highly recommend, as it pulls no punches, when asking to what degree the racist idealogy – Zionism, when mixed with the Jewish sense of ‘Choseness’, is to blame for the existence of todays Apartheid Israel. It has been endorsed by some of the finest thinkers and writers on Israel/Palestine of our age.

But the subject matter alone (predictably) proved more than enough to have Atzmon, once again, falsely, branded an anti semite by the sections of the Jewish diaspora committed to stopping debate into their awkward, yet staunch, support for Israeli war crimes.

The Jewish Chronicle has spear headed the campaign to pressure organisers of the Bradford event to drop Gilad Atzmon from the bill.

Now, Atzmon is well liked in the PSC branches nationwide. Both as a radical, brilliant, speech maker and as a musician and fund raiser for Palestinian causes.

Yet, this is what Sarah Colborne of the PSC had to say when asked about Atzmon by the JC. “I am very concerned at what appears to be an attempt by Raise Your Banners to misrepresent the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. PSC has made clear to Raise Your Banners that we have no links with Gilad Atzmon, and that Palestine Solidarity Campaign does not work with him. When a representative from Raise Your Banners contacted the PSC office some months ago, they were urged to take seriously the concerns of those who had raised this issue’.

Her words raise several questions that need to be addressed at both national and regional level by the PSC.
Firstly, were members of the PSC asked if they support Colborne in what amounts to a cultural boycott of any staunchly anti Zionist academics?

Let’s take a closer look at her last sentence.

‘When a representative from Raise Your Banners contacted the PSC office some months ago, they were urged to take seriously the concerns of those who had raised this issue’.

Colborne reveals that she is apparently supported by other London officials, in this effort to ostracize Atzmon.

So, here’s another question. Hasn’t Colborne overstepped her official remit as Director of the PSC? After all this is a body whose name, (if little else at national level), suggests an inclusive movement, open to all voices who actively speak out against Israeli Apartheid with the aim of supporting the Palestinian right to a free state.

She has certainly set a very foolish precedent by bending over to hasbara activists.

Except it was far from a precedent. But merely the most recent in a shameful spate of expulsions and harrassment by the national office of the PSC.

Last month, I interviewed Sammi Ibraheem. Sammi is Palestinian. He was chairman of a regional PSC group in 2010. After six months he was ignominiously removed after a campaign of harrassment and rumour from inside the PSC. The pressure on Sammi began when a man named Anthony Copper began claiming he runs a website called ‘Shoah – the Palestinian Holocaust.’ HYPERLINK “http://www.shoah.org.uk/” http://www.shoah.org.uk/.

And who is Anthony Cooper, this informer on ethics to the PSC?

Well, he introduces himself in online debates as follows; ‘ I am a Jewish supporter of Israel. Whilst surrounded by enemies bent on her destruction she has gathered and absorbed people from different parts of the world with different cultures and in so doing developed one of her own. Her people are resourceful and resilient. She has problems but her achievements are remarkable and perhaps unparalleled. So why am I suggesting that her friends, like me, should stop defending her?’ He claims he has been ‘researching’ the background of many local PSC groups. He has pointed out numerous websites which he considers (as a ‘Jewish supporter of Israel’) to contain ‘Holocaust denial’ material. Some of these have been ‘linked to’ PSC members own websites.

Let us note the words ‘linked to’ here. Not even written. But merely ‘linked to’. Links which after pressure from the PSC, its members (those who still care about remaining members) have had to remove.

Mr Ibraheem writes for the site shoah.org. It is strongly worded, carries stories from Palestinian sources on Israeli racism and (significantly) makes no concessions to Jewish sensibilities.

Is writing for such a site a problem for a Palestinian member of the PSC? Apparently so.

Sammi Ibraheem told me; ‘Somebody in the Birmingham PSC with links to the Zionist movement began to take action against me. They asked me to be investigated about my links to Shoah.org.

