March 05, 2018

Strange Days on Twitter and off Facebook

It's been a strange few days on Twitter and now on Facebook and messenger.  I had three little, mostly unprovoked, (by me anyway) skirmishes with fairly high profile Zionists.

It started when I browsed some tweets by Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust, a Zionist group owned by Gerald Ronson.  One of his tweets claimed, wrongly, that Tony Greenstein had been expelled by the Labour Party for antisemitism.  The party claimed it was expelling him for "abusive behaviour".  It was well known that they could not make the charge of antisemitism stick.  Even the Times and Telegraph had to humiliatingly withdraw their own false allegations against Tony Greenstein.

Anyway, never one to let the truth get in the way of his struggle to avoid getting a proper job, Dave Rich tweeted as follows:
I QRTd as follows:

Hold this thought.  My tweet is in what I would call a casual factual style, ie, no anger expressed here.

And this is where the spookiness comes in. Simon Myerson QC, a Zionist troll, QRTd thus:
Now Simon Myerson QC really isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. He is mostly an embarrassment to the more genteel in the Zionist movement. He certainly embarrassed a fellow Zionist with his own grotesque antisemitic joke once as you will see.  He also shamelessly uses a Nazi yellow star with the word, Jude, on it as an avatar.  But every point he made was so wrong, I was sure I must be missing something. Could he really be so stupid or so dishonest? The short answer, I now know, is yes.

I thought he must be saying that I am accusing the Labour Party of not simply tolerating racism but actively promoting it. They are tolerating it as the presence of Labour Friends of Israel and so-called Jewish Labour Movement prove.  They are both racist groups supporting Jewish or filtered white supremacy in occupied Palestine.  He also seemed to be saying that Jews sans frontieres is an organisation.  It's my Twitter account and blog. Further he was saying that we (that is I) were not Jewish. It appears now he was saying all of those wrong things, but unlike Dave Rich who has to get stuff wrong to justify his salary, this Myerson guy makes his living out of conveyancing, so smearing people for the sake of the racist war criminals of the State of Israel is his hobby.

Because I could not believe that even a man who makes deliberate wrongness a virtue could not get every one of three points so completely wrong I asked him what he was talking about:


Ok, hold another thought.  This was fairly though not entirely polite, fairly casual and again not the slightest bit angry.

Someone called Harry Tuttle came to the thread to vent my original suspicion:

Myerson broke the thread by QRTing my question rather than doing a straight reply. It was accidentally a smart move because his next tweet just clarified that he had been utterly wrong in his previous tweet:

Ok so he really was saying that I am not Jewish and I am more than just me.  At the same time the idiot was calling me stupid.  How could I know how stupid a QC could be?

Then there was a bit of a strange distraction.  A woman called Liz McCann wandered into the thread.  Liz describes herself on Twitter thus: Labour. Remain. Loves and supports the LGBT community. Often exasperated. Always angry. [emphasis added]. Look:



Here's her thought out contribution, though G-d knows what she was thinking:

She made another couple of fatuous (is that the word?) comments before claiming that she didn't like people being rude to Jews. Actually by then it was only Simon Myerson and her who had been rude to any Jews on that thread unless she thinks me correcting Dave Rich's deliberate falsehood was rude.  I suppose her tweets could be evidence of her being "always angry".  Again, hold that thought.

At some point I rattled the cage of a man who tried to be Zionism's Mr Nice when he described the mainstream Zionists who brought the disastrous FUCU case as "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars". It wasn't quite his own coinage but it was his summation of the main conclusion.  His name is Adam Wagner and somehow he manages to be a Zionist and a human rights lawyer though he has more recently ditched his Mr Nice ambitions. How much balls can one man juggle?

Adam is quietly clever, far more quiet and far more clever than Myerson.  He didn't approve when Myerson cracked an ugly, literally ugly antisemitic joke (see the next tweet), he almost certainly disapproves of his abuse of the Jude badge, and Wagner heartily disapproves of the sheer dishonesty of the likes of Newmark whilst Myerson prefers the "nothing to see here" approach.  They are as different as Blair and Bush and yet they are also as similar as both in the same way.  They both want something they cannot honestly justify.

So here it is in tweet form:

So this presented Adam Wagner with a little local difficulty.  He knows Myerson is an embarrassing berk but he can't take being used by the wrong kind of Jew, me, against the Right kind Jew, Myerson, lying down. So in he comes with a vacuous putdown based on nothing other than he wants to stay onside with the racist movement he belongs to.  It's the Zionist movement but Adam calls it The Jewish Community - capital C, N/B. He made an issue of my not posting in my own name.  A human rights lawyer might believe that I was simply trying to protect my personal safety but what he definitely should have done before tweeting this:

was ask me my name. Of course, the arguments, facts, etc, were/are more important than the identities so his tweet was a cop-out on every level and he managed to get worse with each interaction.

