The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
Even with Corbyn Gone, Antisemitism Threats Will Keep Destroying the UK Labour Party
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If there is one issue that denotes the terminal decline of Labour as a force for change – desperately needed social, economic and environmental change – it is not Brexit. It is the constant furore over an “antisemitism crisis” supposedly plaguing the party for the past five years.

The imminent departure of Jeremy Corbyn as leader will not end the damage that has been done to Labour by such claims. Soon Brexit will become a messy fait accompli. But the shadow of Labour’s so-called “antisemitism problem” will loom over it darkly for the foreseeable future, making sure that Corbyn’s successor dare not incur the same steep price for pursuing a radical political programme. The fear of being smeared as an antisemite will lead, as it was meant to do, to political and economic timidity from whoever takes on the mantle of leader.

In fact, as we shall examine in detail in a moment, the candidates for the Labour leadership are demonstrating just how cowed they already are. But first let’s recap on how we got to the current situation.

Led into a trap

Personifying the political paranoia that now grips Labour is the party’s one-time wunderkind, Owen Jones – possibly the only early champion of Corbyn in the corporate media. He used his Guardian column to fight back against the first wave of slurs – that Corbyn was unpatriotic, unstatesmanlike, a former Soviet spy, and so on.

But then, as the smears failed to inflict significant damage on Corbyn, a second line of attack was pursued. It claimed that Corbyn’s lifelong and very prominent activism as an anti-racist was in fact a cover story. Depending on who was spinning the narrative, Corbyn was either a secret Jew hater or a man who endlessly indulged antisemitism within his inner circle and in the wider party. Jones’ colleagues at the Guardian joined the rest of the corporate media mob in baying for Corbyn’s blood. Long wedded to a rigid form of identity politics, Jones was soon publicly wavering in his support for Corbyn. Then, as an election neared in 2017, he abandoned him entirely.

Unfortunately for the corporate media, the election result did not follow their shared predictions. Far from presiding over an unprecedented electoral disaster, Corbyn came within a hair’s breadth of overturning the Tory parliamentary majority. He also increased the party’s share of the vote by the largest margin of any post-war Labour leader. Jones changed his tune once again, promising to be more wary of the group-think of his corporate media colleagues. Of course, his new-found resolution soon crumbled.

Like a mouse chasing the scent of cheese, Jones headed into the trap set for him. He refused to accuse Corbyn himself of antisemitism, unlike many of his colleagues. Instead he gave his blessing each time a Labour activist was targeted as an antisemite – oftentimes, over their support for Palestinian rights.

Forced onto the back foot

As the media attacks on Labour for supposedly welcoming antisemites into the party’s ranks intensified (flying in the face of all the evidence), Jones acquiesced – either actively or through his silence – in the resulting wave of suspensions and expulsions, even of Jewish members who were hounded out for being too critical of Israel. Jones’ hands may have looked personally clean but he acted as lookout for those, like Labour MP Jess Phillips, who were determined to carry out their promise to “knife Corbyn in the front”.

Undoubtedly, the polarised debate about Brexit – and the increasingly unhinged atmosphere it produced – was the main reason Corbyn crashed in December’s election. But the confected “antisemitism row” played a very significant supporting role. The disastrous consequences of that row are still very much being felt, as Labour prepares to find a new leader.

The issue of antisemitism was probably not much of a priority for most voters, especially when the examples cited so often seemed to be about a state, Israel, rather than Jews. Nonetheless, the smears against Corbyn gradually undermined him, even among supporters.

As has been noted here and elsewhere, the antisemitism furore served chiefly as a shadow war that obscured much deeper, internal ideological divisions. Polarisation over whether Labour was convulsed by antisemitism concealed the real struggle, which was over where the party should head next and who should lead it there.

The party’s Blairite faction – supporters of the former centrist leader Tony Blair – knew that they could not win a straight fight on ideological issues against Corbyn and the hundreds of thousands of members who supported him. The Blairites’ middle-of-the-road, status-quo-embracing triangulation now found little favour with voters. But the Blairites could discredit and weaken Corbyn by highlighting an “antisemitism crisis” he had supposedly provoked in Labour by promoting Palestinian rights and refusing to cheerlead Israel, as the Blairites had always done. Identity politics, the Blairites quickly concluded, was the ground that they could weaponise against him.

As a result, Corbyn was forced endlessly on to the back foot, unable to advance popular leftwing policies because the antisemitism smears sucked all oxygen out of the room. Think of Corbyn’s interview with Andrew Neil shortly before the December election. Not only did Corbyn not get a chance to explain the party’s progressive platform to floating voters, but much worse he was forced into abandoning the very personal traits – openness, honesty, modesty – that had made him unexpectedly popular in the 2017 election. Accusations of antisemitism – like those of being a wife-beater – are impossible to face down in TV soundbites. Corbyn was left looking evasive, shifty and out of touch.

Caught in a vicious spiral


These confrontations over an “antisemitism problem” in Labour – repeated every time Corbyn gave an interview – also helped to make him look feeble. It was a winning formula: his constant apologies for a supposed “plague of antisemitism” in Labour (for which there was no evidence) suggested to voters that Corbyn was incapable of exercising control over his party. If he failed in this simple task, they concluded, how could he be trusted to deal with the complexities of running a country?

The smears isolated him within Labour too. His few prominent allies on the left, such as Ken Livingstone and Chris Williamson, were improbably picked off as anti-semites, while others went to ground for fear of being attacked too. It was this isolation that forced Corbyn to make constant and damaging compromises with the Blairites, such as agreeing to a second referendum on Brexit. And in a vicious spiral, the more he compromised, the more he looked weak, the more his polling numbers fell, the more he compromised.

All of this was happening in plain view. If the rest of us could see it, so could Owen Jones. And so, of course, could those who are now standing for election to become the next leader of the Labour party. All of them learnt the lessons they were supposed to draw from the party’s “antisemitism crisis”.

Three lessons

Lesson one: Some crises can be engineered without the need for evidence. And smears can be much more damaging than facts – at least, when the corporate media builds a consensus around them – because the fightback cannot be won or lost on the battlefield of evidence. Indeed, facts become irrelevant. It is about who has the biggest and best battalion of propagandists. And the simple truth is that the billionaires who own the corporate media can buy the most skilled propagandists and can buy the largest platforms to spread their misinformation.

Lesson two: Even if antisemitism is of peripheral interest to most voters – especially when the allegations concern contested “tropes”, often about Israel rather than Jews – claims of antisemitism can still inflict serious damage on a party and its leader. Voters judge a party leader on how they respond to such accusations, especially if they are made to look weak or untrustworthy. And as there is no good way to face down wall-to-wall accusations of antisemitism from the media, however confected, it is wise not to get drawn into this particular, unwinnable fight.

Lesson three: The British ruling class does not especially care about antisemitism, or any other form of racism. The establishment uses its power to uphold class privilege, not to promote equality, after all. But that does not mean it has no interest in antisemitism. As with its support for a more general identity politics, the ruling class knows that antisemitism has instrumental uses – it can be exploited to manipulate public discourse and deflect ordinary people from a powerful class struggle into divisive identity and culture wars. Therefore, any Labour leader who wants to engage in the politics of class struggle – a struggle against the billionaire class – is going to face not a fair fight on the terrain of their choosing but a dirty war on the terrain chosen by the billionaires.

The Board’s 10 diktats

Labour’s leadership challengers learnt those lessons so well because they watched for five years as Corbyn sank ever further into the mire of the antisemitism smears. So when the deeply Conservative (with a capital C) Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) issued a diktat to the candidates last month veiled as “10 Pledges to End the Antisemitism Crisis” they all hurried to sign up, without bothering to read the small print.

The Board’s 10 points were effectively its red lines. Overstep the mark on any one of them, the Board warned the leadership contestants, and we will lend our considerable credibility to a corporate media campaign to smear you and the party as anti-semitic. You will become Corbyn Mark II, and face the same fate.

The 10 demands have one purpose only. Once accepted, and all the candidates have accepted them, the pledges ensure that the Board – and what it defines as the Jewish community’s “main representative groups” – will enjoy an exclusive and incontestable right to decide what is antisemitic, as well as who is allowed to remain in the Labour party and who must be removed.

The pledges create a division of labour between the Board and the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), a small faction in Labour of Jews and non-Jews who are vocal advocates for Israel. First, the Board stands surety, supposedly on behalf of Britain’s Jews, for the credibility of the highly controversial redefinition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Seven of its 11 examples of antisemitism refer to Israel, not hatred of Jews. Then, the JLM’s task is to enforce the IHRA definition, identifying which party members are antisemites and determining their fate: either contrition and re-education or expulsion.