Sammi disputed the right to an investigation. One that he suspected being set in motion by the very Zionists who occupy his peoples land. Those very people that the PSC are supposed to be in ‘solidarity’ with.

He continues;

‘I refused to attend the meeting and be questioned by a bunch of thugs. So I was removed by vote as the chairman there and then’.
Nothing official was processed or put to the national membership of the PSC many of whom doubtless would have opposed the initimidation and harassment of a Palestinian member.

‘I feel they (the PSC) have no right to represent the Palestinians’ he says, ‘Their policies are pro the ‘two state’ solution. But such a decision is up to the Palestinians to decide. Not a foreign campaign group. The fact that Palestinians involved in an anti Zionist campaign are being kicked out of their committees and local groups proves they (PSC) have no right to represent the Palestinian cause’.

Mr Ibraheem’s experience with the PSC reveals a weakness at the organisations heart.

Today the PSC is attempting to perform a trick that is both impossible and, let’s be frank, pointless. They are attempting to create a pro Palestinian organisation – that does not hurt Zionist sensibilities.

And what of the PSC’s rather too cosy relationship with the Zionist blog Harry’s Place?

For Palestinian activist Sammi Ibraheem his woes with the PSC did not stop when he was vaulted from local chairmanship. The harrassment continued. His weekly radio show in Birmingham is called ‘Face the Nation’, on Unity FM. Recently, Ziobots from Harrys Place managed to have him suspended from his radio show for (again) the exaggerated links with the website ‘Shoah.org’ and guess what, for broadcasting an interview with – Gilad Atzmon.
Mr Ibraheem says; ‘The letter that was used to accuse me of anti semitism came from Harry’s Place. But included an email from the recent chair of the Birmingham PSC Naim Malik. It seems to me that Birmingham PSC has links to Harry’s Place somehow’.

This is disturbing. For it appears that it’s not only the London office of the PSC taking tacit (or explicit) guidance from the enemies of our movement. But some of its regional offices as well.

Leftists who increasingly see their remit as not offending Zionists are heading the British ‘solidarity’ work for Palestine. Have they not learnt the larger lesson from, the PLO/Fatah/the PA? Namely, that campaigns of appeasement to the Israeli lobby can never, ever, co exist as part of a determined campaign to end Israel’s bloody and illegal occupation of Palestine. And let us be clear. A Palestine Solidarity Campaign should be working to END Zionism. Not ease it a little. Not work alongside it. To be in solidarity with the people of Palestine means fighting Zionism.

Period.

And guess what? That just is not going to get you good headlines in the Jewish Chronicle, Harry’s Place or for that matter Fox News or the Guardian.

Real leaders of this movement say to that – so what!

The rejection of Gilad Atzmon’s academic voice by the PSC is more significant than it may at first appear.

For it cuts to the very heart of where this movement, to end Zionism, (not to merely oppose it, but to end it) should be heading from now.

Atzmon has drawn a disturbing parallel between the political landscape that the Zionists are pushing Britain toward today; and Nazi Germany.

In the Fascist 1940’s, most forms of modern art were banned. Only those with a focus on racial purity, militarism and obedience were permitted.

Atzmon says the same is true for the Zionist lobby in the UK, who are intent on controlling the British political scene and dictating “their own political agenda to the British public.”

And here we have the heart of Britain’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign refusing to even engage with a voice they fear as too controversial for Zionist, yes Zionist, sensibilities.

What an error of judgement. How out of step with their own movement the likes of Colborne now are. For Atzmon’s blog on Zionism related issues is even more popular than that of the Electronic Intifada (presumably by dint of its name far too radical for the PSC too).