I hope you held those thoughts about anger because in the same thread where a QC who trivialises the holocaust with his avatar, proactively insults his fellow Jews for having the wrong politics and where a self-styled Ms Angry really did get angry, Adam Wagner's parting shot was this (and I know he is too sophisticated not to be embarrassed by it)

A barrister puts two questions in a tweet. I did respond by expressing bewilderment at what was his second bogus allegation. I wasn't sharp enough to notice that bereft of a case for his politics he had to invent a stylistic point over substance.  But having invented an issue and asking two silly questions he then scarpered.  But this is what support for racist ideology does to people. A human rights barrister has to play the fool rather than make an argument. He didn't even have the decency to be intellectually dishonest.  Nope, he was just an idiot and he will remain so as long as Zionism dominates mainstream Jewish communal, not Communal, life.

Oh yes, Simon Myerson came back to the thread to show he had been researching me.  He found a post about me by a Paul Bogdanor who once threatened me over my online presence. But what has spooked me just a tad is since tweeting to Adam Wagner that my name is Mark Elf, my Facebook account has apparently registered suspicious activity so it has been blocked by Facebook. I can't access it and I have no idea what the activity was.  I only used it as my only means of communicating with a homeless Roma woman who I was helping out.  Thankfully, I saw her today and we've established another way to communicate.

But all of the above is not all of the strangeness of my weekend online.  Apparently the Jewish Chronicle website crashed but I was reading an article about Jeremy Newmark and tried to access another and I thought it had been temporarily pulled.  I found the article in google cache and blogged it "pending its restoration to its rightful place on the JC website". I tweeted a link to my post as I usually do and none other than Stephen Pollard comes along to call me a desperate conspiracist or some such.  I countered, that I had twice mentioned that the disappearance of the piece was "probably innocent" but no apology or acknowledgment was forthcoming.  Rather he took exception to another tweet of mine suggesting that the JC was supporting Jon Lansman in his bid to become an even bigger disaster for the left than he has been hitherto.

Please read the article. It is absolutely gushing about Lansman while elsewhere, Jennie Formby is being smeared as an antisemite for which read either an anti-Zionist or an Israel critic or possibly a BDS supporter or maybe even just not Jon Lansman.

So what happened this weekend?  I got mauled by three dead sheep on Twitter, I've been falsely accused of anger issues, lacking intelligence, lacking integrity, oh yeah, accused of conspiracism and I've lost access to my Facebook account.  Ah well, I've still got a kettle and a bed.

Goodnight

March 02, 2018

Marcus Dysch article on Jeremy Newmark disappears from JC website

It's probably an innocent thing but I just tried this Jewish Chronicle link to an article headed, Jeremy Newmark urged to step down as local councillor and I got this:



I always find the JC and Dysch suspect but as I said, it's probably an innocent and google of course has its cache which is here but won't be for long.  So here is that article in full pending its restoration to its rightful place on the JC website:

Jeremy Newmark urged to step down as local councillor

Mr Newmark was advised to “step back” from his role as leader of the Labour group on Hertsmere Borough Council by the authority’s Conservative leader during a meeting in Borehamwood