Judge and jury

The 10 Pledges are actually part of a campaign by Jewish leadership groups like the Board to pervert a well-established principle regulating investigations into racism. The Board and JLM have regularly cited the so-called Macpherson principle, derived from a judicial inquiry into the failings in the 1990s of an institutionally racist British police force as it investigated the murder of a black teenager, Stephen Lawrence.

The Guardian has been among those peddling the Board and the JLM’s mischievous reinterpretation of that principle to suggest that an incident is defined as racist if the victim perceives it to be racist. Therefore, Jews – or in this case, “representative” Jewish organisations like the Board – get to decide exclusively whether Labour has an antisemitism problem and how it manifests itself – for example, by criticising Israel.

Except that is not what Sir William Macpherson decided at all. His principle was simply that institutions like the police were under an obligation to investigate incidents as racist in nature if that is what the victim believed them to be. In other words, Macpherson called on institutions to listen to victims and to take account of the victims’ interpretation of an event.


Very obviously, he did not argue that anyone accused of racism was guilty of it, or that anyone making an accusation of racism must be believed. The accusation had to be investigated on the assumption of racism until the evidence proved whether the accusation was true or not, and whether or not it was motivated by racism.

Further, while the Macpherson principle called for the victim to be given a fair hearing about how they perceived an incident, the Board and the JLM do not want simply to be heard. The 10 Pledges demand that these organisations alone decide what is antisemitism and who is guilty – that they act as judge and jury.

And not only that.

The Board and the JLM also demand an exclusive prerogative to define antisemitism as a new kind of racism – almost unheard of a decade or more ago – that may have nothing to do with hatred or fear of Jews, as it was once defined. The Board and the JLM insist Labour adopt a patently ridiculous – and overtly antisemitic – position that treats many kinds of criticism of Israel as antisemitic because, they argue, Israel represents all Jews. An attack on Israel therefore amounts to an attack on Jews and their identity. (The Board’s argument is itself antisemitic because it requires us to hold all Jews, not just the Israeli government, responsible for Israel’s actions, including its documented war crimes against Palestinians.)

Circular proof

But the problem with the 10 Pledges runs deeper still. The intended effect of the pledges in their entirety is to create a circular, self-reinforcing proof of antisemitism against anyone who dares to disagree with the Board and the JLM. In other times, such circular proofs have been identified for what they are: as witch-hunts and McCarthyism.

The Board not only intends to silence any non-Jews who disagree with its views on antisemitism and Israel, but it also insists on denying a voice to any Jews or Jewish organisations that disagree with it. According to Pledge 8, all Jewish “fringe organisations and individuals” are denied any say on what constitutes antisemitism. Why are they “fringe”? Because they disagree with the Board of Deputies’ definition of antisemitism.

Several writers have noted that the Board’s claim to be “representative” of the “Jewish community” is entirely bogus. It can claim only to be representative of those parts of the 280,000-strong Jewish community it seeks to represent. That amounts to no more than the 56 per cent of Jewish households who belong to a synagogue. These are the most conservative elements of a wider Jewish community. Surveys show that for many years, and long before Corbyn became leader, the vast majority of this section of the Jewish community – those the Board represents – vote for the Conservative party in elections. They also identify very strongly with Israel – and seemingly whatever its does in terms of violating Palestinian rights.

The Board’s very function is to sideline the 44 per cent of Jews it does not represent – including secular, socialist and anti-Zionist Jews – as not really belonging to the “Jewish community”. It thereby silences their views. As Jo Sutton-Klein observes, “While the [Jewish organisational] establishment can’t un-Jewish any person or community, they can invalidate their Jewishness if they decide that their opinions are no longer kosher.” That is precisely what the Board has sought to achieve with its 10 Pledges.

But if the Board’s representative status is highly doubtful, the Jewish Labour Movement’s is even more so. In fact, there is plenty of evidence – including from a 2017 documentary filmed by an undercover reporter for Al Jazeera – that the JLM was a dormant organisation until 2015. As an investigation by journalist Asa Winstanley discovered, it was refounded specifically to bring down Corbyn shortly after he won the leadership election. The JLM was apparently afraid of what Corbyn’s support for the Palestinians might entail for Israel. While claiming to represent Jewish interests in the Labour party, it excludes from membership any Jews that are not Zionist – that is, enthusiastic supporters of Israel.

That should not be surprising. The JLM was originally an ideological offshoot of the Israeli Labour party, which oversaw the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland in 1948, launched the first settlements in the territories it occupied in 1967, and created a system of severe institutionalised racial discrimination against Israel’s large non-Jewish population, its Palestinian citizens. Despite proclaiming its leftwing credentials, the JLM’s ideological outlook closely mirrors the ethnic supremacist worldview of the Israeli Labour Party.

The JLM lacks transparency, but most estimates are that its membership numbers are in triple digits, even after it has allowed non-Jews and non-Labour members to join.

‘Wrong kind of Jew’

In fact, there is no reason to believe the JLM is any less fringe – and probably more so – than Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), a group of Jewish Labour party members who created the organisation to support Corbyn and counter the JLM’s claims that it spoke for Jews in the Labour party.

As I have pointed out many times before, the Board’s position that it alone gets to decide which Jews count is not only deeply ugly but also antisemitic. It dismisses a whole swath of the Jewish community as the “wrong kind of Jews”; it treats their views on the racism they face as of no value; and it strips them of any agency inside the Labour party, leaving the field clear to the JLM. Instead of a necessary dialogue within the Jewish community about what antisemitism means, the Board confers on itself the right to oppress and silence other groups of Jews who disagree with it.

There are two main reasons why the Board wishes to turn these so-called “fringe” groups into outcasts, into political pariahs. First, their very existence reminds us that this is a highly contested political debate, and one taking place inside the Jewish community, about what Jewish identity is and whether Israel has a place in that identity. But at the same time, the existence of socialist Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Labour also disrupts a narrative jointly promoted by the Board, the JLM and Labour’s Blairite faction to discredit the radical social and economic programmes of the left by entwining them with allegations of antisemitism. Severe criticism of neoliberalism, it is implied, is of a piece with severe criticism of Israel. Both are evidence of antisemitism.

The weaponising by the Board and the JLM of the Macpherson principle is easily exposed. This month Labour suspended Jo Bird reportedly over allegations of antisemitism. Bird, who is openly anti-Zionist and on the left wing of the party, had been the only Jewish candidate contesting Labour’s National Executive Committee elections. She is the latest prominent left-wing Jewish party member to have been targeted as an antisemite both for strongly criticising Israel and for challenging the Board and the JLM’s right to speak for all British Jews.

How obscene this all is may be easier to grasp if we do a small thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that a small group of black Labour party activists insist on the expulsion of other black party members as racists for their opposition to an African state accused of war crimes. Would we be comfortable with a largely white Labour party bureaucracy adjudicating as a matter of racism on what is clearly an ideological and political dispute within the black community? Would we want to condone one black group stigmatising another group as racists to silence its political arguments? And would we be happy to expel as racists white Labour party members who sided with one black group against the other in a political debate about an oppressive state?

With the witchfinders

Which brings us back to Owen Jones. Last week Asa Winstanley – the investigative reporter who has done more than anyone to expose what really lies behind the antisemitism smear campaign against Corbyn – resigned from the Labour Party. Like Jo Bird, he has found himself in hot water for questioning the antisemitism narrative promoted by the Board and the JLM. He wrote that he had given up any hope of a fair hearing from party officials who say his journalism championing justice for Palestinians and challenging the Israel lobby’s role in the Labour party amounts to antisemitism.

Jones, as ever, stood squarely with the witchfinders against Winstanley. He argued, as he has done many times before, that is possible both to fight for Palestinian rights and to fight against antisemitism.

Except Jones is plainly wrong – so long as we accede, as he has done, to the Board and the JLM’s demand that anyone who goes further than the most softball criticism of Israel must be defined either as an antisemite, like Winstanley, or as the ‘wrong kind of Jew’, like Bird.

If we are only allowed to gently chide Israel in ways that cannot meaningfully advance Palestinian rights, if we are prevented from discussing the strategies of staunchly pro-Israel lobbyists to silence Israel’s critics, if we are denied the right to push for an international boycott of Israel of the kind that helped blacks in South Africa end their own oppression, then nothing is going to change for the Palestinians. If those are the unreasonable terms imposed on us by the Board, the JLM and Owen Jones, then no, we cannot do both. We must choose.