For which of us who speaks against Israeli war crimes has NOT been branded a terrorist sympathizer or an anti semite on more than one occasion? These overused, misused terms are part of the Sayanim (Israeli Mossad activists) armoury, as has been repeatedly revealed in the past. Branding an anti Zionist ‘anti semitic’ It is a well worn ploy, an effort to intimidate activists or to delay real progress in the global fight against Israeli Apartheid. The Jewish States Sayanim target those they see as effective, painting us all as radicals and extremists, in the hope that the media, our places or work and even the pro Palestinian movement itself will shun us. Until now, this last has been laughably ineffective. But the friends of Zionism seem to be making some headway.

With the likes of Colborne and the National body of the PSC their willing accomplices.

At this crucial time for Palestinian activism, Sarah Colborne et al, have chosen to align with those whose interests lie in silencing debate on the precise nature of Apatheid Israel. And its root causes.

Gill Kafesh, until recently, the popular secretary of the Camden branch of the PSC. was ‘asked to resign by a small group, who made the decision at a special meeting’ this Autumn. On Harry’s Place, Kafesh is listed as (guess what) ‘a supporter of Holocaust denial.’ Kafesh defends her right to engage in open debate about all aspects of history. Feeling that no time period should be beyond research or evaluation.

However, she has openly asked the following prescient question; ‘How long do you think it will be until the Jewish Chronicle demands that PSC unreservedly condemn Hamas? And how long before PSC complies? After all, Hamas is obviously ant-semitic – most of the people it attacks are Jewish’.

The point she is making is important. For it is not for the main office of the PSC to decide who is ‘right’ on such questions as one state/ two state. It is for the campaign to listen to all sides of the Palestinian debate and to reflect these all views in its work.

A leaf should be taken out of the The International Solidarity Movement’s book. A movement whose impetus ALWAYS comes from within Palestine. And for whose members the word ’solidarity’ still retains its meaning.

In September, the Jewish Chronicle reported gleefully on the PSC’s amended mission statement. Which had the following addition: ‘Any expression of racism or intolerance, or attempts to deny or minimise the holocaust have no place in our movement. Such statements are abhorrent in their own right and can only detract from the building of a strong movement in support of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people. We welcome all those who share our aims to join PSC.’

Meanwhile, Francis Clark-Lowes, who has been chairman of national PSC and Brighton PSC was also ‘kicked out’ this Summer. Also for being – guess what- an alleged ‘Holocaust denier’.

Clark-Lowes says ‘Although I didn’t actually hear about it until 21st June. I have appealed against the expulsion from national PSC, and this will be heard at the AGM in January, though it is quite unclear what the procedure will be’.

Whose interests do these expulsions serve?

The Palestinian cause?

Britain is witnessing the rise of a new wave of pro Palestinian activists. They need an organisation that is fit for purpose. One that does not pander to the emotional whims of the Jewish, Zionist lobby.

Meanwhile, The Jewish Chronicle, Harrys Place and the PSC central office, should take note of the following news. Last nights ‘Raise your Banner’ event in Bradford, in which Gilad Atzmon performed, was sold out. Not a single ticket remained. And no protest against the artist and author took place.

When Atzmon asked the audience if they thought that the Board of Deputies of British Jews had a right to control artistic freedom in Britain the crowd of some hundreds yelled a hearty ‘No!’

They would answer the same to Sarah Colborne.

“We do not countenance or give permission for any form of racism or fascism, including anti-Semitism, to be given hospitality at Bradford Cathedral. Having asked for more information about Gilad Atzmon, it has only been in the last few days that we have received clear evidence of the nature of his public statements.”

Hope Not Hate copied and pasted this comment, and turned it into a full blog entry entitled ”Dean of Bradford calls for Atzmon’s invite to be withdrawn“, which they then published on Tuesday 22nd November.

Then a churchgoing, Bradford-based Atzmon supporter, Raise Your Banner performer and PSC organiser Karl Dallas tweeted on Wednesday 23rd November:

Statements that Dean of Bradford Cathedral has called for Gilad Atzmon concert to be cancelled are UNTRUE.