March 1, 2018


Jeremy Newmark has been urged to stand down as a local councillor following revelations about the circumstances of his departure from the Jewish Leadership Council.
Mr Newmark was advised to “step back” from his role as leader of the Labour group on Hertsmere Borough Council by the authority’s Conservative leader during a meeting in Borehamwood last night.
Morris Bright said Mr Newmark should show “the same deference” to the council that he had paid to the Jewish Labour Movement, from which he resigned as chairman. Doing so would allow him to “defend himself and his reputation”, Mr Bright suggested.
The council leader told a full meeting of the authority that he had been contacted by local residents asking “what the council is intending to do about this matter”.
He revealed he had met Mr Newmark in the days after the publication of allegations dating back to 2013 when Mr Newmark was chief executive of the JLC.
Mr Bright said: “Cllr Newmark was accompanied by councillor Rebecca Butler to the meeting. We spoke openly about the allegations made against Cllr Newmark by a national newspaper.
“I expressed the concern that was being expressed to me around the headlines and stories in the Jewish Chronicle, the Times and other media outlets.
“Cllr Newmark said the claims were ‘largely unfounded’ and ‘largely untrue’ and some were completely false.
“I explained that I was not forming a judgement as to any guilt and that everyone has a right to defend themselves, their name and their reputation.”
Mr Newmark has denied that he misused JLC funds or claimed inappropriate expenses. He resigned as chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement the day after the story broke in February and has made no public comments since issuing a denial to the JC.
Mr Bright added: “Let me repeat here in this chamber and on the webcast what I said to Cllr Newmark at that meeting; and let me be very clear about this… that neither I nor the anyone in my group are implying any guilt on his part at all.
“It is felt though both by my group and by residents who have communicated with me that he should, as indicated by the JLM, allow himself the time and space to attempt in a clear and individual way to seek redress and to clear his name.
“I made this request in person and in writing. I hope now that Cllr Newmark has had time for reflection since we first spoke about this some weeks ago.
“It is appropriate now for him to do the honourable thing and step back from Hertsmere, at what I know must be a difficult personal time for him.
“And I personally wish him well in his efforts to seek to clear his name of these serious allegations.”
Mr Newmark attended the council meeting and spoke after Mr Bright, but did not respond directly to his remarks. It is thought it was his first public appearance since the JC’s revelations last month.

January 06, 2018

From Muslim Liberal to JudeoNazi: The Very Strange Case of Shadman Zaman

I wasn't entirely surprised to see Jonathan Hoffman upping his antics from disruptive to borderline violent but I had never heard of the man, Middle East Monitor was describing as the ring leader of a fascistic attack on a public video documentary showing on Palestine at SOAS just recently.

Here's the video:




The chap who seemed to be saying that the speakers at the meeting were trying to hide the fact that the Sinai desert was no longer occupied by Israel is called Shadman Zaman.  I googled his name and, in spite of the odyssey he describes on the Ilford Synagogue website here, he seems to have been quite sympathetic to the Palestinian cause only three years or so ago if a Twitter account I believe to be his is anything to go by.

But first, take a look at how he describes his "journey":
Shalom! I am Shadman Zaman. I am the first Bangladeshi national in history to travel to Israel and this is my story. If the social trends are anything to go by, then I would have been an anti-Semite like most of my countrymen not someone who is on the threshold of orthodox conversion to Judaism. I would have hated Israel and thought of Israel as the root of all problems and Zionists as the controllers of the world who wanted to destroy Muslim identity. But bucking the trend, my story ended up rather differently......

The culture of Bangladesh used to encourage and indoctrinate its people in anti-Semitism from a very early age.

But my story was to be different. Being born into a very affluent family, I was brought up in a culture which promoted humanity above all else. [my emphasis] My father is a secular atheist who never followed any religion and my mother is a very liberal Muslim. My maternal grandfather, an atheist, was the first Bangladeshi Zionist and it was he who introduced me to Zionism and the greatness of Judaism. At school and in public places, I was always told to hate Jews but at home my parents and my grandpa always told me not to. They told me to read about Judaism, Zionism and Jewish history. They told me to read first and then question myself whether the hatred that the common people of Bangladesh harbour towards Jews was justified or not. As a result of my curiosity and encouragement from my parents, I read the book “A Case for Israel” by Alan Dershowitz at the age of 12. Since then I have read a lot of books on Israel and the middle east and I have no doubt that to prevent another holocaust, there has to be an independent State of Israel. In fact, on the centenary of the Balfour declaration, I believe if it had been acted upon after the First World War, 6 million Jewish lives wouldn’t have been lost. So, if Britain should apologise to anyone then it should be the Jews for backtracking on the Balfour Declaration.
The sense of entitlement is palpable even without the claim that his family's wealth makes them inherently kind and caring.

And he read his Alan Dershowitz at the age of 12.

Then what's all this on his Twitter account?  See what he tweeted during Israel's attack on Gaza back in 2014:


and this:

Here's a screengrab just in case, he goes full on Toby Young and deletes the tweets.


Anyone might change their mind but this Shadman Zaman chap doesn't want anyone to know that he changed his.  I wonder why.


November 03, 2017

Deborah Maccoby, The Jewish Chronicle and a Smoked Salmon Beigel. Is it Friday already?