The truth is that the support Owen Jones offers Palestinians is worthless. It is no more than virtue signalling – because it is immediately negated by his support for bodies like the JLM that actively terrorise party members, including Jewish members, into silence on crucial debates about Palestinian rights and about how we might deter Israel in future.

The reality is that, if Jewish organisations like the Board and the JLM choose to put the Israeli state as it currently exists at the very heart of their Jewish identity and make proper scrutiny of it off-limits, then they have also chosen to make themselves complicit in the oppression of the Palestinian people, made themselves opponents of peace in the Middle East, and have abetted in the erosion of international law. And if we side with them, then we become complicit too.

(Republished from Jonathan Cook by permission of author or representative)
Hide 95 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Never liked Owen Jones who is a product of the Fabian Society.
    Owens and Chakrabatti (another Fabian member) use the same style of speaking which is appealing to the young woke generation.

    The Fabian Society originated in England in 1884, with the purpose of forming a single, global socialist state. They get their name from the Roman general Fabius, who used carefully planned strategies to slowly wear down his enemies over a long period of time to obtain victory.

    “Fabian Socialism” uses incremental change over a long period of time to slowly transform a state as opposed to using violent revolution for change. It is essentially socialism by stealth, a slow march towards World Government.

  2. melpol says:

    Speaking out as a secular Jew who is not fond of Israel. But Who doesn’t find Israel as foremost being engaged in cruel behavior. Arab refugees outside Israel are only 10% of those being abused in the ME. Jew-haters focus on the Arab 10% instead of the six million abused Arab refugees from Syria. Haters also forget about a million Kurds. Picking on Israel for the plight of its Arab refugees is not compassion but old fashion Jew hatred. I repeat that I am not fond of Israel and would not donate a dime for its prosperity. But I dislike Jew-hating Mockingbirds who echo the same slanderous accusations. Putting the Jewish race in front of an impartial jury would find them not perfect and only human.

    • Agree: Fran Taubman
    • Disagree: Cassandra, Nonny Mouse
    • LOL: Digital Samizdat
    • Troll: renfro
  3. TGD says:

    Key elements of organized Jewry have become very alarmed at what they perceive as a global escalation of antisemitism. Their response is to activate all of their considerable resources, especially in the media, to criticize and intimidate those whom they don’t like or who criticize Israel or Zionism and to drive them out of the public square. Poor Mr. Corbyn has been caught up in this. I don’t think that Jeremy has a prejudiced or bigoted bone in his frail body yet he now bears the epithet, “anti Semite.”

    Here in the USA, they have doubled down on their medias’ featuring diverse groups of actors and especially mixed race couples and children. Ditto for the advertising industry. The purpose is to break down the natural barriers to miscegenation that exist in whites and thereby to accelerate race replacement since whites are considered to be inherently antisemitic.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  4. The problem not addressed by the author, is how the Labour Party, irrespective of leadership, was put in the position of being accused of anti-Semitism. Many will point to Blair and his several “Lord Cashpoint” types taking control of the Party. That is short-sighted. The reality is the rot had set in well before Blair became an MP in 1983. He and many like him detested their traditional supporters who weren’t interested in multiculturalism, racism, LBGT-WXYZ rights, or any of the other crap today’s “socialists” promote. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the traditional supporters are fed up.
    That is the reason for the success of the new, allegedly, “extreme right” political parties. Boris Johnson, or at least party planners, was smart enough to dip their toe into that rage.
    The irony, of course is that former Chief Rabbi Sacks correctly identified this a decade before Corbyn ran for the leadership.
    Had Corbyn been on the ball, he’d have stuffed Rabbi Sacks so far up Andrew Neal’s pompous ass, he’d still be trying to push it out. Politicians are all cowards. Apologizing will never work. Appeasing will never work. Attacking, purging, and returning to Labour’s roots would have. Stating that he planned to pull out of NATO and declare armed neutrality would have shut the Lobby down, and shut off the debate on the abused Palestinians and declaring an immigration moratorium until Brexit was completed, would have gained tens of thousands of votes.
    Corbyn and windbags like George Galloway were Labour in name only.

  5. Cassandra says:

    We support Israel with $4billion a year of our taxes, diplomatic cover, oil guarantees, preferred status on our stock exchanges, abundant military and technical cooperation, Iron Dome, and the blood, sweat and tears of our soldiers sent to die in Iraq.

    We have given Israel over $150 billion in straight up cash, and the ATM is only getting started. I am not counting loans never repaid, all interest free.

    If I support you, you’re damned well going to play by my rules, or live free and die. My rules: stop killing and jailing CHILDREN in military prisons, some as young as TEN. Stop shooting children in the head when they’re walking home from school. Stop skunk spraying kindergartens. Stop tear gassing grammar schools. Stop shooting young boys in the legs with bullets designed to explode into dozens of razor shards, rendering these kids cripples or making them amputees.

    PBS did a segment on this practice, it was APPALLING AND EYE OPENING

    Stop stealing land. Stop dropping buckets of piss on Orthodox Christian priests trying to celebrate their Easter. Stop dropping sewage on the tops of old Palestinian women’s heads, closing their businesses, setting fires to their olive trees and crops.

    Stop lobbying my leaders to do Israel’s bidding and demanding fealty from my elected reps.

    Which CIVILIZED WESTERN country acts that way? Why am I forced to WORSHIP a shithole that behaves so monstrously?

    • Replies: @Justsaying
  6. Telstar says:

    The problem for Corbyn assuming that he was in agreement with the principles of the article was that he was in additon to be circumscribed by the parliamentary party also limited by the National Executive left which appeared to be dominated by Jon Lansman, head of Momentum. Lansman controlled the votes of the nine membership elected momentum nominated NEC members which Corbyn relied on. Crucially Lansman was totally in favour of the anti-semitism scam. So Corbyn was little more than a puppet of this alliance between Labour right and so called left on the issue. He could and should have spoken out for the members sake but stupidly tried to play along with it like Mr Micawber hoping something would turn up.
    It should also be borne in mind that historically Labour was very pro-Israel.

  7. Tusk says:

    Corbyn didn’t lose because people thought he was an anti-semite. He lost because his policies and ideas were terrible. Even if he wasn’t falsely accused of anti-semitism he still would have lost because the election was about semitism v anti-semitism, it was about Brexit, which he stood against.

    This is also funny:

    As the media attacks on Labour for supposedly welcoming antisemites into the party’s ranks

    No mention of what these prospective anti-semites are. Muslim Pakis perhaps? The fact that this important information in regards to the Labour party’s struggles is often omitted by pieces that talk about it highlights the true issue.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
    , @MLK
  8. So, the Labour being anti-white is okay. Its big sin is being anti-Zionist even though UK is not Israel.

    That sure makes a lot of sense.

  9. MarkU says:

    Putting the Jewish race in front of an impartial jury would find them not perfect and only human.

    So what if they shoot thousands of unarmed protesters with sniper rifles, including people clearly marked as medics or press, killing hundreds. Hey, they are only human right?

    So what if they are breaking international law on a continual basis and stealing land that doesn’t belong to them, nobody is perfect, right?

    So what if they shoot children in the head with live ammunition? surely only a Jew-hating Mockingbird would be appalled by that.

    I was under the distinct impression that Israel was a murderous, racist, apartheid, war criminal, rogue state but your erudite comment has completely changed my mind.

    • Replies: @Lot
  10. Lot says:


    Cook keeps being nostalgic for 2017, when Corbyn and Labour was “unexpectedly popular” while pooping on Tony Blair.

    News Flash: Blair won gigantic Labour *majorities* as a moderate and Zionist. Corbyn’s 2017 glory day he was still extremely disliked and simply had the good luck of Tory incompetence. He still didn’t come close to a majority, which wasn’t even a goal. Nor was a Labour plurality even a realistic goal. Only keeping the Tories/DUP under 50%. And he failed at that even when the stats aligned for him in 2017.

  11. Lot says:

    Mark, sounds like you really like those sweet peaceful civilized Arabs. Have you considered moving to Damascus or Abu Dhabi?

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon, Moi
    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  12. Cowboy says:

    Watching the Left self immolate is entertaining despite its banal philosophy

  13. “Soon Brexit will become a messy fait accompli. ”

    Wait, soon? WTF, didn’t it already happen? How long before this bullshit stops? Enough already!

  14. @Tusk

    Did you miss this?