Two hours later, Gilad Atzmon published a blog entry, clearly arguing that Hope Not Hate had deliberately misrepresented the Dean’s words. Atzmon’s post carried a statement by the Dean of Bradford, and it was entitled “HOPE NOT HATE CAUGHT FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS AGAIN“:

“I have become aware of the controversial nature of Gilad Atzmon and the statements made about him, since being contacted by the Council for Christians and Jews a few weeks ago. The concert was recently withdrawn from the Cathedral owing to slow ticket sales, but had the venue not changed I would have considered not allowing it to take place as,although I have had no clear evidence of anti-semitism or racism, the perception of this around Gilad Atzmon would have made it an inappropriate concert to hold in a religious building.”

Compare these two statements:

1. “We do not countenance or give permission for any form of racism or fascism, including anti-Semitism [...] Having asked for more information about Gilad Atzmon, it has only been in the last few days that we have received clear evidence of the nature of his public statements”
2. “although I have had no clear evidence of anti-semitism or racism, the perception of this around Gilad Atzmon would have made it an inappropriate concert to hold in a religious building”

They cannot both be true.

Within the space of four days, the Dean has switched from having “clear evidence” and “information about” of Atzmon’s racism, to having “no clear evidence” and simply “the perception of” Atzmon’s racism.

The Dean does not acknowledge his change of heart. Instead, the Dean of Bradford chose to focus on Hope Not Hate’s reporting of his words. He argued:

The headline on the Hope not Hate blog of 22 November, which says that I have called for the concert to be cancelled does not relate my words to their context.

Really?

Surely – the Dean was originally arguing that:

1. To “give hospitality to” racism is wrong.
2. Hosting Gilad Atzmon would “give hospitality to” racism.
3. Thus, “the authorities at Kala Sangam” will be made aware of this in writing, by the Dean himself.

In this context, the blog headline “Dean of Bradford calls for Atzmon’s invite to be withdrawn“ used by Hope Not Hate was perfectly proper.

So the Dean’s comments here are problematic, unhelpful and untrue. Were the Dean of Bradford to have published his reversal on Atzmon in a newspaper, or as a comment on the Hope Not Hate blog, or on the website of the Bradford Diocese, that would be bad enough.

However, the Dean chose to publish his retraction of his “clear evidence” of Atzmon’s racism, exclusively, on the blog of Gilad Atzmon himself.

Bear in mind, that Gilad Atzmon wrote a piece on Sunday 20th November against Hope Not Hate’s expose of his racism. Atzmon’s piece was entitled “Hope Not Hate? Truth Not Lies More Likely!”

Atzmon had adorned his blog entry with this image:

The Dean knows that Atzmon thinks Hope Not Hate are liars. Atzmon publicly accuses Hope Not Hate of acting in bad faith.

To prove this, Atzmon turned to the website of the BNP-front group Civil Liberty for information. Lancaster Unity noted this fact. Atzmon also wrote of Hope Not Hate’s Nick Lowles:

In case anyone has failed to grasp it, Nick Lowles has every reason to oppose me. My latest book, ‘The Wandering Who’ is there to expose the high and sophisticated level of duplicity of Sayanim, AZZ, Shabbos Goyim and other forms of infiltrators in our midst.

Gilad Atzmon then wrote:

“Lowles was lying. He made it up. When I read the Dean’s words, it was immediately clear that his ‘statement’ was, like other Nick Lowles’ productions – just a stitching together of carefully selected sentences.”

“[T]oday, the Dean was in touch with both a member of his congregation and myself and confirmed that he has become “aware of the controversial nature, not only of Gilad Atzmon”, but also of the statements made about Atzmon. The Dean also confirmed that he had asked those who had contacted him to provide proper evidence of anti-Semitism on the part of Mr. Atzmon, but, as he says, he “received very little, some of which I could identify as being mis-reporting out of context of the kind to which you and Mr Atzmon have drawn attention.”

The Dean also stated that the statement which he did make had been ‘removed from its context’.“

The Dean of Bradford is now accusing Hope Not Hate twice over.

