The biggest worry of these holding probably the most energy and wealth is that they may lose their exalted place on the earth. They may resist any modifications to the grossly unequal and unjust class construction that causes grievous injury to so many individuals; and to the planet itself. Even the threat of real change have to be crushed. This, in a nutshell, underpins the astonishing and relentless marketing campaign to stop Jeremy Corbyn, a average leftist, from ever turning into Prime Minister.
On July 10, BBC broadcast an episode of Panorama that presupposed to be an neutral investigation into the loaded query, ‘Is Labour Anti-Semitic? It shortly turned clear that the programme makers were not eager about a critical appraisal of the evidence and that the query was merely rhetorical. The thrust of the programme was that Labour is anti-semitic. The Labour Celebration response was scathing:
The Panorama programme was not a fair or balanced investigation. It was a critically inaccurate, politically one-sided polemic, which breached primary journalistic standards, invented quotes and edited emails to vary their which means. It was an overtly biased intervention by the BBC in social gathering political controversy.
An trustworthy investigation into antisemitism in Labour and wider society is in the public curiosity. The Panorama workforce as an alternative pre-determined a solution to the question posed by the programme’s title.
The programme was introduced by BBC journalist John Ware who had beforehand made clear his antagonism in the direction of Corbyn’s politics. As journalist Jonathan Prepare dinner wrote:
That Panorama made no attempt at even-handedness or fairness in its programme on Labour should have come as no surprise. The man in command of the investigation was John Ware, a former Sun journalist. He cannot be thought-about dispassionate both about Corbyn or the prospects of Labour defeating the Conservative Social gathering at a basic election, which may be just around the corner.
Prepare dinner continued:
Two years in the past, Ware wrote a lengthy article for a right-wing journal warning of the hazard of Corbyn reaching energy. He was a politician, wrote Ware, “whose entire political career has been stimulated by disdain for the West, appeasement of extremism, and who would barely understand what fighting for the revival of British values is really all about”.
Shortly after Corbyn’s leadership election victory in 2015, Ware headed a Panorama documentary that sought to malign the brand new leader. Ware can also be a strident supporter of Israel and of its state ideology, Zionism. In a 2005 edition of Panorama he advised that Muslims in Britain who spoke out about Israel’s crimes towards Palestinians have been “extremists”.
In an article within the Jewish Chronicle last yr Ware concluded that anti-Zionism had “morphed into antisemitism – itself a Corbyn legacy”.
The Panorama programme was immediately followed by BBC Information at Ten which gave it in depth coverage, pumping up the propaganda value of the pretend ‘investigation’. BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg intoned gravely:
Many get together members have left, and if Labour can’t get a grip of racism in its personal ranks, what may they lose next?
Think about her selection of words: ‘Many party members have left’ and ‘Labour can’t get a grip of racism in its personal ranks’. The public is supposed to swallow the BBC’s implication of endemic Labour anti-semitism as impartial, objective reporting.
This can be a drawback that has dogged the Labour Social gathering underneath Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, not for a number of weeks, not only for a number of months, however for several years now.
Many commentators, including Media Lens, have long argued that the difficulty of anti-semitism has been exploited to inflict as a lot injury on Corbyn as potential. But that rational perspective is systematically excluded from BBC Information ‘journalism’. As an alternative, as ever, the BBC political editor continued to hammer residence the requisite propaganda bullet factors:
Corbyn has been unable, it seems, to crack down on it [anti-semitism] in the best way he has promised to do, many times.
In the BBC version of ‘neutral’ news reporting, there isn’t any hint that Corbyn’s opponents – not least the company media, including the BBC – want to destroy him and what he stands for. However then, from the very starting, the BBC has been on the aspect of the institution and the federal government of the day. As BBC founder John Reith confided in his diary through the 1926 Common Strike:
They know they will trust us to not be actually impartial.
The experienced journalist Peter Oborne stated by way of Twitter:
I proposed to the BBC a documentary on Tory Islamophobia three years in the past. Zero interest.
It is attainable that in over-reaching themselves, and presenting such a skewed perspective, Panorama and the BBC had inadvertently highlighted the manufactured nature of the ‘anti-semitism crisis’. As Asa Winstanley noticed:
All this system proved was just how dishonest the British establishment and the Israel foyer have been in manufacturing this “Labour anti-Semitism crisis” for the past four years.
In a bit for The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah gave essential background context, observing that the Israel foyer is working onerous to separate the left:
Influential Israel foyer teams are offering “rules” for a way Jewish communal organizations can divide the left and break up rising intersectional coalitions.
Additionally they advocate for “delegitimizing” Jews deemed too supportive of Palestinian rights.
Israel and its foyer see the strengthening solidarity between Palestinians and different oppressed groups, particularly Black individuals in the USA, as a serious menace and they are decided to struggle again.
Certainly, final yr, Al Jazeera’s leaked undercover documentary The Foyer–USA revealed how the Israeli authorities and its foyer labored to disrupt the Black Lives Matter movement in retaliation for Black solidarity with Palestine.’
A central technique of this pro-Israel campaign is to repeatedly state a false equivalence between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. Abunimah defined:
Zionism, Israel’s state ideology, is racist because it grants superior rights to Jews enshrined in dozens of Israeli laws and holds that Palestinians expelled and exiled from their homeland shouldn’t be allowed to return to it solely and solely as a result of they don’t seem to be Jews.
Anti-Zionism, subsequently, isn’t prejudice towards Jews as Israel and its foyer groups declare.
Anti-Zionism, based mostly in universal human rights rules, is anti-racism.
A new report by Israel’s Reut Institute and the US-based Jewish Council for Public Affairs warned ominously that ‘”Corbynization” is spreading through segments of the political left’ and that ‘UK-based anti-Israel groups have been inspiring liberal and progressive elite circles worldwide.’
This, says Abunimah, ‘underlines why Israel and its lobby view discrediting and removing Corbyn as a paramount priority.’
An ‘Unconstitutional Animas’ Towards A Corbyn Government
Two weeks before the Panorama programme, The Occasions revealed a leak revealing that Corbyn is alleged by senior UK civil servants to be ‘too frail’ to turn out to be Prime Minister. He was less than the job, ‘physically or mentally’. One anonymous determine at the Civil Service reportedly stated:
When does somebody say [he] is just too ailing to hold on as leader of the Labour Get together, let alone prime minister? There have to be senior individuals in the social gathering who know that he is not functioning on all cylinders.
Corbyn promptly rebutted the ‘scurrilous’ story, dismissing it as ‘a farrago of nonsense’ and insisting he was a ‘very fit, very healthy, very active person’. Corbyn’s name for an unbiased investigation into the Civil Service leak to the press was predictably rejected by the government.
David Miller, Professor of Political Sociology at Bristol University, and a researcher in propaganda, noted that the Civil Service clearly has:
an unconstitutional animus towards a possible Corbyn government and has been briefing towards it a method or one other via numerous businesses for a while now.
For instance, Miller pointed to the Integrity Initiative, set up by the government-funded Institute for Statecraft whose said mission is to:
counter Russian disinformation and malign influence by harnessing present experience and establishing a community of specialists, opinion formers and coverage makers to teach nationwide audiences in the menace and to help construct nationwide capacities to counter it.
In an article for the Morning Star, Labour MP Chris Williamson, identified that this supposed charitable body had ‘strayed into smearing Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’. Its official Twitter account had promoted tweets and articles attacking Corbyn, the Labour Get together and their officers. One tweet quoted a newspaper article calling Corbyn a ‘useful idiot’. The article then continued:
His open visceral anti-Westernism helped the Kremlin cause, as certainly as if he had been secretly peddling Westminster tittle-tattle for money.
The chilling manipulations of the Institute for Statecraft are straight out of the chilly struggle playbook.
By way of a collection of parliamentary questions, Williamson discovered that the Overseas Office has given greater than £2.2 million to the Institute for Statecraft’s Integrity Initiative. As David Miller says, ‘the use of taxpayers’ money to intrude in home politics [is] an affront to democracy’. A report by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media – an unbiased network of teachers that features Miller – discovered that Facebook and Nato had offered funding too.
Institution opposition to Corbyn additionally comes from UK army forces. In 2015, the Sunday Occasions revealed feedback by a senior serving British Army basic that Corbyn would face a mutiny as Prime Minister if he ever tried to cancel the Trident nuclear weapons system, withdraw from Nato or scale back the armed forces:
The Army simply wouldn’t stand for it. The common employees wouldn’t permit a chief minister to jeopardise the safety of this country and I feel individuals would use no matter means attainable, truthful or foul to stop that. You’ll be able to’t put a maverick in control of a rustic’s security.
‘Failing The Test Of Leadership’ = Failing To Shield Power
The worry of a ‘maverick’ ending up as chief of the nation extends to the ‘liberal’ finish of the permissible ‘spectrum’ of viewpoints. In our previous media alert, we highlighted the fakery behind accusations of anti-semitism levelled at Labour MP Chris Williamson, talked about above. On July 8, a letter signed by multiple hundred outstanding members of the Jewish group, including Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, was revealed by the Guardian. The letter said:
Chris Williamson did not say that the get together had been “too apologetic about antisemitism”, as has been extensively misreported. He appropriately said that the Labour social gathering has carried out more than some other celebration to fight the scourge of antisemitism and that, subsequently, its stance ought to be much less apologetic. Such assaults on Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters purpose to undermine not solely the Labour celebration’s management but in addition all pro-Palestinian members.
The mass media have ignored the large help for Chris each inside and beyond the Labour get together. Help that features many Jews. The social gathering wants individuals like him, with the power and willpower to battle for social justice. As anti-racist Jews, we regard Chris as our ally: he stands as we do with the oppressed quite than the oppressor. It also needs to be famous that he has an extended report of campaigning towards racism and fascism than most of his detractors.
Nevertheless, the letter was swiftly taken down following a grievance later the same day by the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD). The placeholder Guardian web page initially stated the letter had been removed, ‘pending investigation’. By the following day, the letter had been permanently deleted with this text given as the reason:
A letter was removed from this page on 9 July 2019 because of errors within the record of signatories offered. We have been contacted by an organisation which had not agreed to sign the letter; the organisers of the letter also acknowledge that there have been different inaccuracies within the record of signatories.
The ‘explanation’ lacked detail, would have nonplussed many readers, and notably made no point out of the grievance from BoD. In a bit for The Canary, John McEvoy stated that the grievance from BoD had:
rightly highlighted that one of the signatories – “Michael Morgan” – had made past racist and abhorrent remarks.
One of the letter’s co-authors, who wished to remain nameless, informed McEvoy that they regretted a scarcity of oversight over the signatories:
We have been clear that the letter was presupposed to be signed by solely Jewish individuals. It was made public a few days in the past, and acquired 292 signatures shortly after.
We tried to verify which of the signatories have been Jewish by contacting them. If we acquired no response, we took them off the record.
Michael Morgan replied and advised us he was not Jewish, so we took him off the listing. His identify ended up back on it after transferring the document by means of totally different file codecs, mistakenly utilizing older information.
The inclusion of Michael Morgan was an accident and an oversight. His views don’t mirror ours.
However, whereas there have been issues with a number of of the signatories, it was clear that the contents of the letter have been completely justified and applicable. As the co-author of the letter informed The Canary:
I feel the letter itself is essential, and in addition whether or not the Board of Deputies assume the likes of Chomsky and so on. are the “right kind of Jews” is neither here nor there.
In fact these Jews will not be outstanding in the Board of Deputies’ circles, but this is the difficulty: The Board of Deputies appear to need to define what “prominent Jew” means. And a lot of people who’re Jewish and, like me, on the left, discover that troublesome to simply accept. Why is our Jewish id being erased, and why do they get to define who’s a Jew?
That the Guardian refused to reinstate the letter is deplorable; a symptom of the paper’s appalling position in fuelling the pretend anti-semitism ‘crisis’. As journalist John Pilger famous by way of Twitter:
The Guardian has but to apologise for two major fabrications: that Julian #Assange conspired with Moscow to escape Britain; and that he met Trump crony Paul Manafort plus Russians. The paper’s descent quickens with this censorship.
Final month, journalist Matt Kennard revealed the Guardian‘s collusion with UK security services in media censorship. Deputy editor Paul Johnson had been personally thanked by the Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice (or D-Notice) committee for ‘re-establishing links’ with the paper within the wake of its publication of fabric from CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. Johnson was certainly one of three Guardian staffers who took part in the subsequent destruction of pc exhausting drives containing Snowden information in the Guardian‘s basement, overseen by two security officials from GCHQ. He then joined the D-Notice committee in 2014. The committee, run by the Ministry of Defence, issues ‘advisory warnings’ which are primarily makes an attempt to gag the media from publishing info which may harm state pursuits.
D-Discover assembly minutes reveal that Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance reported that the committee’s relationship with the Guardian has ‘continued to strengthen’ and that there have been ‘regular dialogues’ with its journalists. Kennard recommended that the Guardian was rewarded for its acquiescence with safety pursuits by being granted an unprecedented unique interview with a serving head of MI5 in 2016.
Yet one more clear indication of the paper’s plummeting descent was the Guardian‘s publication of a full-page advertisement on July 17 from greater than sixty Labour friends lambasting Corbyn:
You will have did not defend our social gathering’s anti-racist values. You’ve got subsequently failed the check of leadership.