    Undoubtedly, the polarised debate about Brexit – and the increasingly unhinged atmosphere it produced – was the main reason Corbyn crashed in December’s election. But the confected “antisemitism row” played a very significant supporting role.

  15. Long wedded to a rigid form of identity politics, Jones was soon publicly wavering in his support for Corbyn. Then, as an election neared in 2017, he abandoned him entirely.

    Owen Jones is a fraud. I remember how, five years ago, he was opposed to the European Union. He was in favor of ‘Lexit’. Then, inexplicably, a mere four months or so before the referendum, he suddenly changes his mind and goes Remain!

    Jones is one of the many, many reasons I no longer read The Fraudian–oh, excuse me: The Guardian.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Antiwar7
  16. @TGD

    “I don’t think that Jeremy has a prejudiced or bigoted bone in his frail body”

    No, as a standard-issue 70s leftie he’s prejudiced against white Britons – he was a big fan of Sinn Fein who are white and ostensibly Christian. He just sees everything in terms of the intersectional totem-pole of oppression – Palestinians, unsurprisingly, being more oppressed than Israeli Jews, and Israel being a construct/consequence of British Imperialism.

    I think somewhere in Jeremy’s mind it’s still 1960, Hawker Hunters are bombing Aden, troops are in Cyprus, Hong Kong and Malaya, and we’re testing Bloodhound missiles in Woomera.

    “Here in the USA, they have doubled down on their medias’ featuring diverse groups of actors and especially mixed race couples and children. Ditto for the advertising industry. “

    Exactly the same in the UK.

  17. Neil S says:

    We need to disarm Israel and its supporters of the “anti-Semite” weapon and use it on them. How do we do that? By spreading the following message far and wide. When people learn the truth of it, I believe, I hope, they won’t be afraid to criticize Israel and its supporters.

    Imagine that a million native Chinese people relocated to Africa, and, having very different religious beliefs from the Africans, they only married amongst themselves. After two thousand years, would they retain their Chinese appearance, or would they resemble the Africans? And vice versa, if a million Africans relocated to China? So how is it possible that most of the Jews of biblical Israel relocated to Europe, for two thousand years married only amongst themselves due to religious differences with the Christian Europeans, and yet today look very different from the Arabs, who are a Semitic people?

    Ninety-five percent of the world’s Jews are Ashkenazim. In the last 7-8 years, geneticists, some of them Jewish, have analyzed the genes of Ashkenazi Jews, and have determined that their genes have much in common with non-Jewish Europeans, and little to nothing in common with Middle Easterners, as we should expect of a people who look European, not Middle Eastern.

    Furthermore, Shlomo Sand, a historian at Hebrew University and author of the book “The Invention of the Jewish People”, after conducting much research on their (purported) expulsion by the Romans, wrote that there is no documentary evidence of it, nor of their sudden appearance in the various lands of Europe where they were supposedly exiled. He says that the Ashkenazi Jews’ origin is the Khazar region of Europe, not the Middle East.

    Since Semites are of Middle Eastern origin, and Ashkenazi Jews are not, why are those who criticize either Israel or Ashkenazi Jews called “anti-Semites”? Could it be that it’s to make us all believe that they are Semites, of Middle Eastern origin, to support their claim to the land that is Palestine as their historical homeland? Sand states that the Jews of biblical Israel never left the Middle East, and that many of them converted to Islam after it was founded. It is today’s Arabs, as descendants of these Jews and Islamic converts, who are the real Semites, and some of them are Palestinian. This all leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is Israel’s founders, leaders, and ardent supporters who are the anti-Semites.

    • Agree: Nonny Mouse
  18. bandolero says:

    The answer to this age-old dilemma is really quite simple. Labour officials should exclusively be anti-Zionist Jews. Once we get Bar Mitzvahed, then the Mega Jews can’t say donkey slobber to us anymore. We just tell them to buzz off and usually make some untoward comment such as: ‘When are you going to bring my yarmulka back?’ That’s what the Dutch say to the Germans and it seems to work pretty well. The truth is that Brits have a very guilty conscience that extends back to 1290 when they asked us to leave and absorbed all our gelt. It was truly filthy lucre, but it made Britain great for a while. In short, just elect some folks with chutzpah. Those mega Jews will get nowhere with Bernie. Just follow our lead. Heck, even Rump loves us Jews, kind of. If they call you a nazi, just tell them not to be such foul wankers. But make sure you get Bar Mitzvahed first.

    • Replies: @BDS Always
    , @Gerhard57NL
  19. @bandolero

    “Eodem anno omnes Judei, cum eorum bonis, filiis, et uxoribus, circa festum Omnium Sanctorum, terram Angliae et Aquitaniae, concedente rege Edwardo, exulantur.”

    • Replies: @Chet Roman
  20. Kali says:

    I missed this article when it was published, until today.

    Actually, because I was already aware of the BoD demands, and potential impact, not just within Labour, but throughout the politcal establishment of the UK … and beyond…. I simply didn’the look at this.

    It’s a shame I read other articles on this subject, but not this one, as this is by far the best analysis I’ve read.

    One of the reasons I swerved this was that I long ago gave up on Labour, thanks to Blair. I then spent a couple or so years in the wilderness of the “liberal left”, then I put my all into spreading Climate Alarm, until I saw that I’d been completely suckered.

    It was during this period that I studied politics and sociology (comb hons) at Liverpool Uni. And it was during this time that I realised (by which I mean recognised) that the whole, entire “establishment” is dishonest and self-serving by its very nature, from its very beginnings. ..

    And yet!
    I felt the despair of my country, of my people, when, slowly but surely, Labour was destroyed by the 5th column sleeper cell JLN, and when BoJo was selected as queenie’s next PM.

    I really was very saddened by the whole thing, though I knew the “Whole Thing” (the “establishment” itself) to be one giant head-fuck.

    A year after I got my “degree of indoctrination” (well, they tried, bless ’em) I exited the system, which is social, economic and ideological enslavement without chains, and began living according to my Nature rather than the codes of a profoundly sick entirely parasitic paradigm.

    The point is, there are no political solutions to the straights Mankind finds itself in. – If we continue down this road the vast majority of mankind will be rendered entirely at the mercy of a Judaised political establishment, an establishment of pyramidal structure with “God’s Chosen Supreme Rulers” firmly in their place at the top.

    “Our” governments throughout the “political west” are already under the sway/control of The Chosen Ones and now that control is becoming overt because (((They))) know that can do as they please. Regardless.

    And there is nothing you can do about it.

    Except Get Out and create something better.

    It’s easier than it sounds. – Just start making better choices for yourself, for the sake of all that is beautiful, sacred and miraculous on the planet.

    Voting harder, protesting louder, commenting more excellently. .. all of these things may help you to feel like you’re at least doing something, and so you are.
    But that something isn’t something that’s actually going to halt or change anything. Not really. – The Establishment is already beyond our control.

    Change, real change, requires that We change… change the way we do things, change the way we relate to the world around us.

    Stop feeding the Beast!

    With love and still a glimmer of hope for a brighter future for mankind,

  21. Kali says:

    Hey BDSAlways,
    On searching for a transkation for your pist I stumbled upon this very interesting website –

    Looks like my reading list just got longer. ; )


    • Replies: @BDS Always
  22. @Kali

    Hello Kali,
    Thank you for the addition to my reading list.
    All the best.

  23. The Times of Israel reported on a poll in Europe that survey the population on Jews and Israel.

    They found that 1 in 5 Europeans believe that a secret Jewish cabal runs the world.

    The same percentage also agreed with the statement that “Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own needs.

    That’s the feeling among a fifth of the 16,000 respondents to a survey among Europeans from 16 countries.

    It seemed that the Times of Israel felt surprised at the “high” percentage of answers.

    Yes, it’s surprising that the numbers are this high but not for the reasons the Times of Israel might think. In Europe the punishment (social, financial and legal) can be severe if you don’t parrot the official state narrative that has been codified by special interests (lawfare).

    • Replies: @Wally
  24. @BDS Always

    But another Oliver Cromwell would be “elected” soon after.

  25. nsa says:
    @Neil S

    The verbal gyration is the phrase “anti-semitism” because the word jew is a common perjorative (jew ’em down, jewmart, etc)……hence the total avoidance of the phrase “anti-jew” in the popular media. Have worked in Great Britain and can report that at least half the population finds the jew to be somewhat distasteful, and for good reason.