Aha!  Deborah Maccoby has reappeared on the Jewish Chronicle website letters page.  I blogged about her letter's appearance and disappearance from the JC website a few days ago.   Here's the letter again:

About free speech

In his Holocaust Education Trust dinner speech (The scourge of antisemitism is changing form, JC, October 20 2017) Andrew Neil erroneously cited the Free Speech on Israel fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference: “the chair of the meeting asked: ‘We demand the right to debate ‘Holocaust: yes or no’”.
The chair of the meeting, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, made no mention of the Holocaust. The guest speaker, Miko Peled, an Israeli-American who is not a member of the Labour Party, said: “This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum. There should be no limits on the discussion”.
Peled was defining free speech as a principle, not calling for a Labour Party debate about whether or not the Holocaust happened, as was implied by Mr Neil.
Later in his speech, Andrew Neil quoted Mark Twain: “the truth has barely got its boots on before a lie is halfway round the world”.  Exactly. 

Deborah Maccoby, 
Leeds LS17
Apparently what happens at the JC is, on Thursday night the JC print editions get delivered to shops and houses up and down the country.  The date on it is the Friday not the Thursday.  The letters are then loaded onto the website on the Friday bearing that Friday's date and the letters which by now then have all appeared in the print edition.  Well Deborah Maccoby's letter was reproduced in error on the website before it has appeared in print.  Now it is possible that someone at the JC wanted it printed while someone else wanted it pulled but let's just assume that the JC did intend to publish it in today's print edition but published in error on line last week then pulled it and now is pushing it again.

Oi! Now I have to go to Gants Hill to get a smoked salmon beigel and a print copy of the JC.  I'll snap the letters page and post the pic here so watch this space.....

Meanwhile, have a beigel....


UPDATE:

Ok, I had my beigel and two twisted Danishes and bought my JC, £2.50 (ouch!) and here is Deborah's letter taking a good old swipe at Andrew Neil, Orange monster, Tory and Zionist:



Sorry, I'm not very good at that edit malarkey but well done to the JC for publishing a letter completely out of kilter with their standard Zionist fare.

October 30, 2017

Is Corbyn Embarrassing Corbyn or the Zionist "Glitterati"?

I just noticed a Marcus Dysch article in the print edition of the Jewish Chronicle headlined, "Yet again, Corbyn has embarrassed himself".  I googled those very words out of quotes to see if the piece is on line and, yes, it is.  Here's the search, Yet again, Corbyn has embarrassed himself.  And top of the list is Dysch's article.  It's a gripe about Jeremy Corbyn refusing to attend the Balfour Declaration celebratory dinner.
It was, of course, an open secret among communal leaders that Jeremy Corbyn was unlikely to accept their invitation to next week’s gala Balfour Declaration centenary dinner.
The Labour leader, with decades of anti-Israel campaigning under his belt, was never going to sit alongside the country’s glitterati — its political, social, religious, diplomatic and charity leaders — for the slap-up meal.
When the invitations went out, I was told by a senior Jewish Leadership Council figure that no pressure would be put on Mr Corbyn to turn up, nor would a fuss be made if he declined.
After the past two years of trials and tribulations between the Labour chief and the community, there was no desire to cause embarrassment, or a major row, on either side. 
As my source predicted, Emily Thornberry will represent Labour, although the Leader of the Opposition’s office failed to live up to the other part of the prophecy and blame a diary clash, offering instead no explanation for his absence.
So there was a muted response beyond Jonathan Goldstein saying it was “deeply unfortunate” and Hamas welcoming the news.
Let’s be honest, few friends of Israel will have wanted Mr Corbyn there. But it is the principle that counts.
Ms Thornberry filling in for Mr Corbyn at a Labour Friends of Israel reception at the party conference last month brought ridicule on them both when she claimed he was preparing for his speech but everyone knew he was out partying.
For the Labour leader now to avoid this major event sends another clear message, and shames his party. 
If Mr Corbyn wants to be Prime Minister, he needs first to learn how to be a statesman. The great offices of our nation demand more than former backbenchers still clinging to personal grievances.
What's noticeable about the piece is the sheer arrogance it oozes.  The "country's glitterati" are to celebrate handing Palestine on a platter to the Zionist movement.  Seniors of the Jewish Leadershio Council decided, "no pressure would be  put on Mr Corbyn to turn up, nor would a fuss be made if he declined."  Well that's very big of the big wigs and Mr Corbyn didn't even have the decency to invent an excuse for refusing to celebrate the UK's and Israel's imperial past and present.

But the google search threw up other finds too including the words Corbyn and something with embarrass as its root.  A debate between Corbyn and Owen Smith in the second Labour leadership contest had a LabourList article asking, Was Corbyn "an embarrassment" or did he carry himself "with dignity"?  Of course we now know he carried himself with enough dignity to win the contest.  That was last year, 2016.