The get together was ‘no longer a safe place for all members and supporters’, claimed the friends, ‘whatever their ethnicity or faith.’ The signatories, comprising round one-third of the celebration’s members within the Home of Lords, included former Cabinet members Peter Mandelson, Peter Hain and John Reid from the discredited, blood-soaked years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
The advert was headed:
The Labour Get together welcomes everybody* irrespective or race, creed, gender id, or sexual orientation (*except, it seems, Jews). That is your legacy, Mr Corbyn.
In publishing the advert, the Guardian was as soon as again complicit in promoting a false, elite-friendly narrative about an institutionally anti-semitic Labour Celebration beneath Corbyn. The advert itself generated appreciable media protection, simply because the friends little question meant, with round thirty articles in the press. ‘Jews really feel unsafe in “toxic” Labour, say 67 of get together’s own peers’, blasted the Day by day Mail. The Evening Normal carried the headline: ‘Corbyn “must show his shame on anti-Semitism”: Labour ex-minister Lord Robertson joins peers’ attack on leader’. The Categorical stated: ‘Labour civil WAR: Corbyn accused of “failing leadership” by friends over anti-Semitism’. The general message was clear: Labour is anti-semitic underneath Corbyn, and he isn’t fit to grow to be Prime Minister.
Shredding any semblance of ‘impartiality’, Robert Peston, ITV’s political editor, tweeted:
What has it come to within the Labour Get together when the one means Labour peers feel they will talk with their leader @jeremycorbyn is to pay to take out an advert in @guardian! No main get together has ever been this dysfunctional
Jonathan Prepare dinner responded appropriately:
What has it come to within the Labour social gathering when its most establishment figures determine to destroy their get together from within by fuelling the company media smears towards a pacesetter twice elected by members! No main celebration has ever been this leftwing earlier than. (Fastened that for you Pesto!)
Considering alongside comparable strains to Peston, Channel 4 Information presenter Krishnan Guru-Murty observed by way of Twitter:
The Labour Get together is now unable to seek out anyone ready to return on #c4news tonight to reply questions about antisemitism and the ad taken out by over 60 Labour Peers immediately telling Jeremy Corbyn he had did not defend the social gathering’s values.
As so typically occurs when a company journalist ventures forth into the world of social media, rebuttals flew in. Twitter consumer Jon Harding replied:
Members help Corbyn because he helps our values – group, equality, duty, solidarity and equity
The media assault us everyday, calling us anti-Semitic. However Corbyn stays steadfast, and help for Corbyn is strong, as a result of we will see by way of the smears
One other Twitter consumer replied to Guru-Murty:
Perhaps you must do a phase on how left wing Corbyn supporting Jews are being at greatest ignored, at worst, harassed, doxed & vilified by people who don’t agree with them, and how many are afraid to voice their opinions due to it!
So far as we might inform, the Channel four News man had nothing to say in response.
An article on the Skwawkbox website quoted Labour activists on Twitter saying that ‘the record of signatories reads like a “Who’s Who” of Blairite leftovers’. The article also famous that of the 64 Lords who signed the advert:
At the very least twenty-four are company lobbyists or on boards of hedge funds, banks, “global security consultancies” and, notably, personal well being companies. Others have household links to comparable enterprises.
In other phrases, these are the primary interests that are being protected in attacking Corbyn.
Extra Guardian Censorship
On the same day (July 17) that the Lords advert was revealed, a exceptional e-mail from Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell was circulated on social media. Bell had sent it to a Guardian editor, probably Katharine Viner herself. It is value quoting in full:
After our bizarre phone dialog yesterday, I feared you won’t publish at the moment’s strip, however nonetheless can’t perceive why the hooked up must be more liable to authorized challenge from Tom Watson than either of the earlier two strips that you’ve already revealed. You stated the ‘lawyers were concerned’, however what about? It’s not antisemitic neither is it libellous, regardless that it features a caricature of Binyamin Netanyahu. If Watson chose to object it might make him look far sillier than he does in the cartoon.
I think that the actual drawback is that it contravenes some mysterious editorial line that has been drawn around the topic of antisemitism and the infernal subject of ‘antisemitic tropes’. In some ways that is even more troubling for me than specious fees of antisemitism. Does the Guardian not tolerate content material that counters its editorial line?
Why in in the present day’s paper has the Guardian revealed a extremely partisan and personally insulting (to the chief of the Labour Get together) advert on web page 20 that uses the Labour Celebration emblem, but is clearly not a Labour Celebration permitted advert? I might have thought that there can be much more purpose to anticipate a legal problem on that than on my cartoon. Or is it that you simply don’t need to offend poor Tom however are quite completely happy to offend poor Jeremy?
Why on earth did the Guardian publish, then unpublish, a letter in help of Chris Williamson, signed by 100 individuals figuring out themselves as Jewish, including Noam Chomsky? Have been they the fallacious type of Jews? The paper’s contortions on this subject don’t do it any credit. If there is a reasoned position on this contentious challenge, then I might dearly wish to see it laid out clearly so we will all see the place we stand. Or are there some subjects that we just can’t touch?
In his earlier two strips on July 15 and July 16 of his long-running cartoon collection, ‘If…’, Bell had depicted Labour deputy chief Tom Watson because the ‘Antisemite Finder General’, reminiscent of the Witchfinder Basic of the 17th century English Civil Struggle. As Bell stated in his e-mail, these two earlier strips have been clearly thought-about fit for publication. Within the censored strip for July 17, deemed unacceptable by the Guardian, but then revealed solely by Socialist Worker, Watson’s horse sniffs out an ‘antisemitic trope’. Watson encounters Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu along with caricatures clearly meant as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.
As James Wright observed in a Canary piece concerning the Guardian‘s censorship, Bell seemed to be ridiculing a elementary contradiction of the pro-Israel institution. It is anti-semitic to suppose that a Jewish individual have to be a supporter of Israel. And but, Netanyahu often claims that Israel speaks for all Jewish individuals. Thus, for example:
On this present day, on behalf of the Jewish individuals, I say to those who have sought and still search to destroy us: You’ve got failed and you will fail.
Furthermore, Netanyahu’s embrace of far-right nationalist leaders around the globe (not least Trump), truly makes Jews ‘more vulnerable to anti-Semitism and hate crimes in their own countries’, warned racism researcher Rachel Shenhav-Goldberg. And writer Zeev Sternhell noted in a bit for Overseas Policy that Israel underneath Netanyahu:
sees itself as an integral a part of this anti-liberal bloc led by nativist xenophobes who visitors in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories comparable to Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Poland’s Jaroslaw Kaczynski.
Boris Johnson, in fact, has an extended report of sexist, homophobic and racist remarks. He has referred to black individuals as ‘piccaninnies’ with ‘watermelon smiles’ and likened Muslim ladies to letterboxes. As for Trump, he advised US Jews that Netanyahu is ‘your Prime Minister’, thus conflating Jews with Israelis. It’s value including that Trump lately advised four Congresswomen of color – Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashia Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley – to ‘go back’ and ‘help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came’. That is racism. Three of the politicians have been born in america. The fourth, Omar, moved to the US together with her family when she was ten years previous after fleeing struggle in Somalia. Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson, the two contenders to turn out to be Tory chief and thus the subsequent Prime Minister, each refused to name Trump’s remarks racist, in stark contrast to Jeremy Corbyn.
On the identical day that the Guardian censored the Bell cartoon strip, it offered Labour MP Margaret Hodge with a platform to once again abuse Jeremy Corbyn as ‘a racist and an antisemite’. The Guardian‘s editorial bias might hardly be more obvious.
Our searches of the ProQuest media database confirmed that not a single UK newspaper reported the Guardian‘s censorship of Steve Bell. No one must be stunned. In any case, silence about uncomfortable subjects is among the operating rules of the corporate media.
We requested John Pilger to comment on Bell’s e mail. He informed us:
Steve Bell’s reasoned protest to a gatekeeper on the Guardian, a newspaper typically given credibility by his brilliance, is a warning. I needed to write down that it was a warning to journalists — but there are few who will not be now cowed into silence or collaborators. They don’t seem to be journalists any more, but functionaries, even awarded prizes for holding the line. Steve Bell’s memo is a warning to the wider society. His splendidly anarchic satire is required greater than ever on this corporate, conformist world with its ever present intimidation.
The Guardian advertisement he refers to in effect calls for the outlawing of dissent; in america, the firing of political cartoonists who cross the road is now routine. The accusation of anti-Semitism thrown at principled opponents of the longest, most brutal army occupation in trendy occasions and the racism of the Israeli state, now enshrined in Israeli regulation, should be beyond contempt. But the Guardian’s “contortions”, as Steve Bell calls them, effectively peddle the lie that criticism of Israel and its Zionist ideology is anti-Semitic.That is no totally different from the lies the Guardian has informed about Julian Assange. So beware. Not only is the marketing campaign to destroy Jeremy Corbyn properly superior, so, too, is the consignment of real journalism, and fact, to a everlasting underground.
The root explanation for this campaign to destroy Corbyn is to dam any hope of systemic change for the good thing about the overall population. Such a prospect is deemed unacceptable to established power. For the sake of society, and the bigger battle to stop climate breakdown, we urgently have to take back energy from those who have stolen it.