  26. As always, Jonathan Cook is well worth reading – and as expected he’s on the side of fairness and justice.

    By way of disclosure, to coin a phrase, I’m a long-term admirer of Jeremy Corbyn. Anyone who is seriously pro-peace and anti-Zionist should realise that Corbyn has had the guts to say it as it is for many years, no matter how many establishment feathers he ruffles. His achievement in coming closer than anyone of similar values to occupying 10 Downing Street is itself something to celebrate.

    But while I think Jonathan is substantially correct in his overall description of the anti-semitism furore within the British Labour Party, I believe he misses something important, something that in the longer term is by no means cause for despair.

    Since 2015, an enlivened and expanded British Left – more active than for many decades thanks largely to Corbyn’s inspiring leadership – has seen the Zionist Lobby up front and personal. British left-wingers have witnessed the Lobby’s deviousness, its disregard for the truth, its manipulative and cynical power-plays, its cosy relationship with the mass media including the BBC, its grotesque sectarianism and disregard for non-Jewish interests. For many left-wing Brits this has been quite an education. These are folk who do not typically visit websites such as In future they may..

    In short the Zionist Lobby has overplayed its hand, and there will be push-back. Sure, it now has rigged rules that means the Jewish Board of Deputies can effectively decide who may and may not remain a Labour Party member. But each time a decent, respected, anti-racist party member is booted out for “antisemitism”, the anger level within Labour’s rank and file will rise a little higher. The curiosity of regular British left-wingers to learn more about this obnoxious and pugnacious lobby will keep growing.

    Zionists in Britain have for generations enjoyed power without scrutiny. I suspect those days are well and truly over – and that’s a positive.

    Jonathan spoke of “the lessons they were supposed to draw from the party’s ‘antisemitism crisis’”. He then lists three lessons.

    In my opinion Jonathan is a little off target here as well. Lessons one and three are essentially the lesson that despair is appropriate. I hope too many Labour Party members don’t draw that conclusion, but of course four defeats in a row at the polls is a hard blow to take. It’s lesson two that is of a different nature. That’s the lesson to avoid saying anything that might annoy the Israel Lobby. True, that is the course of action taken by all the current contenders for the leadership. All of them presumably thought “it is wise not to get drawn into this particular, un-winnable fight” – even though the Board of Deputies demands defied all reason and fairness.

    But I doubt very much that grass roots Labour Party members will roll over so easily. If they don’t, the Lobby will have to keep on bullying the Labour Party if it wishes its will to be enforced. This will be the subject of ongoing debate and is likely to stir up increasing hostility.

    In chess, weak players often snatch an opponent’s piece when it can be taken – then discover the longer term consequences aren’t so great. I think we have a similar case here. In Britain, the beast has shown its fangs. That frightening and unpleasant image won’t fade from memory fast – especially if the beast keeps re-appearing. And the softly-spoken, kindly, almost Christ-like Mr Corbyn has been the perfect foil for highlighting the hideous tribalism in mainstream Jewry and the Zionist Lobby. Corbyn gave British Jews absolutely no valid grounds for complaint or concern, yet most of them (by no means not all!) sided with the Tories and the 1%. He was courteous, although not contrite, in his response to Zionist bullying. For that, he was metaphorically nailed to the cross.

    I suspect the State of Israel has no genuine friends any longer on the Left of British politics – only stooges, sycophants and agents. Zionists in previous decades were more subtle and strategic. Time will tell how The Lobby fares with this brash and brutal approach to getting its way.

    • Thanks: Nonny Mouse
  27. Wielgus says:

    I don’t think the British security services would have allowed Corbyn to become PM. The Zionist lobby was only part of it. Anything would have been done to prevent it – a soft or even a hard coup, a Dealey Plaza scenario, Corbyn being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy…

  28. @Cassandra

    Absolutely spot on. Besides, which other welfare recipient nation of our tax dollars exercises such suffocating control of our ME foreign policy, power dispensation, media propaganda, financial, elite academic institutions and entertainment industries? A perfect case of the parasite not only feeding off but also controlling the host.

  29. I find the spectacle of a Leftist political organization getting destroyed by the race card quite entertaining.

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  30. sarz says:

    Putting the Jewish race in front of an impartial jury would find them not perfect and only human.

    There are satanic families and satanic secret societies. But Jews are the only organised tribe or nation that is satanic in its core governing bodies—while pretending, as a whole, to be governed by a religion. Part of the wonder of it is that the clueless majority of Jews are sucked into playing the victim game. All Jews benefit. Even clueless Jews are admitted into Harvard in numbers thirteen times more than would make it on merit. A large stratum of clued-in Jews, including crypto-Jews like Trump, keep the whole satanic game going. And, it’s good for Jews. That’s how come they rule the West. And that’s how come people die by the millions in wars for the Jews.

    Putting the whole Jewish race in front of an impartial jury would find a huge number worthy to be shot for crimes against humanity.

    • Replies: @dimples
  31. eah says:

    I don’t think that Jeremy has a prejudiced or bigoted bone in his frail body yet he now bears the epithet, “anti Semite.”

    Interesting that you two are on a first name basis — I’m sure you’re right: he’s “as pure as the driven snow” — yes, except for wanting to use the coercive power of the state to steal everyone’s money, he’s a great guy — suggestion: at this point, Corbyn should be a man (for a change) and tell the Jews to fuck off — I mean, how much worse could things get for him?

    … – desperately needed social, economic and environmental change – …

    Like what, exactly?

  32. @Lot

    Lot, it was nice of you to examine MarkU’s comment with such precise forensic logic and illuminate us with such a precise exposition of his errors.

  33. ThereisaGod says: • Website

    Labour is dead. Corbyn could have called out the frauds who smeared him but he didn’t. Far too sensitive to Jewish suffering to say Jews would collectively abuse their victim status or that the establishment use Jews to shut down threats to their agenda.
    Labour will offer no challenge to those who have robbed the younger generations of income and hope. Labour will be all about the gay disco. The release of energy that Corbyn caused has been contained … but only for now. A rage is brewing and the fiends who try to control that rage using lies will be confronted.

  34. RodW says:

    The three ‘lessons’ to be drawn from the subversion of English democracy by Jews and their fellow travellers seem counterintuitive.

    My three lessons would be;
    1. Never apologise. Own the anti Semitic label and explain why.
    2. Go on the attack — note when and how the aliens in the body politic are subversive, and expose and ridicule their fellow travellers.
    3. Ally with patriotic, working-class, anti-immigrant, anti-war parties like Britain First.

    Unless there are severe costs to subversion, it will never stop.

    • Agree: sarz
  35. Anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    I find the Labour “anti-Semitism” thing bizarre, just who is supposed to be anti-Semitic? I can’t imagine Corbyn or any of their white British MPs hating anyone other than the native British, the Labour Party is full of the most cowardly, weak politicians you could imagine. They support things like mass immigration and the LGBT agenda. Most of those people would be too cowardly to have any opinion on Jews.

    Is it the Muslim Labour MPs but they don’t want to admit this so they try to imply that all Labour MPs are anti-Semitic and that it’s a problem with the entire party rather than something specific to Muslims?

  36. Antiwar7 says:

    Why couldn’t Corbyn just say: criticism of the Israeli government does not make one anti-Semitic, anymore than criticism of the UK government makes one anti-British, or criticism of the French government makes one anti-French.

    Couldn’t he just say that simple truth, vigorously and clearly, every time the subject was brought up?

  37. @Neil S

    And Sand only covers half of the story. The conquests of Alexander the Great and the making of the Greek speaking world from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indus Valley was accompanied by huge aggressive prozelytizing. It wasn’t only the Khazars. By the time of their conversion there were huge numbers of Jews all over Europe. The Rhine valley, Franks and Allemani, was only part, still not the earliest.

    And it works the other way. The genealogy of Abraham leading back to Shem focuses on a named first-born of each generation (Genesis) but says every time that the father lived decades longer and had many more children.

    At the time of Christ only the tiniest proportion of Jews were Semites.

    At the time of Christ only the tiniest proportion of Semites were Jews or had ever been.

    And those few who were, the Hebrews of Judaea, later converted to Islam and are today’s Palestinians.

  38. Antiwar7 says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    The Guardian had a house-cleaning a few years ago, when people like Jonathan Pilger were cast out, and it’s become a complete security-services-run propaganda rag ever since. They used to have that, plus a range of views. No more. Now the paper is 100% worthless.

  39. RodW says:

    Am English, and the chance of getting anyone who isn’t one’s own sister to admit that is very difficult. That’s why the English people need to be educated to speak their minds by a leader with a spine. They need to find their own Goebbels.