The next article in the search with the word "embarrassment" in it was one in the Telegraph.  The word "embarrassment" used regarding his wife's coffee business.  Nothing to do with him and anyway, that was back in 2015.

Next up we have Huffington Post finding "Ex-Jeremy Corbyn Supporters" who "Are 'Embarrassed' They Voted For Him".  That was before the second leadership bid.  2016 again.  I wonder how embarrassed they are now he came close to winning the general election this year.

The list on the google page goes on.  The fact is, Marcus Dysch's arrogance is misplaced.  Corbyn has not embarrassed himself at all.  He has shown himself to be in a position to embarrass the Zionist movement which is precisely why these Zionist "glitterati" aren't making a fuss about the second slap in the face Corbyn has dealt them since refusing to attend a Labour Friends of Israel rally at the recent Labour Party Conference 2017 in Brighton.

So is Corbyn embarrassing Corbyn or is Corbyn embarrassing the Zionist "glitteratti"  You might want to ask or tell Marcus Dysch of the Jewish Chronicle.  I can't ask or tell him on Twitter because he's blocked me.




October 29, 2017

Jewish Chronicle's Maccoby Mystery Suspense

If you read my previous post, you'll know the basic plot.  The Jewish Chronicle published on its website a crop of letters from the print edition.  As it happens, I can now see the plot - which was in my mind mostly - unravelling as I write this.  Well they listed the correspondents in the sub-heading and printed out the letters, including one from Deborah Maccoby.  Well, the next day on the same page, Deborah's name had gone from the sub-heading and so had her letter from the page.

I found the original page on Google cache, did my previous post and tweeted thus:
And the Jewish Chronicle tweeted their reply thus:

What that meant was that the print edition of the JC which most people get on Friday carried all the letters published on line on that day, 27 October 2017, but not Deborah's.

Deborah's local JC stockist didn't get their copies on Friday and she still hasn't seen it.  "My" copy is a typical JC and it passes through many family member hands before it reaches my pair.  In fact, I was reduced to buying the blooming thing for the first time since my mother died last year.

And what do you know?

Look at the blurry pic I just took.


I think you can make out the names.  They are:

Jeff Lewis
Avi Moshe
Neville Landau
Josephine Bacon
Rabbi Gideon Schulman
Tony Adler
Barbara Epstein
Bryan Diamond
Neville Goldschneider
Professor Geoffrey Alderman

Now this is where the plot gets a bit thicker.  Let's have a look at the first manifestation of the JC letters webpage:


See the names of the correspondents? Jeff Lewis, Avi Moshe, Neville Landau, Josephine Bacon, Rabbi Gideon Schulman, Tony Adler, Barbara Epstein, Bryan Diamond, Neville Goldschneider and Deborah Maccoby.

And after the "correction":


See the names?  Jeff Lewis, Avi Moshe, Neville Landau, Josephine Bacon, Rabbi Gideon Schulman, Tony Adler, Barbara Epstein, Bryan Diamond and Neville Goldschneider.

Now this chimes with what the JC said in their tweet.  You see?  Deborah Maccoby's letter wasn't published in Friday's print edition.  But scroll back up and see Professor Geoffrey Alderman in the print edition but not the webpage.  More mystery.  What happened to the Professor?

But back to Deborah.  According to Deborah, she sent the letter in good time for publication in last Friday's edition so if it was going to be published she would have expected it to be published then.  Now the JC, via its tweet, seems to saying that her letter is going to be in this Friday's edition.  Before I saw the last print edition today I had assumed Deborah's letter was in that one.  So now, if the JC, is saying that Deborah's letter is pegged to go into the edition of  Friday 3 November we can expect to see the letter in print on that day and on line on the same day.

In the meantime. let's see that letter again in case it does another disappear:

About free speech

In his Holocaust Education Trust dinner speech ( “The scourge of antisemitism is changing form”, JC, October 20 2017) Andrew Neil erroneously cited the Free Speech on Israel fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference: “the chair of the meeting asked: ‘We demand the right to debate ‘Holocaust: yes or no’”.

The chair of the meeting, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, made no mention of the Holocaust.  The guest speaker, Miko Peled, an Israeli-American who is not a member of the Labour Party, said:

“This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum.  There should be no limits on the discussion”.

Peled was defining free speech as a principle, not calling for a Labour Party debate about whether or not the Holocaust happened, as was implied by Mr Neil.

Later in his speech, Andrew Neil quoted Mark Twain: “the truth has barely got its boots on before a lie is halfway round the world”.  Exactly. 