Firstly, the Dean accuses Hope Not Hate of misreporting Atzmon’s racism. Secondly, the Dean accuses Hope Not Hate of distorting his comment about Atzmon’s racism.

The Dean was made aware of claims surrounding Atzmon’s racism, and the Hope Not Hate campaign against Gilad Atzmon. Surely the Dean could have read about Atzmon citing a racist BNP website, in order to attack and smear Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate.

Yet the Dean chose to publish comments accusing Lowles of misreporting this situation twice over, on the blog of a widely-known racist who uses the racist smears of BNP front groups, to attack Lowles.

Since the Dean’s statement on Atzmon’s blog, Atzmon has published these images:

So we have a churchman (the Dean of Bradford), aware of a racist’s racism (Atzmon), endorsing an anti-racist campaign on 19th November (Hope Not Hate). Then, he changes his mind. Rather than admit he changed his mind, the Dean accuses Hope Not Hate of misrepresenting what he wrote.

Bear in mind the recent history between Anglican clergy in the North, and Hope Not Hate.

Two years ago, the Archbishop of York John Sentamu backed Hope Not Hate’s anti-racist campaigns against the BNP:

Anglican Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu has thrown his weight behind the Hope Not Hate campaign against racism, following the example of many other civil and faith groups.

Hope Not Hope was established by the anti-racist campaigning magazine Searchlight, which has a long history of exposing groups like the British National Party – and predecessors in the neo-fascist movement like the National Front.

Dr John Sentamu has spoken out strongly against racism, but around the time of the European elections he expressed concern about giving too much coverage to the BNP before denouncing them after encouragement from others in the churches.

The archbishop stressed that all people are “made in the image of God”, irrespective of their ethnicity, and said he hoped Christians and others would get behind Hope Not Hate.

“It is an important campaign [...] What matters in this life is turning enemies into friends – not friends into enemies,” the prominent black Anglican leader added.

Hope Not Hate remains an important anti-racist campaign, for which the Church should be grateful.

Hope Not Hate stood solidly with the Archbishop of York, when various BNP spokespersons accused him of being an “ambitious African” from “a nation of spear-throwers“.

Now Hope Not Hate is taking a similarly principled stance, against the Mein Kampf-enthusiast, Hitler-admiring, the-sea-is-too-good-for-the-Jews and Belsen-was-a-gas, anti-Jewish conspiracist Gilad Atzmon.

For doing so, the Dean of Bradford is now attacking Hope Not Hate.

If the Dean of Bradford wishes to support Gilad Atzmon, and withdraw his previous comment to Hope Not Hate, he should at least do so honestly. He should acknowledge why and how, he has changed his mind from having “clear evidence” of Atzmon’s racism, to having “no clear evidence” of this.

He should not accuse Hope Not Hate of misrepresenting his words, and he should apologise for assisting Gilad Atzmon’s racist campaign against Hope Not Hate.

If the Dean of Bradford makes no further comment on this matter, then the Bishop of Bradford should definitely make a statement, acknowledging the vital anti-racist work of Hope Not Hate, the continuing dangers of racism and fascism – including antisemitism, and the unsatisfactory way in which the Dean of Bradford has spoken of Hope Not Hate in recent days.

Gilad Atzmon is now reporting:

Acording to Bradford activists, the following wil be distributed ahead of my Bradford concert

http://friendsofgilad.wordpress.com

Once again, the unholy alliance of Zionists and Islamophobes which has been trying to stop Gilad Atzmon playing his saxophone in Bradfordhas shot itself in the foot. Not content with misquoting and misrepresenting Atzmon’s analysis of his own Jewish identity, it has now stooped to similar tactics, aimed at a senior Anglican clergyman at the city’s Cathedral.

On November 22, Nick Lowles’ misnamed “Hope Not Hate” website – which would better be called Lies Not Truth – proclaimed: “Dean of Bradford calls for Atzmon’s invite to be withdrawn.” This was a lie.