  40. @Neil S

    Strange analogy to boot – do you seriously think the distance separating the Chinese from sub-Saharan Africans is comparable to that separating Europeans (by which I imagine you mean Northern Europeans) and Western Asians? Nor do I understand why it is so obvious to you that Ashkenazi Jews look European and not Arab (I should mention that Arabness is a cultural identity, not a racial now) as though these two (phenotypic) categories were self-evidently mutually exclusive. I am guessing you like to think of yourself as progressive and anti-racist, but you simply sound like most (northern European) Westerners: orientalist and deeply ignorant.

    But even leaving that aside, the vast majority of genetic studies concerned with elucidating the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews have come to the conclusion that a model which places them halfway between Levantines (which includes Palestinians) and Southern Europeans (think Sicilians or Island Greeks) is the most correct.

    But clearly none of this should have any bearing on the question of the legitimacy of the state of Israel (Israeli Jews are invaders, whether “Arab” or “European”) or the reprehensibility of its treatment of the indigenous Palestinians.

    • Replies: @Neil S
  41. Who cares?
    Screw them all.
    Pakistanis rape British children under ALL of these clown’s watches.
    They are ALL failures.
    I hope they ALL see the rope one day… soon.
    Down with Democrazy!
    Down with Parliamentarianism!
    Pile up the sandbags.
    Tie those hangman knots.
    Prepare the firing squads.

  42. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:

    Practically 1 in 5 people in most Western European countries are Muslim so the relatively high rate is hardly surprising. If only the natives were polled I suspect the rate would be far lower.

    • LOL: eah
  43. @nsa

    Then why are Anglos the jew’s most loyal and devoted ally?
    You can NOT find a better goyim than the Anglo.
    I dare you to even try it.
    Find me a more sycophantic and philosemitic people than the Anglos.
    I will dox myself if you do.
    I give you my word.
    But I do not hold my breath.

  44. Moi says:

    Me, as a goy, have accepted that you and your brethren are my overlord. Happy now?

    • Replies: @melpol
  45. eah says:

    Practically 1 in 5 people in most Western European countries are Muslim so the relatively high rate is hardly surprising.

    Die Anzahl der Muslime in Deutschland wird für 2015 auf etwa 4,4 bis 4,7 Millionen Menschen geschätzt, was 5,4 bis 5,7 % der Bevölkerung entspricht.

    Die heute in Italien lebenden 1,2 Millionen Muslime … Sie machen ca. 2 Prozent der 60 Millionen Bewohner Italiens aus, weniger als etwa in Großbritannien (2–3 Millionen), Deutschland (4,3 Millionen) oder Frankreich (4–5 Millionen).

    6 Muslim 3,372,966 (5.1%) 65,288,422

    No wonder you comment as ‘Anonymous[124]’ — Islam and muslims in Europe are a big problem, just not that big yet: they are < 10%, usually no more than 5%, in western European countries.

  46. Z-man says:

    You must tow the Zionist party line in owned Britain.
    The great Scot George Galloway has been very quiet lately. Maybe ‘The Elders’ have gotten to him.

  47. melpol says:

    It is wrong to place Jews as bosses or overlords. Most Jews answer to a Gentile supervisor or boss. Almost no Jews are the leader of a workforce. Jews are a subservient class because they are a minority.

  48. MLK says:

    Even if he wasn’t falsely accused of anti-semitism he still would have lost because the election was[n’t] about semitism v anti-semitism, it was about Brexit, which he stood against.

    Bingo! What kind of an idiot thought the British people could be convinced to be more concerned with advancing Palestinian sovereignty than restoring their own during the Brexit saga?

    Perhaps more blinkered — because it’s much longer in the tooth, is the latest effort to delegitimize Israel via BDS and the ICC. Israel is a sovereign and its Jewish supporters punch above their weight.

    If you make someone powerful your enemy, you need to have a better plan than bellyaching when he selects an opportune time and context to put the wood to you.

    As at least one other commenter alluded, pretty much every country has its own more important fish to fry at the moment, as the Kurds (and the Uyghurs) are discovering once again.

    The other lesson, to which Cook, a talented writer, remains oblivious, is how easily the promoters of an increasingly nasty Identity Politics regime can be hoist on their own anti-racism petard.

    • Agree: Fran Taubman
    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  49. @Anonymous

    The refugee wave has only increased sympathy for Jews amongst the masses. Jews and European gentiles are seen as facing the same common enemy. Of course this enemy was let in by Jewish NGOs and this enemy was displaced by wars for Israel.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  50. Ram says:

    So the Labour Party hasn’t been fully captured by the Khazar mafia as yet. I guess it soon will be and even go to the elections to MIGA, at the expense of the locals.

  51. @nsa

    According to a survey done by the slimy Jewish agitation group ADL of B’nai B’rith, the UK is one of the least anti-Semitic countries in Europe.

    Interestingly, the term ‘anti-semite’ was popularised by a man named Wilhelm Marr who was vehemently opposed to the Jewish people. He founded the League of Antisemites, an organisation dedicated to combatting what Marr perceived to the the degenerative effects of the Jewish spirit on German genre society.

    Marr actually came up with this term as a response to those who labelled such activities as ‘Jew Hatred’ or Judenhass. He felt ‘antisemitism’ was a much more sophisticated term which made his group organisation seem respectable.

    So why do Jewish groups insist on using this propaganda term popularised by a Jew hater? After all, we don’t talk about negros or negroids any more as those terms were used primarily in the days of slavery and White supremacy. So why does the use of anti-Semitism continue?

    My personal theory is this, it is because Jews need a separate category of prejudice to seem special. After all antisemitism is just a form of racism. If a Chinaman, American Indian or a Black man get attacked for their appearance, it is labelled ‘racism’ by the media, if a Jew gets attacked, it is labelled ‘anti-semitism’. Because this latter word has a far more devastating effect, whereas racism resulted in slavery and colonisation, anti-Semitism resulted in 6 million Jews dying and has chambers and lampshades and soap etc etc.

    Antisemitism is also catchy, it is easier to cry ‘antisemitism’ than it is to cry ‘anti-Jewish bigotry’, it also keeps up the pretense of Jews being somehow connected to the Middle East, when in fact the European ones are Khazars.

    • Replies: @Mustapha Mond
  52. And here I always thought that antisemitism was simply an opinion. But apparently you must be a leftist to be one. I’m so confused now.

  53. @Just Passing Through

    “Antisemitism”. The gift that keeps on giving…….

  54. Anonymous[394] • Disclaimer says:
    @Just Passing Through

    It’s a complex issue that is ultimately down to the existence of the violent, colonial state of Israel, that is the main reason why there’s so much unrest in the Middle East that Muslims are fleeing, and Muslims fleeing the Middle East into Europe is precisely what suits Israel.

    I think it’s mostly beyond the understanding of the average European prole though, they see Muslims flooding in and committing terrorist attacks (many of which may be false flags) and they hear in the Western media that Israel also suffers from “unprovoked” terrorist attacks and in their minds they see Israel/Jews as an ally facing the same issues. This reaction has almost certainly been planned and socially engineered.

    • Agree: Wielgus
    • Replies: @Old and Grumpy
  55. Israelis, truth be told, want all Palestinians gone from the “Promised Land” and truthfully, goyim across the world want Jews gone from their own lands, therefore, the best solution would be to settle all Palestinians in twenty two Arab countries and every Jew, willing or reluctant must be transferred to “his” lands in Judea and Samaria. And Israel has gotten plenty of shekels up until now so let the land provide their sustenance and give the long suffering Palestinians a leg up until they can fend for themselves. I and seven billion others weren’t born to be saddled with those Semitic, Arabs as well as Jews, louts and their ideas about God. Good riddance!

  56. Che Guava says:

    Owen Jones is a despicable twat.

    However, I recalk reading the Guardian for Dnglish study, when you, Mr. Cook, were working there. At the time, you often were about the same as Jones as far as posh toffee ‘well, I’m righteous[ bullshit.

    Cook never bothers tn read comments here, in any case.

    The Guardian (and it is basically the same word as warden) has comments threads that are laughably termed ‘Comment is free’.

    It seems that this was the slogan of their editor or propretor early last century.

    As bare-faced hypocrisy, it is hard to beat. I would encourage felow Unzers to experiment and find how it is not free. 2e a troll after that, but it requires subtlety.

    Cook was part of that mentality years ago, i would guess that he still has it inside him.