Deborah Maccoby, 
Leeds LS17

I must say, I'm still puzzled about Professor Geoffrey Alderman.  Why didn't his letter appear on line?

Spot the difference as the Jewish Chronicle removes a published letter from its website

My friend Deborah Maccoby had a letter published in the Jewish Chronicle last week which read as follows:

About free speech

In his Holocaust Education Trust dinner speech ( “The scourge of antisemitism is changing form”, JC, October 20 2017) Andrew Neil erroneously cited the Free Speech on Israel fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference: “the chair of the meeting asked: ‘We demand the right to debate ‘Holocaust: yes or no’”.

The chair of the meeting, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, made no mention of the Holocaust.  The guest speaker, Miko Peled, an Israeli-American who is not a member of the Labour Party, said:

“This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum.  There should be no limits on the discussion”.

Peled was defining free speech as a principle, not calling for a Labour Party debate about whether or not the Holocaust happened, as was implied by Mr Neil.

Later in his speech, Andrew Neil quoted Mark Twain: “the truth has barely got its boots on before a lie is halfway round the world”.  Exactly. 

Deborah Maccoby, 
Leeds LS17
The link to the letter was here.   Clicking on the link though, you will not now find the letter.  Thanks to Google cache I know that you would have seen the letter if you'd have clicked the link between some time on 27 Oct 2017 and roughly "28 Oct 2017 02:46:01 GMT".  But now, sadly it's gone.

It's a real shame because I tweeted the link and it got several retweets and likes:
The removal of Deborah's letter from the webpage involved significant changes to the page's appearance. Look, here it is before:


Obviously, scrolling down you would see the letter, which fortunately still appears in Google cache together with the link to the Andrew Neil article which Deborah was criticising.

And here's the page after the letter was removed:

I can't help wondering if Andrew Neil (on Twitter as @afneil) asked @StephenPollard to have the letter removed.  But whatever or whoever caused Deborah Maccoby's published letter to be removed from the Jewish Chronicle, thanks to Google cache and to me everyone can see the letter and everyone can see that it has been removed.

Who knows?  Maybe the Jewish Chronicle will restore the page to its original splendour.

October 16, 2017

Fake Twitter Account Alert

I got a tweet just yesterday purporting to support my own tweet and Ken Loach.  It was clearly antisemitic.  Here it is:
I wasn't sure what to do at first.  I checked the account and saw there were 4 of my mutual followers (ie I follow them and they follow me) and I alerted them by DM.  Two unfollowed, the other two don't seem to check their accounts regularly.  All four seem to routinely follow the accounts that follow them and this fake account only intersperses tweets with antisemitism.

Here's a screengrab of terry45336188's account:



One of the people who did respond to my DM said that a lot of these bogus accounts use 8 numerics after a name as this terry45336188 did.

I noticed that the account "joined April 2012".  So it appears it wasn't founded specifically to undermine Corbyn but it is definitely a bogus account.

Moral of the story, never just follow an account because it follows you, always scan the profile and a few tweets of an  account you are liking, retweeting or following.  Sorry to come across as censorious but Zionists are jumping through hoops to smear their critics, opponents and victims as antisemitic.  This is all they have because there is, of course, no case for Israel.  Their claims are getting increasingly desperate and ludicrous but they are still space and time consuming so a little bit of due diligence can stop these time and space wasters, er, wasting time and space. N'est pas?

Thank you!

PS: I just checked the account again and I am blocked.  They're determined, these people. Can they be a genuine Corbyn supporter and an antisemite?  It's very doubtful.  If they were sincere in their antisemitism they would surely have remonstrated with me to persuade me that antisemitism is ok.  If they didn't realise that slagging off Jews qua Jews is antisemitic then still they might have put an argument together or simply apologised having seen the error of their ways.  But instead of that, I get this:


I looked at their account with another account of mine and they're just as shrill but there was nothing explicitly antisemitic but he really wants an endorsement from Ken Loach.  See this:




And this:


Don't these Jew haters just love Ken Loach, the high profile anti-Zionist, Zionists have had in their cross hairs since the Labour Party Conference.  Coincidence?  I don't think so.....

Another Letter by Loach, Another Lie by Rich

Ken Loach has had a letter published in the New York Times refuting demonstrably false claims made about him by Howard Jacobson.

Here's the letter:
To the Editor:
Re: “Now Labour is the Enemy of the Jews,” (front page, Oct. 7-8):
Howard Jacobson alleges that I defended questioning the Holocaust. I did not and do not. In a confused BBC interview, where question and answer overlapped, my words were twisted to give a meaning contrary to that intended. The Holocaust is as real a historical event as World War II itself and not to be challenged. In Primo Levi’s words: “Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it.”
Exaggerated or false charges of anti-Semitism have coincided with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Discredit his supporters, and you weaken his leadership. The Jewish Socialist Group wrote: “accusations of anti-Semitism are being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.”
We will not be intimidated. The Labour Party will continue to assert “the values of peace, universal rights and International law” as proclaimed in its manifesto.
KEN LOACH
LONDON
And here's what he was refuting:
In a moment that will live in infamy, the distinguished film director Ken Loach defended questioning the Holocaust. “I think history is for all of us to discuss,” he said, dodging the question of why the Labour Party should have chosen the Holocaust, of all historical events — and not slavery, say — to subject to scrutiny. 
But the defaming of Ken Loach didn't start with Howard Jacobson and didn't end with him either.  Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust thought he detected a claim of victimhood in Loach's letter.  He tweeted:
I immediately knew he was lying but I was pleased Ken Loach had another chance to answer his slanderers so I followed the link and word searched "victim".  Obviously, you don't have to use the word "victim" to claim to be one.  But on reading the letter and re-reading it, there was nothing there to suggest that he was claiming that he was a victim.  Scroll back up.  See what he wrote.  Any sign of self-pity?  This is a guy who supports the Palestinian cause.  It's inconceivable that he would claim victim status when the only reason he's being smeared is because he supports the cause of a victimised nation.  Of course, Ken Loach has been victimised but I think he has enough self-awareness to refrain from complaining about it.  He was simply setting the record straight.

So did he write anything at all that could be construed as claiming victimhood?  Let's take it line by line.
1.   Howard Jacobson alleges that I defended questioning the Holocaust.
Nothing there.
2.  I did not and do not.  
Nope, not there.
3.   In a confused BBC interview, where question and answer overlapped, my words were twisted to give a meaning contrary to that intended. 
 Nor there.
4.   The Holocaust is as real a historical event as World War II itself and not to be challenged.
Hmm, nothing in that line about Ken at all.  I'm starting to think Dave Rich made this up.  Surely there was a kernel of truth, as Goebbels used to say.  Let's keep looking:
5.   In Primo Levi’s words: “Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it.”
Aha!  Now I could give Dave a bit of a pass here and say that he might have thought that in agreeing with Primo Levi, Loach was actually likening himself to Levi.  See if he tries that one.  It would be all he's got because, well, let's see some more...
6.   Exaggerated or false charges of anti-Semitism have coincided with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader.
Nope, that's about Corbyn, not Ken.
7.   Discredit his supporters, and you weaken his leadership. 
Again. mostly about the leadership but also about the supporters.  Discrediting isn't necessarily victimising.  Dave to me is an utterly discredited figure.  He's hardly a victim.
8.   The Jewish Socialist Group wrote: “accusations of anti-Semitism are being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.”
Now that's not a claim of victimhood, in fact it looks like Dave's job description.

Ok, to the final paragraph and what have we here?
9.   We will not be intimidated.
What we have here is a flat contradiction of what Dave Rich is claiming Ken Loach said.  What's extremely concerning is that Dave was so confident that his followers would "agree" with him, he even helpfully provided the link to the letter that he so flagrantly lied about.  If you look at the tweet, look at the replies too.  Last I checked I was the only one pointing out that Dave was misrepresenting what Ken Loach had said.

So to the last line:
10.  The Labour Party will continue to assert “the values of peace, universal rights and International law” as proclaimed in its manifesto.
And so we see, er, nothing to see.  And that is Dave Rich, one of the UK's most prominent antisemitism hunters.

But I did say in the headline, "Another Lie by Rich". So what else have we.  How far before yesterday do we have to go.  Well, the day before yesterday.  Really.  Check out this exchange between Rich and Jamie Stern-WeinerHere's a tweet that sums up the whole thing but there's a whole thread above and below it:
And from exactly one year ago, here's Dave smearing Jonathan Rosenhead of  Free Speech on Israel.

And here's what he was referring to on Free Speech on Israel:
It is impossible to know from the outside exactly what and who have made this moral panic [the antisemitism smear campaign] go with such a swing. Key individuals may well be Jeremy Newmark, well-placed in JLM, though only just in time, to fan these flames. The wily Mark Regev took up his post as Israeli ambassador in London at the start of April. In July Ella Rose left her job as public affairs officer at the Israeli Embassy to become Director of JLM. Who knows? Organisationally, judging by their public pronouncements there is an at least informal coalition of forces involving JLM, Progress (the Blairite pressure group), and Labour Friends of Israel which have all been promoting the idea that the left is permeated with antisemitism.
 See that?  Dave was clever here. He put the word "wily" in quotes but not the word "Jews".  So he could, and did, claim that he wasn't actually misquoting.  Again check out the thread.

And this is Dave Rich's job and, apparently his hobby too.

Dave Rich is just one player in this annoying and damaging game.  He's not a particularly bright one by any means, in fact, a sure sign that Rosenhead wasn't generalising about wily Jews is that, whilst many of the merchants of smear can be justly accused of fabrication, Dave Rich and many others can never be accused of being wily.

September 28, 2017

Misappropriation of Del Singh Memorial award by Zionists casts shadow over good Labour Conference for Palestine

All in all Palestine had a good Labour Party Conference 2017.  Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi and Leah Levane both swatted away 2 years worth of false allegations of antisemitism here and here, and Free Speech on Israel had a fringe meeting that was so successful Zionists had to stoop to falsely accusing them of Holocaust denial.

The Holocaust denial thing was just one of the false allegations of antisemitism directed mostly at Jews at the conference.  But one thing that marred the mostly triumphant return of Palestine to the centre of the left's (left of centre? No, centre of left) consciousness and activism was the granting of the Del Singh Memorial Award to the Zionist, so-called Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), led by the notorious liar and smear merchant, Jeremy Newmark.

See the home page of the Del Singh Foundation to see where Del Singh stood on Palestine:
Del Singh Foundation was created in January of 2014 immediately following Del’s tragic and untimely death in Kabul, Afghanistan while working with the British Department of International Development. Del dedicated his life to fighting for human rights across the world and sought justice for those whose voice could not be heard. He channelled his passion in to every project he was involved in, from his international development work to supporting local community projects at home. His vision, moral courage and fortitude helped Labour Friends of Palestine (LFPME), a human rights group that Del helped to found, become an organization that could champion the cause for justice for Palestine more effectively within the UK parliament.
See Del Singh's family statement on the misappropriation of the award by the combined efforts, it seems, of Iain McNicol (rightist Labour apparatchik) and JLM:


This is how the Jewish Chronicle reported on the family's dismay at the award going to people who supporters of the racist state that barred Del Singh from entry (that's Israel of course):
The family of a murdered Labour activist is demanding an apology from the Labour Party for having given an award named after him to the Jewish Labour Movement, saying the award should be withdrawn.
It concludes quotes from Del Singh's family:
The statement, which was made in the name of Dishi Kaur-Umfleet, the sister of Mr Singh, talked of the “exploitation and manipulation of… my brother’s name… disrespecting his memory and everything he stood for”.
 And from Jeremy Newmark:
Jeremy Newmark, the chair of the JLM, responded by saying that he “had the privilege of meeting Del Singh on a number of occasions at Labour Party meetings and events.
“Whilst we clearly had different perspectives on elements of the Middle East conflict we also had much in common on both this and other issues, including commitment to human rights, equality and social justice.  Del always talked about the importance of listening to narratives other than our own.
“It is in that spirit that we are proud to have received this award. I have communicated this to Del's family and very much hope to have the opportunity to meet with them in due course. "
"Communicated this to Del's family"?  Note the chumsy first name terms.  Also note the "communicated this to...."  Because here on Twitter is Del Singh's family:
In fairness to the most notorious liar in the Zionist movement (a lot of competition, I know) that tweet was 2 days ago but now the conference is over the family is still awaiting answers as to how the supporters of the last of the colonial settler states received an award in the name of one of the founders of Labour Friends of Palestine.
All very sad for the family for now but I do believe the award will quietly or noisily be taken away from the Zionist enemy within the Labour movement.

Oops, an apology. I had said in the first para that the inaugural meeting of Jewish Voice for Labour attracted the false allegation of Holocaust denial.  It was actually Free Speech on Israel.

September 27, 2017

So-called Jewish Labour Movement has no right to speak for me says Jewish activist Leah Levane

Wow, a video clip of a non-Zionist Jewish Labour Party activist, Leah Levane, has made it to the Telegraph Facebook page without the obligatory false allegation of antisemitism in the comment underneath.

I've captured the clip in case it does a disappear:




Don't accuse people of anti-Semitism when they criticise Israel, Leah Levane urged during the Labour Party conference.
55k Views
See that?  55,000 views.