Immediately Lowles’ claim was drawn to the Dean’s attention, he denied it. He said that he had become aware of the controversial nature, not only of Gilad Atzmon, but also “of the statements made about him”. The Dean has confirmed that he had asked those who had contacted him to provide proper evidence of anti-Semitism by Mr Atzmon, but he says: “I received very little, some of which I could identify as being mis-reporting out of context of the kind to which Mr Atzmon [has] drawn attention.”

And a malpractice to which David Ison has now been subjected.

This is quite remarkable.

Given the way the Dean of Bradford’s name is being used in the racist Friends of Gilad campaign, the Church of England must not sit on the fence, regarding this issue.

Furthermore, given the Dean of Bradford’s public show of bad faith in Nick Lowles, it would be appropriate too, for the Bradford Diocese to offer an apology to Hope Not Hate. They should apologise swiftly, clearly, and unambiguously. One must also wonder, whether the Archbishop of York will choose to comment on this matter.

If you agree, then please share this post with others, and do contact clergy and officials within the Bradford Diocese, urging them to take appropriate action.

Read it in full, again, to remind yourself of what he said. Here is an extract:

We do not countenance or give permission for any form of racism or fascism, including anti-Semitism, to be given hospitality at Bradford Cathedral. Having asked for more information about Gilad Atzmon, it has only been in the last few days that we have received clear evidence of the nature of his public statements. In the event, the concert in the Cathedral had already been cancelled due to poor ticket sales; but it seems to be taking place in a smaller venue in Kala Sangam which is not connected with the Cathedral and over which we have no control.

“I am writing to the authorities at Kala Sangam to ensure they are aware of the issues raised by hosting a concert with this musician.

I am sorry to say that the Dean appears to have changed his position on Atzmon, completely. This is what he now says [reproduced on Atzmon's blog only]:

Raise Your Banners booked the Cathedral for a concert some months ago, but did not notify us of any controversial issues to do with any of the performers. I have become aware of the controversial nature of Gilad Atzmon and the statements made about him, since being contacted by the Council for Christians and Jews a few weeks ago. The concert was recently withdrawn from the Cathedral owing to slow ticket sales, but had the venue not changed I would have considered not allowing it to take place as, although I have had no clear evidence of anti-semitism or racism, the perception of this around Gilad Atzmon would have made it an inappropriate concert to hold in a religious building.

David Ison, the Dean of Bradford has entirely changed his position. Having first objected to Atzmon’s open antisemitism and promotion of Holocaust denial, he now does not accept that Atzmon is an antisemite and supporter of Holocaust denial.

Atzmon has published another piece which explains how David Ison came to change his mind from opposition to, to support of, Gilad Atzmon:

David Ison is clearly made of stronger stuff because today, the Dean was in touch with both a member of his congregation and myself and confirmed that he has become “aware of the controversial nature, not only of Gilad Atzmon”, but also of the statements made about Atzmon. The Dean also confirmed that he had asked those who had contacted him to provide proper evidence of anti-Semitism on the part of Mr. Atzmon, but, as he says, he “received very little, some of which I could identify as being mis-reporting out of context of the kind to which you and Mr Atzmon have drawn attention.”

So, that’s clear. David Ison was lobbied by a “member of his congregation” and by Atzmon, and now regards Atzmon’s views as being insufficient to establish his racism. The Dean apparently accepts Atzmon’s argument that, in context, his statements are not objectionable, and accuses Hope not Hate of misreporting them.

I’m sure that many of you will be unsurprised to find senior office holders in the Church of England who are relaxed about, and fail to identify racism directed against Jews. This is particularly so when theological approaches to Jews and pro-Palestinian activism collide. You will probably be aware that David Ison is reported to have said:

‘The Old Testament is a horrifying picture of genocide committed in God’s name …And genocide is now being waged in a long, slow way by Zionists against the Palestinians.’

Hope not Hate has a piece up this morning, which explains in great detail, precisely why Britain’s leading anti-racism organisation is standing firm against the racist provocateur, Gilad Atzmon. Read it in full.

In the introduction, Nick Lowles discusses the pro-Atzmon lobbying campaign which has been launched against Hope not Hate:

Our decision to ask Raise Your Banners to withdraw its invitation to Gilad Atzmon has caused a lot of controversy from his small, but very vocal, band of supporters. In all the years of writing this blog I don’t think I have received as many abusive and angry emails as I have over this issue, though it must be stressed that many of the emails are from the same two or three people.

I’m sticking to my position – namely that Gilad Atzmon flirts with Holocaust Denial, has supported Holocaust Deniers and is a racist antisemite. I will not be bullied or threatened into silence. HOPE not hate stands for decency, tolerance and equality. I will speak up against racism and antisemtism just as I will campaign against fascism and anti-Muslim prejudice.

Gilad Atzmon supports Holocaust deniers and claims that the established history of the Holocaust is misleading. He attacks Jewish identity in a way that would clearly be recognised as racist if it were about any other minority identity, and claims that because of how Jews behave, in the future people might think Hitler was right about Jews. He tells crude antisemitic jokes and mocks any concerns about antisemitism.

Much of the criticism against our position stems from those who believe that we are part of some Zionist plot which seeks to silence criticism of Israel. Nothing can be further from the truth. To me, this has nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict but merely opposition to a man who makes racist and antisemtic comments.

If David Irving or Nick Griffin voiced Atzmon’s opinions then the Left would be up in arms – and rightly so. Virtually no-one on the left supports Atzmon though most prefer to stay silent than speak out publicly. Even the most strident anti-Zionist Jews in Britain believe Atzmon is antisemitic. The Socialist Workers Party, who used to have an association with Atzmon, have long since distanced themselves from him and even the leadership of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign have let it be known in the last few days that they want no public connection with him.

I, however, am not going to stay silent. Wrong is wrong, from whatever quarter it comes from.

Now, excuse me for engaging in a little speculation.

There is a Palestine Solidiarity Campaign activist called Karl Dallas who is also one of the performers at Raise Your Banners. You can read about him here.

Karl Dallas has come out strongly in support of Gilad Atzmon. He writes on Twitter:

Extraordinary Zionist virulence twds Raise Your Banners, Bradford, cos we’ve invited anti-Zionist Israeli jazzman Gilad Atzmon to play Fri.

As The CST points out:

The “extraordinary Zionist virulence” has been from many places: including local trade unionists, anti-racists, the mainstream Jewish community, and Jewish anti-Zionist groups. The concerns were not about anti-Zionism, nor premised upon the Zionist identity of the complainants.

This use of the word ’Zionist’ is the kind of stupid, debased, self-serving language that you get after so many decades of fervid distrust and hatred against the mythical Zionist bogeyman. If veteran Jewish anti-Zionists – some of whom have likely campaigned against Israel even at the expense of their own familial relationships – are now to also be branded as Zionists, then we have reached (yet) another absurd new low.

I cannot be certain, but I think it likely that Karl Dallas played a role in getting the Dean of Bradford to attack Hope not Hate and to defend Gilad Atzmon. Perhaps he was the “member of his congregation” to whom Atzmon refers. Karl Dallas organises something he calls the Church of Liberation (also here).

Karl Dallas was the very first person to report the Dean’s change of position, well before Atzmon published the Dean’s second statement. Here is his Twitter announcement:

Statements that Dean of Bradford Cathedral has called for Gilad Atzmon concert to be cancelled are UNTRUE.

That announcement went up at 12 noon. Atzmon posted the full statement at 2 pm.

If that’s right, we’re seeing a PSC organiser persuading a senior Anglican churchman to attack a leading anti-racist campaigner in order to defend an outspoken antisemite.

That’s pretty unimpressive.