    • Replies: @John Chuckman
  57. My view of anti-Semitism is that it represents superstition, and of course we know some superstitions can be very powerful, can promote violence, and can even be contagious in their nature.

    Just look at clashing religious beliefs (superstitious, all of them) in various religions.

    In quite a number of cases they provoked violence. Early Protestant versus Catholic in Europe. Shia versus Sunni in various countries of the Middle East. Ultra-orthodox Jews verses some other Jews in Israel and in America. Hindus versus Muslims in India. Native Animism in many lands versus Christian newcomers.

    And that is a major reason why it is completely wrong to conflate anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel.

    You cannot compare a personal superstition with ethical criticism of a heavily armed state.

    Criticizing Israel’s bloody excesses reflects our best Western liberal traditions of respect for human and democratic rights, the dignity of all people, and the rule of law.

    And that is about as far from superstition as you can go.

    That also is why liberals in general are so hated in Israel.

    • Agree: renfro
    • Replies: @RodW
  58. On the subject of The Guardian, readers may enjoy this:

    By the way, when it comes to comments by readers The Guardian is hypocritical in the extreme. It has a multi-layered, very active system of censorship.

    First, it only allows comments on a highly limited selection of articles, rather carefully selected if watch over a bit of time.

    Second, it rather freely exercises its right to delete comments it doesn’t like, even if the comments reflect no rudeness or bad language.

    Third, if you do a few comments the editors don’t like, you are put on a period of having everything reviewed before publication. You receive a warning to this effect when you go to comment.

    Fourth, if you still persist in saying what they don’t like, you are banned from commenting, and it’s a permanent ban.

    Very free and open, don’t you think?

    It is virtually the opposite of what a truly liberal or open-minded publication would do.

  59. @bandolero

    “When are you going to bring back the bicycles you stole from us?” is what the Dutch asked the Germans.

  60. @Che Guava

    Yours is an unfair comment

    You don’t know what Cook has on his mind.

    And you couldn’t really know when he worked for The Guardian.

    Journalists and columnists in commercial newspapers do as their editors expect of them or they face looking for another job.

    There are many writers stuck in jobs at commercial news sources, writing in ways that do not reflect their personal beliefs, but they have to earn a living, and decent journalism jobs, in terms of pay and benefits, are not a dime a dozen.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  61. melpol says:

    Palestinian threats against the Jewish state are highlighted in the Jewish owned media. It is helping Jews get funding because of Israels dangerous position. A few harmless rockets fired into the Jewish state causes retaliation and starts rocks thrown by palestinian youngsters. Israel loves the Gaza conflict and might be funding it. Harmless rockets and balloons might be supplied by Israel. Palestinian anger in Gaza is good for the Jews.

    • Replies: @Just passing through
  62. @melpol

    And the Talmud says a Jew (such as yourself) can lie to a gentile (such as myself…and oh yeah, it also says Noahide-wise that a true believer in Christ can be decapitated). Case closed.

  63. @Neil S

    And let’s not forget ISRAELI geneticist Eran Elhaik, who PROVED the Palestinians had MORE ISRAELITE DNA in them than Ashkenazi Jews! THEY ARE THE TRUE SEMITES! (And then there is Arthur Koestler “The Thirteenth Tribe” proving Ashkenazim are from Khazaria….)

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  64. @melpol

    Palesitine conflict is also good for Israeli group cohesion as an external threat always acts as a binding glue. Israel would likely slide into a pit of degeneracy with transvestites and sodomites gaining influence if it lived in a peaceful neighbourhood.

    And sympathy for Muslims in the West is at an all time low because of Muslim crimes in the West, Whites secretly enjoy when IDF kills Palestines due to revenge reasons. European sympathy for Arabs in the Israel-Arab conflict was very high before Arabs moved en masse to Europe. Some of the biggest Holocaust revisionists were actually left-wing back in the day, a notable example being French scholar Robert Faurisson.

    Somce then, Europeans have witnessed Muslim chimpouts in their cities and thus are able to relate to Jews and Israelis when they see the same low IQ people throwing stones for no obvious reason (do they think stones will defeat a nuclear power?). This sympathy for Jews has also been increased by Zionist operations like PEGIDA and Tommy Robinson.

    • Agree: Fran Taubman
    • Replies: @melpol
  65. @Anonymous

    Really? Most people I know blame a Jew for mass immigration. Specifically George Soros. Admittedly most don’t reference his Judaism.

  66. Brewer says:

    the six million abused Arab refugees from Syria

    ……that are a direct result of Israel’s efforts to destabilize that country.

    • Replies: @melpol
  67. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:


    God hated Cain

    Jews hate Whites

    as Cain hated Abel.

    Whites hate Jews, as God does.

    It is two vs one.

    There is nothing wrong with Jew hate. In fact, the Jewish religion is the one that insists on that particular game.

    With all of the Jewish led hate directed towards Whites, it sounds whiny and spoiled to invoke the phrase “Jew Hate”. Deal with the hostility that your people invite.

    Besides, in a historical sense, your people are getting off extremely light in the present and when all of their political interference is taken into account. I mean, imagine all of the White deaths we could pin on Jewish political action over the past hundred years alone. Tens of millions. The Jewish genesis of those deaths is what real hate looks like.

  68. RodW says:
    @John Chuckman

    There are no grounds for believing that dislike of Jews is a ‘superstition’. Dislike of Jews is based on direct experience of how Jews behave, both as individuals and as groups. One does occasionally encounter a seemingly decent Jew, but they almost invariably reveal their hostility sooner or later.

  69. Paul says:

    Do the indigenous Palestinian people get to decide if the Zionist ethnic cleansing of them is racist?

  70. melpol says:

    Syrian refuge crisis was caused by Russian support of Assad. Saudi support of Anti-Assad rebels made the situation worse. Israel was involved in a smaller way. Iran’s hateful rhetoric against Israel, also causing the revolts in Gaza, created chaos in the region. The US and Russia came out on top. Israel made small gains. There will be no end result.

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  71. dimples says:

    “But Jews are the only organised tribe or nation that is satanic in its core governing bodies”

    But is it the only one? The US, with its millions of victims from its endless fake wars, springs to mind. That’s why its called the Great Satan in some quarters.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  72. melpol says:
    @Just passing through

    Conflict with Gaza supplies thousands of IDF jobs, and gives a good reason to purchase American arms. Most Arabs would leave Gaza if the US and Israel wasn’t supporting them.
    Muslim immigrants are hated in Europe, Germans sympathize with Jews who shoot them.
    Low IQ people are needed for service jobs but millions of Muslim immigrants are only needed for Mosques.

  73. If Labour is now unable to address the crimes of Israel, what options do voters have if that issue is something they care deeply about? The voters will have to either go further left, or to the right, to find a party willing to represent their views.

  74. renfro says:

    Sue more Jews….you can win.

    Jewish Chronicle to pay damages over anti-Semitism libel

    Asa Winstanley
    Media Watch 21 February 2020

    Liverpool Labour activist Audrey White.
    The Jewish Chronicle on Thursday apologized to a Labour activist for libeling her over “anti-Semitism.” The UK newspaper admitted on its website it had published “allegations about Mrs Audrey White” which were “untrue.”
    It said it had agreed to pay White a sum in damages plus her legal costs.
    White on Friday told The Electronic Intifada that it was “a concrete victory for Riverside” – the Liverpool Labour Party group to which she belongs – “and every one of us under attack and vilified by this newspaper.”

    Asked to comment on the amount of damages, she would only say it was a substantial sum.

    A series of articles by the paper’s reporter Lee Harpin last year had put White at “the center of bullying claims against Jewish MP Dame Louise Ellman” – then the member of Parliament for the Liverpool Riverside constituency.
    Ellman is still the chairperson of Israeli embassy front group Labour Friends of Israel, despite quitting as a Labour MP in October.
    The libel settlement comes after a UK press regulator in December ruled that the paper’s four articles about White had been “significantly misleading” and that the paper had engaged in “unacceptable” obstruction of their investigation.
    s part of the settlement, White said, the paper had agreed to delete all four articles from their website. They had all been removed as of Friday morning.
    Lies about “Labour anti-Semitism She said she had fought the case not for herself but for the wider left, who have been constantly attacked over the last five years by unsubstantiated allegations of anti-Semitism.
    She highlighted the case of Jackie Walker, the Black Jewish anti-Zionist expelled from Labour last year on false charges.
    White said of the libel damages that she would “spend the money on the movement” and that she would organize a film showing in Liverpool during Labour conference in September.

