1/4 While we're on JVL people and their defence of Ken Livingstone, this is @JonathanRosenh1:
On antisemitism from Corbynistas: "We don’t know if they are members of the Labour Party. We don’t even know if they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. If I was the Israeli government, I
would be running all sorts of false flag operations getting people to post – & they have hordes of them in Israel doing this sort of stuff on the internet – saying things which would then discredit Jeremy Corbyn."
Whilst appearing on @Presstvuk (the official arm of the Iranian
State) with Rev Stephen Sizer (ordered off social media by the Church of England after claiming that Jews were behind 9/11), “Many Jews are fearful & feel that the Labour Party is infected with antisemitism. That’s the result of the campaign by the Board of Deputies
& the Jewish Leadership Council.”
Later on, about Prevent: “Prevent is supposed to be about terrorism but it’s actually focussed on Palestine.”
These are not normative views. Nor are they truthful, or decent. @UKLabour didn't act before. It should now.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi gave evidence on behalf of Ken Livingstone at his disciplinary hearing. Here are the quotes. You probably see the difficulties & the justification for removing her from @UKLabour
If not, you need education - speak to @JewishLabour.
She said:
"I was not
remotely offended & I didn’t know what the fuss was. I probably wouldn’t have put it that way but I have myself looked at the history. I’m aware of this very controversial historical record of Zionist leaders making approaches to leaders of the Nazi party, suggesting deals. And
in fact I’m sorry to say this but I’ve got sources here to back this up, that there was a coincidence of interest between the Zionist leadership – that’s not to say every Zionist of course – but between the Zionist leadership and the Nazi party, which wished to rid German Society
EHRC thread: 1/9
In terms of the debate on social media, the report is devastating. It demolishes every defence. It upholds the accuracy of Panorama and the complaints. It directly finds a failure of leadership.
Political interference is clear. There is no basis for asserting that this was the fault of individual employees. That is patently untrue. If Karie "I'm proud" Murphy is really proud then she is proud of this.
The Party did not take responsibility for the casual antisemitism of too many of its members on social media.
And this conduct IS antisemitism - making it clear that the sealioners and gaslighters with whom so many of us have dealt for so long are bad actors.
1/16. Regrettably it appears that @barstandards has rejected both our analysis and our offer.
Analysis first: Our analysis was that pen and paper exams, whilst they might offer another chance, were ultimately unfair. The less well off you are, and the more employed you are,
the harder it is to find time to take exams. The longer the exams are delayed, the more work is required to repeat revision. We forcefully made the point that delay equalled injustice (as ever). It now appears that what @barstandards were telling us would be September will be/
October and December. Resists will not be until spring 2021.
On the plus side, we persuaded the BSB that everyone should be able to sit. Their initial view depended on an assessment of/
As the battle against Corbyn & his followers is (almost) won - the polls show 94% of @UKLabour members are behind Starmer, the EHRC report will likely say the party was institutionally antisemitic & the Party will adopt its recommendations - the issue is how Jews deal with
1/8
the fight against antisemitism going forward.
It’s time to stop attacking each other for perceived lack of support, daring to dissent or - worst of all - being a convert. I have 5 suggestions: 1. Accept there isn’t only one answer to anything but the most basic questions.
2/8
Tolerate difference & dissent. If you disagree it doesn’t mean anyone else is wrong. Disagree on the issues. Point out you’re the vast majority. Critique the approach. But bringing in extraneous issues - gender, conversion, age, religion are a no-no. Some people hate Jews,
3/8
@PhilR_R@Mendelpol I deleted my first reply, as I don’t want a personal argument.
The problem of abuse has been going on for at least 10 years. It should not take an article in the paper by somebody who’s not a victim to prompt action.
And it’s a misrepresentation to suggest this is prompt action.
@PhilR_R@Mendelpol For far too long, the community has been deaf to victims. The contrast between the praiseworthy treatment of black members of the community, & the victims of abuse cries out for explanation.
Pretending everything has been done quickly is an abuse of trust.
@PhilR_R@Mendelpol It places organisational reputation over individuals’ suffering. It is precisely what I warned against in the article.
I agree @BoardofDeputies might not be the right organisation. But that doesn’t free it from all responsibility.
A number of key admissions stand out from the leaked report:
1 On any view, the party was mired in antisemitism. When @JVoiceLabour denied that fact, it was lying. How they could be defended by any member of the NEC is extraordinary.
2 The approach to dealing with antisemitism
was, as Panorama said, political. In its rather transparent effort to divert blame, the report makes clear the decision to bypass @JewishLabour was a political one, taken by politicians at the top. It was justified by a “need” to consult the “widest range” of organisations within
the community. That, of course, equates the tiny fraction of acquiescent Jews with the vast majority of the community. That was deliberate.
3 There is an extraordinary reliance on the religion of people making decisions. It appears the authors of the report believe a decision