    The Jewish Chronicle has been at the forefront of reporting on exaggerated and fabricated allegations of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party over the last five years.
    It also has a long record of anti-Palestinian reporting.

    In August last year, it was forced to pay $60,000 in libel damages to InterPal, a British charity which aids Palestinians

  75. @dimples

    “But Jews are the only organised tribe or nation that is satanic in its core governing bodies”

    But is it the only one? The US, with its millions of victims from its endless fake wars, springs to mind. That’s why its called the Great Satan in some quarters.

    If you are familiar with the copious documented information here at the Unz Report you already know Jewish power is largely responsible for having manipulated the US into the vast majority of its fake wars.

    And if you’re not familiar you’ve got a lot to learn.

    • Agree: Nonny Mouse
  76. @MLK

    Anti -semitism was a straw man argument in the Labour election. Used as the boogey man Zionist power monster, that they blamed for their loss. It was the Zio’s !!
    The fact is the UK voters could give a rats ass about Israel or Palestine, and most sympathize with Israel while facing their own Islamic communities. The Palestinians held center stage with the left and the world stage for a long time. It is over.

    • Replies: @RodW
    , @Nonny Mouse
  77. @Neo-Socratic

    Add to that that the Jews are not a race, are not Semites and are not a diaspora. Total, total, total fraud.

    By the time of Christ only a tiny tiny proportion of the world’s Jews were Semites. That tiny proportion has continued to shrink.

    By the time of Christ only a tiny tiny proportion of the world’s Semites were descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Judah.

    See Genesis on the latter point. And I mean the genealogy of Abraham where the first-born of each generation is named but it always continues with the theme that his father lived to a great age and had many many more sons, all, of course, descendants of Shem.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  78. RodW says:
    @Fran Taubman

    No Fran, most Britons couldn’t give two hoots about Palestinians, nor do they sympathise with Israel in the slightest. They probably know little or nothing about it, but having experienced enough Jews in their own country, they can extrapolate that a whole nation of Jews must be a truly ghastly place. If they think anything about it, they probably suppose (rather unfairly no doubt) that Israelis and Palestinians deserve each other.

    Sadly, Britons mostly believe in the holocaust nonsense and are frightened to death of being called racist or antisemitic, although many of them don’t really like other races, as is their right.

  79. @Fran Taubman

    Why are they facing their own Islamic communities (as you put it), Fran? Who’s behind the subversion of traditional English society and culture?

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
    , @MLK
  80. @melpol

    The Syrian refugee crisis was stopped in its tracks, remedied by Russian support of Assad. When towns were cleared of terrorists thanks to Russian help, many refugees returned home. You know that very well. So why do you assert such a glaringly obvious falsehood?

    • Replies: @melpol
  81. @Nonny Mouse

    Nonny you are so full of sh**t it is mind boggling.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  82. Wally says:
    @Chet Roman

    “The same percentage also agreed with the statement that “Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own needs.”

    ‘Exploiting’ the fake “holocaust’ narrative is a prime reason it was invented.

    This articles highlights yet another use of that propaganda.

  83. Tom71 says:

    A good piece by Cook but the more fundamental problem for Labour is that their role in the UK system is actually to lose – and then, whats more, to blame themselves for losing rather than questioning a political system stacked or even rigged against them.
    If it hadn’t been anti-semitism or Brexit this time it would have been something else. For if Labour don’t lose the Tories don’t win. And if the Tories don’t win, the country might be run for ordinary British people rather than the wealthy elite.
    The media make out as though the Conservative Party and Labour Party are equivalent, just because they share the word ‘party’ and sit in Parliament. They’re not. The Conservative Party is one head of the establishment hydra; the Labour Party has the largest membership of a political party in Europe but is still perennially adrift, with no establishment money and active smear campaigns and lies told with impunity by the billionaires and spies controlling the British media (another head of the hydra).
    There is of course window-dressing such as the Blair years (even the public would see through Labour NEVER winning) and some battles won but fundamentally, the British political system and society is rigged against the Labour Party, and the only question is what the excuse if for each defeat. And that’s before we come to any possible funny business with the postal votes (40% in 2019, seriously?).

  84. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:

    England is at heart one of the most right wing and conservative nations in the world. That’s why the left hate England and want to stop Brexit and remain in the EU, because as far as they’re concerned England = right wing and fascist, Europe = left wing and progressive.

    The reason the left flood England with immigrants, even with Polish immigrants, is because they see all other nationalities as more left wing and progressive than the English. The working class and middle class English are possibly the most right wing, conservative people on the planet and that puts them at odds with the elites. It’s not a coincidence that England is the only nation in Europe without a viable socialist/Labour movement.

  85. melpol says:
    @Nonny Mouse

    Syrian army/Russia did restore peace and many refugees returned. But Turkey and Saudi supported terrorists are now fighting the Syrian army. Civilians are caught in the middle and are fleeing toward Turkey. Refugees seem not trying to flee toward Assad held Syria.

  86. MLK says:
    @Nonny Mouse

    Let’s assume arguendo that’s true. All you’ve revealed is that you’re more self-defeating than Cook. After all, the British have a country to run.

    Let’s hear your proposals as to how they should proceed in light of your beliefs (about the secret conspiracy of the Jews)?

    I find it all so middle school social studies class gone awry.

    I don’t know how old you are but, unless you actually are a teenager, you’re supposed to have some historical perspective. That begins with remembering periods in the not so distant past when countries had a whole lot worse to contend with, like the US after The Civil War. Which I bring up here because it was the outcome long discussed and feared, and that nobody wanted but it’s what they all ended up conjuring.

  87. Neil S says:

    Regarding your first paragraph, I was merely creating a hypothetical example of two populations distinct in appearance to make the point that if the genes of those populations don’t intermix, then we would expect that they will retain their distinctions. The distance that originally separated them is irrelevant. But, if it makes you feel better, consider instead a population of Africans within a population of Europeans, and vice versa.
    As for Ashkenazi Jews looking European and not Arab, perhaps you’re unable to detect differences, and that’s fine.
    As for phenotypic differences between Arabs and Ashkenazi Jews, genetic research by Israeli geneticist Eran Elhaik has found nearly nothing in common.
    How does any of what I said show me to be orientalist and deeply ignorant?

  88. @Fran Taubman

    (((Fran Taubman the hasbara Jew troll))):

    No hasbara Jew troll has ever admitted being hasbara.

    Why don’t (((you))) be the first?


  89. Che Guava says:
    @John Chuckman

    Not sorry.

    Ii did read his articles, mamy examples.

    Typical Guardian bullshit at the time.

    Anyway, the excuse you make for journalism as a whole is one of the mostl laughable and revealing things I have read this year.

    To boil your idea down to its essence, ynu are saying that journalists are a species of whore.

    I agree in general, with exceptions.

    So, why not do something else? I screwed up my future on matters of principle, at least thrice. Noone thanks you fos such choices, least of all those who claim to support the same principles,

    At leart I never descended so low as to be a professional liar, the latter a position that your asinine post supports.

    Still getting by.

    Cook may have turned a new leaf in life, but as i said, he doesn’t bother to read comments hese.

  90. @Anonymous

    Why do you waste UR readers’ time with such stupidly careless nonsense as “1 in 5 people in most Western European countries are Muslim”?

    The true figure is about a quarter of that.

    And what were you purporting to reply to? You failed to tell your readers.

  91. @Omegabooks

    Have you actually read Koestler’s nonsense?

  92. @Nonny Mouse

    You say
    “By the time of Christ only a tiny tiny proportion of the world’s Jews were Semites. That tiny proportion has continued to shrink.”

    That is at the very least surprising and seems inconsistent with the rest of what you wrote. Did you perhaps mean to say that only a small proportion of Semites were Jews?

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  93. @Wizard of Oz

    That’s what I said. Only the tiniest proportion of the world’s Jews were Semites and only the tiniest proportion of the world’s Semites were Jews.

    I should have said the proportion of Jews who were Semites sank to nothing in the centuries following the Muslim conquest of Palestine, not by coercion but by free choice. The 10th century Saadia Gaon bears witness. From memory it was
    Gilad Atzmon who wrote that following the arrival of Islam the Hebrews of Palestine, repelled by the immense complexity of the Babylonian Talmud, considered Islam the truer version of Judaism and adopted it.

    So, of the tiny proporton of Jews who were Semites. all but a tiny proportion became Muslims. In the many centuries since, that tiny proportion of that tiny proportion must have shrunk to nothing.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings