Labourpolitici in oorlog met elkaar: de antisemitisme leugen tegen Jeremy Corbyn die hem de verkiezingen kostte

Nog
steeds ongelofelijk dat de Labour top liever de verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië verloor
dan Corbyn deze te laten winnen. De smeercampagne van een aantal Labourleden tegen Corbyn en
zijn zogenaamde antisemitisme, kostte hem vorig jaar de Britse verkiezingen, een campagne gesteund door het Britse leger, de pro-Israëlische lobby en de reguliere (massa-) media, inclusief de zogenaamde onafhankelijke BBC……

De
nieuwe voorzitter van Labour, Keir Starmer, heeft van meet af aan
alle pogingen om Corbyn alsnog te rehabiliteren gesaboteerd en heeft
rapporten laten verdwijnen die e.e.a. aantoonden……. De zogenaamde
klokkenluiders, prominente Labour politici die de partij zouden
hebben verlaten vanwege het antisemitische gehalte, wordt nog steeds
de hand boven het hoofd gehouden, ook al konden zij totaal geen
bewijs geven voor Corbyns antisemitisme, anders dan kritiek van
Corbyn op de bloedige terreur van Israël tegen de Palestijnen als antisemitisch af te doen…….. 

Alsof
het antisemitisch is als je een land aanklaagt voor het vervolgen van
een minderheid, zoals de Joden werden vervolgd door
nazi-Duitsland….. Corbyn was juist een anti-fascist en heeft
meermaals de holocaust als een beestachtige massamoord
neergezet……(hij was zelfs bevriend met Hajo Meijer, een Joodse concentratiekamp overlevende, die jarenlang bestuurslid was van Een Ander Joods Geluid……)

Keir Starmer - Wikipedia 

De psychopathische neoliberale opperschoft Keir Starmer

De holocaust is geen excuus voor de slachtoffers om andere volkeren
te vervolgen, hen hun land af te nemen en middels bruut geweld en massamoord te
verjagen, gevolgd door het afknijpen van het Palestijnse volk door Israël met: -moord op vooral ongewapende Palestijnse burgers en hun kinderen, -het
onleefbaar maken van hun overgebleven woongebieden door het creëren van een groot watertekort en een zelfde tekort aan elektriciteit, -deze gebieden
onbereikbaar maken voor boeren en -de continue vernedering van deze
mensen bij de Israëlische blokkades op de West Bank…… Om over de vreselijke situatie in de openluchtgevangenis Gazastrook nog maar te zwijgen….. Oh en dan vergeet ik nog het vernietigen van ontwikkelingsprojecten voor de Palestijnen door Israël, projecten bekostigd door de EU en haar lidstaten (zoals Nederland..)…..

Lees het
volgende artikel dat ik overnam van Information Clearing House,
waarin uitgebreid wordt aangetoond dat Corbyn en leden van zijn team
op een schunnige manier zijn gedemoniseerd, zonder enige
bewijsvoering…. Het ging veel te goed met Corbyn en men wilde koste
wat kost voorkomen dat Labour een meer sociaal karakter zou
krijgen….. Het is nu zelfs zover dat Starmer, de opvolger van Corbyn, echte antisemieten in
zijn team heeft aangesteld…… Fascisten als Rachel Reeves die Nancy
Astor prees in een Twitterbericht, Astor was een bewonderaar van
Hitler en daarmee een bekende antisemitische fascist, Reeves weigerde botweg de ‘tweet’ te
verwijderen…… Ongelofelijk dat de reguliere westerse media (ook in Nederland) die zo op de antisemitische trom roffelden als het over Corbyn ging, er in dit overduidelijke geval van antisemitisme totaal het zwijgen toe doen……

UK
Labour party teeters on brink of civil war over antisemitism

New
leader Keir Starmer spurns two chances to clear Jeremy Corbyn’s
name, preferring instead to pay damages to former staff
By
Jonathan Cook

July 31, 2020
Information
Clearing House

– Jeremy Corbyn, the former left-wing leader of Britain’s Labour
party, is once again making headlines over an “antisemitism
problem” he supposedly oversaw during his five years at the head of
the party.

This time, however,
the assault on his reputation is being led not by the usual suspects
– pro-Israel lobbyists and a billionaire-owned media – but by
Keir Starmer, the man who succeeded him. 

Since becoming Labour
leader in April, Starmer has helped to bolster the evidence-free
narrative of a party plagued by antisemitism under Corbyn. That has
included Starmer’s refusal to exploit two major opportunities to
challenge that narrative. 

Had those chances been
grasped, Labour might have been able to demonstrate that Corbyn was
the victim of an underhand campaign to prevent him from reaching
power. 

Starmer, had he chosen
to, could have shown that Corbyn’s long history as an anti-racism
campaigner was twisted to discredit him. His decades of vocal support
for Palestinian rights were publicly recast as a supposed irrational
hatred of Israel based on an antipathy to Jews.

But instead Starmer
chose to sacrifice his predecessor rather than risk being tarred with
the same brush. 

As a result, Labour
now appears to be on the brink of open war. Competing rumors suggest
Corbyn may be preparing to battle former staff through the courts,
while Starmer may exile his predecessor from the party.

Rocketing
membership

Corbyn’s troubles
were inevitable the moment the mass membership elected him Labour
leader in 2015 in defiance of the party bureaucracy and most Labour
MPs. Corbyn was determined to revive the party as a vehicle for
democratic socialism and end Britain’s role meddling overseas as a
junior partner to the global hegemon of the United States. 

That required breaking
with Labour’s capture decades earlier, under Tony Blair, as a party
of neoliberal orthodoxy at home and neoconservative orthodoxy
abroad. 

Until Corbyn arrived
on the scene, Labour had become effectively a second party of capital
alongside Britain’s ruling Conservative party, replicating the
situation in the US with the Democratic and Republican parties.

His attempts to push
the party back towards democratic socialism attracted hundreds of
thousands of new members, quickly making Labour the largest party in
Europe. But it also ensured a wide-ranging alliance of establishment
interests was arrayed against him, including
the British military
, the corporate media, and the pro-Israel
lobby.

Politicized
investigation

Unlike Corbyn, Starmer
has not previously shown any inclination to take on the might of the
establishment. In fact, he had previously proven himself its willing
servant. 

As head of Britain’s
prosecution service in 2013, for example, his department issued
thinly
veiled threats
to Sweden to continue its legal pursuit of
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who had sought political asylum in
London’s Ecuadorean embassy, even as Swedish interest in the case
waned.

With his background in
realpolitik, Starmer appears to have grasped quickly the danger of
being seen to share any common ground with Corbyn – not only should
he pursue significant elements of his predecessor’s program, but by
challenging the carefully crafted establishment narrative around
Corbyn. 

For this reason, he
has refused to seize either of the two chances presented to him to
demonstrate that Labour had no more of an antisemitism problem than
the relatively
marginal
one that exists more generally in British society.

That failure is likely
to prove all the more significant given that in a matter of weeks
Labour is expected to face the findings of an investigation
by the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The highly
politicized
watchdog body, which took on the probe into Labour
while refusing
to investigate
plentiful evidence of an Islamophobia problem in
the Conservative party, is expected to shore up the
Corbyn-antisemitism narrative.

Labour has said
it will readily accept the Commission’s findings, whatever they
are. The watchdog body is likely to echo the prevailing narrative
that Corbyn attracted left-wingers to the party who were
ideologically tainted with antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism.
As a result, or so the argument goes, Jew hatred flourished on his
watch. 

Starmer has already
declared “zero
tolerance
” of antisemitism, but he has appeared willing – in
line with pro-Israel lobbyists in his party – to conflate
Jew hatred with trenchant criticism of Israel.

The barely veiled
intention is to drive Corbynite members out of Labour – either
actively through suspensions or passively as their growing
disillusionment leads to a mass exodus.

By distancing himself
from his predecessor, Starmer knows no dirt will stick to him even as
the Equality Commission drags Corbyn’s name through the mud.

Sabotaged
from within

Starmer rejected the
first chance to salvage the reputations of Corbyn and the wider
Labour membership days after he became leader.

In mid-April, an
850-page internal party report was leaked, stuffed with the text of
lengthy email exchanges and WhatsApp chats by senior party staff.
They showed that, as had long been suspected, Corbyn’s own
officials worked hard to sabotage
his leadership from within.

Staff at headquarters
still loyal to the Blair vision of the party even went so far as to
actively throw the 2017 general election, when Labour was a
hair’s-breadth away from ousting the Conservatives from government.
These officials hoped a crushing defeat would lead to Corbyn’s
removal from office. 

The report described a
“hyper-factional atmosphere”, with officials, including
then-deputy leader Tom Watson, regularly referring to Corbyn and his
supporters as “Trots
– a reference to Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of a violent
Communist revolution in Russia more than a century ago.

Corbynites were thrown
out of the party on the flimsiest
pretexts
, such as describing those like Blair who led the 2003
attack on Iraq as “warmongers”.

But one early, favored
tactic by staff in the disciplinary unit was to publicize
antisemitism cases and then drag out their resolution to create the
impression that the party under Corbyn was not taking the issue
seriously. 

These officials also
loosened the definition of antisemitism to pursue cases against
Corbyn’s supporters who, like him, were vocal in defending
Palestinian rights or critical of Israeli policies. 

This led to the
preposterous situation where Labour was suspending and expelling
anti-Zionist
Jews
who supported Corbyn on the grounds that they were
supposedly antisemites, while action was delayed
on dealing with a Holocaust denier.

The narrative against
Corbyn being crafted by his own officials was eagerly picked up and
amplified by the strong contingent of Blairites among Labour
legislators
in the parliament, as well as by the corporate media and by Israel
lobbyists both inside and outside Labour.

Effort
to bury report

The parties
responsible for leaking the report in April did so because Labour,
now led by Starmer, had no intention of publicizing it. 

In fact, the report
had been originally compiled as part of Labour’s submission to the
Equality and Human Rights Commission, effectively giving Corbyn’s
side of the story against his opponents. 

But once Corbyn
stepped down, the party bureaucracy under Starmer preferred
to shelve it
. That decision meant there would be no case for the
defense, and Corbyn’s opponents’ claims would go unchallenged.

Once leaked, Starmer
stuck to his position. Rather than use the report as an opportunity
to expose the ugly campaign against Corbyn and thereby question the
antisemitism narrative, Starmer did his level best to bury it from
sight. 

He vowed
to investigate
“the circumstances in which the report was put
into the public domain”. That sounded ominously like a threat to
hound those who had tried to bring to light the party’s betrayal of
its previous leader.

Rather than accept the
evidence presented in the leaked report of internal corruption and
the misuse of party funds, Starmer set
up an inquiry
under QC Martin Forde to investigate the earlier
investigation.

The Forde inquiry
looked like Starmer’s effort to kick the damaging revelations into
the long grass. 

The British media gave
the leaked report – despite its earth-shattering revelations of
Labour officials sabotaging an election campaign – little more than
perfunctory coverage.

Labour
‘whistleblowers’

A second, related
chance to challenge the Corbyn-antisemitism narrative reached its
conclusion last week. And again, Starmer threw in Labour’s hand. 

In July last year –
long before the report had been leaked – the BBC’s prestige news
investigation show Panorama set out to answer a question it posed in
the episode’s title: “Is
Labour Antisemitic?

John Ware, a reporter
openly hostile
to Corbyn
and well-known for supporting
Israel
and his antipathy
towards Muslims
, was chosen to front the investigation.

The program presented
eight former staff as “whistleblowers”, their testimonies
supposedly exposing Corbyn’s indulgence of antisemitism. They
included those who would soon be revealed in the leaked report as
intractable ideological enemies of the Corbyn project and others who
oversaw the dysfunctional complaints process that dragged its heels
on resolving antisemitism cases.

The Panorama program
was dismal even by the low standards of political reporting set by
the BBC in the Corbyn era.

The show made much of
the testimony of pro-Israel lobbyists inside the Labour party
belonging to a group called the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). They were not
identified
– either by name or by affiliation – despite being
given the freedom to make anecdotal and unspecified claims of
antisemitism against Corbyn and his supporters.

The BBC’s decision
not to name these participants had nothing to do with protecting
their identities, even though that was doubtless the impression
conveyed to the audience. 

Most were
already known as Israel partisans because they had been exposed in a
2017 four-part al-Jazeera undercover documentary called The Lobby.
They were filmed colluding with an Israeli embassy official, Shai
Masot, to bring down Corbyn. The BBC did not identify these
pro-Israel activists presumably because they had zero credibility as
witnesses.

One-sided
coverage

Nonetheless, a
seemingly stronger case – at least, at the time – was made by the
eight former Labour staff. Their testimonies to the BBC suggested
they had been hampered and bullied by Corbyn’s team as they tried
to stamp out antisemitism.

Panorama allowed these
claims to go unchallenged, even though with a little digging it could
have tapped sources inside Labour who were already compiling what
would become the leaked report, presenting a very different view of
these self-styled “whistleblowers”.

The BBC also failed to
talk to Jewish
Voice for Labour
(JVL), a group of Labour party members supportive of
Corbyn who challenged the way the Jewish Labour Movement had
manipulated the definition of antisemitism in the party to harm
Palestinian solidarity activists.

And the BBC did not
call as counter-witnesses any of the anti-Zionist Jews who were among
the earliest victims of the
purge of supposed antisemites by Labour’s apparent
“whistleblowers”.

Instead, it
selectively quoted from an email by Seumas Milne, Corbyn’s chief
adviser, to suggest that he had interfered in the disciplinary
process to help antisemites avoid suspension. 

Proper context from
the BBC would have revealed that Milne had simply expressed
concern
at how the rule book was being interpreted when several
Jews had been suspended for antisemitism – and that he had
proffered his view only because a staff member now claiming to be a
whistleblower had asked for it.

This section of the
Panorama show looked suspiciously like entrapment of Milne by Labour
staff, followed by collusion from the BBC in promoting their false
narrative.

Flawed
reporting

Despite these and many
other serious
flaws
in the Panorama episode, it set the tone for subsequent
discussion of the “antisemitism problem” in Labour.

The program aired a
few months before a general election, last December, that Corbyn lost
to Boris Johnson and the ruling Conservative party. 

One of the key
damaging, “gotcha” moments of the campaign was an interview with
the veteran BBC interviewer Andrew Neil in which he repeatedly asked
Corbyn to apologize for antisemitism in the party, as had been
supposedly exposed by Panorama. Corbyn’s refusal to respond
directly to the question left him looking evasive and guilty.

With the rest of the
media amplifying the Panorama claims rather than testing them, it has
become the accepted benchmark for judging the Corbyn era. The show
has even been nominated
for a Bafta award, the British equivalent to an Oscar.

Shortly after the
program aired, Corbyn’s team disputed
the Panorama narrative
, saying it had contained “deliberate and
malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public”. They
also described the “whistleblowers” as disaffected former staff
with “political axes to grind”.

Ware and seven of the
former staff members who appeared in the program launched a
defamation
action
against the Labour party.

After the internal
report was leaked in April, the legal scales tipped decisively in
Labour’s favor. Starmer was reportedly
advised by lawyers that the party would be well-positioned to defeat
the legal action and clear Corbyn and the party’s name.

But again Starmer
preferred to fold. Before the case could be tested in court, Starmer
issued an
apology
last week to the ex-staff members and Ware, and paid them
a six-figure sum in damages.

Admitting that
“antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent
years”, the statement accepted the claims of the ex-staff to be
“whistleblowers”, even capitalizing the word to aggrandize their
status.

It said:
“We acknowledge the many years of dedicated and committed service
that the Whistleblowers have given to the Labour Party … We
unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith, malice and
lying.”

Threat
of bankruptcy

With typical
understatement, Corbyn said he was “disappointed” at the
settlement, calling
it
a “political decision, not a legal one”. He added that it
“risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations
about action taken to tackle antisemitism in the Labour party in
recent years.”

Starmer’s decision
also preempted – and effectively nullified – the Forde inquiry,
which was due to submit its own findings on antisemitism in Labour
later in the year.

Many in the party were
infuriated that their membership dues had been used to pay off a
group of ex-staff who, according to the leaked report, had undermined
the party’s elected leader and helped to throw a general election. 

But in what looked
disturbingly like a move to silence Corbyn, Ware said he was
consulting
lawyers
once again about launching a legal battle, personally
against the former Labour leader, over his criticism of the
settlement.

Mark Lewis, the
solicitor acting for Ware and the whistleblowers, has said he is also
preparing
an action for damages against Labour
on behalf of 32 individuals
named in the leaked report. Among them is Lord Iain McNichol, who
served as the party’s general secretary at the time.

Lewis reportedly
intends to focus
on staff privacy breaches
under the Data Protection Act,
disclosure of private information and alleged violations of
employment law.

Conversely, Mark
Howell, a Labour party member, has initiated an action against Labour
and McNichol seeking
damages
for “breach of contract”. He demands that those named
in the leaked report be expelled from the party.

He is also reported to
be considering referring named staff members to the Crown Prosecution
Service under the 2006 Fraud Act for their failure to uphold the
interests of party members who paid staff salaries.

This spate of cases
threatens to hemorrhage money from the party. There have been
warnings that financial settlements, as well as members deserting the
party in droves, could ultimately
bankrupt Labour
.

Corbyn
to be expelled?

Within days of the
apology, a crowdfunding
campaign
raised more than £280,000 for Corbyn to clear his name
in any future legal actions.

Given his own
self-serving strategy, Starmer would doubtless be embarrassed by such
a move. There are already rumors
that he is considering withdrawing the party whip from Corbyn – a
form of exile from the party.

Pressure on him to do
so is mounting. At the weekend it was reported
that ex-staff might drop the threatened case over the embarrassing
revelations contained in the leaked report should Starmer expel
Corbyn.

Quoting someone it
described as a “well-placed source”, the
Mail
on Sunday

newspaper set out the new stakes. “Labour says they have zero
tolerance to anti-Semitism. Zero tolerance means no Corbyn and no
Corbynistas,” the source said.

There are already
reports of what amounts to a purge
of left-wing members
from Labour.

Starmer has committed
to upholding “10
Pledges
” produced by the Board of Deputies – a conservative
Jewish leadership organization hostile to Corbyn and the left –
that places it and the pro-Israel lobbyists of the Jewish Labour
Movement in charge of deciding what constitutes antisemitism in the
party.

Selective
concern

Starmer’s decision
about who can serve in his shadow cabinet is a reminder that the
storm over Corbyn was never about real antisemitism – the kind that
targets Jews for being Jews. 

It was a pretext to be rid of the Corbyn
project and democratic socialism. 

Starmer quickly pushed
out the last two prominent
Corbynites
in his shadow cabinet – both on matters related to criticism of
Israel.

By contrast, he has
happily indulged the kind of antisemitism that harms Jews as long as
it comes from members of his shadow cabinet who are not associated
with Corbyn.

Starmer picked
Rachel Reeves for his team, even though earlier this year she tweeted
a tribute to Nancy Astor, a supporter of Hitler and notorious
antisemite. Reeves has refused to delete the tweet.

And Steve Reed is
still the shadow communities secretary, even though this month he
referred to a Jewish newspaper tycoon, Richard Desmond, as a “puppet
master
” – the very definition of an antisemitic trope.

Starmer’s “zero
tolerance” appears to be highly selective – more concerned about
harsh criticism of a state, Israel, than the othering of Jews.
Tellingly, Starmer has been under no serious pressure from the Jewish
Labour Movement, or from the media or from Jewish leadership
organizations such as the Board of Deputies to take any action
against either Reeves or Reed. 

He has moved swiftly
against leftists in his party who criticize Israel but has shrugged
his shoulders at supposed “moderates” who, it could be argued,
have encouraged or glorified hatred and suspicion of Jews.

But then the
antisemitism furor was never about safeguarding Jews. It was about
creating a cover story as the establishment protected itself from
democratic socialism.

Jonathan
Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books
include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the
Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing
Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
(vreemd genoeg kom je door klikken uit op de site van Middle East Online >> MEO, door daar eerst op de ‘knop’ home te klikken en daarna op de volgende pagina zijn naam op het zoekvlak in te voeren, krijg je artikeln van Cook te zien, echter niet het bovenstaande artikel, hier de directe link naar de site van Jonathan Cook, waar je dit artikel wel kan vinden)

Click
for

Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note-
Translation
may take a moment to load.

====================================

Zie ook:

BBC heeft Corbyn afgemaakt als antisemiet, terwijl het zelf al jaren een racistische serie uitzendt…….

Verkiezingen
Groot-Brittannië: de lastercampagne van de afhankelijke BBC en andere
massamedia tegen Corbyn heeft gewonnen………

Verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië gemanipuleerd door de massamedia

Jackie
Walker, een joods journalist, spreekt over de met beschuldigingen van
antisemitisme gevoede heksenjacht op Labour en haarzelf
‘ (ook van belang voor dit bericht)

Opperrabbijn Mirvis besmeurt Labour vlak voor verkiezingen, over het ongeoorloofd beïnvloeden van verkiezingen gesproken

Boris Johnson vs. Jeremy Corbyn en de massamedia

Niet Rusland maar Trump beïnvloedt nu al de verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië

Jeremy Corbyn, de Britse Labourleider zal en moet vallen: hij neemt het op voor het arme deel van de bevolking

Gedreven politicus zet BBC presentator te kakken die Labour de schuld wilde geven van de armoede in GB

Honger in GB anno 2019: uitsterfbeleid voor werklozen en andere arme Britten >> velen krijgen geen voedselhulp

Britse kinderen lijden anno 2018 honger, vooral in de vakanties…….


En zie voorts:

Israëlische rechter wijst directeur Human Rights Watch het totaal absurde ‘democratische’ land uit‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht, anders dan de hier getoonde)

Israël steelt Palestijnse grond, als ‘vergoeding krijgen’ Palestijnen traangas, made in USA

Mike Pompeo (VS minister van BuZa): nederzettingen op de West Bank gaan niet per se in tegen internationale rechtsregels

Een volk dat leeft onder bezetting heeft het recht gewapend verzet te plegen, ook het Palestijnse volk
(je zou zelfs kunnen zeggen dat een ieder die onder illegale bezetting
leeft, de plicht heeft verzet te plegen, denk daarbij ook aan de
nazi-Duitse bezetting van Nederland tijdens WOII; de link naar dat
bericht op Facebook werd overigens door deze organisatie
geblokkeerd….)

Al wat nog over is zijn hun schooluniformen: Israël vermoordt 8 Palestijnen

“Israël
heeft afgelopen nacht in de Gazastrook opnieuw luchtaanvallen
uitgevoerd op terreurorganisatie Islamitische Jihad…” ahum….

Israëlische ‘Friends Tweet’ komt als een boemerang terug met de gruwelen die Israël begaat tegen het verdrukte Palestijnse volk

Voor meer berichten over antisemitisme, Corbyn of Labour, klik op het desbetreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.

Jeremy Corbyn, de Britse Labourleider zal en moet vallen: hij neemt het op voor het arme deel van de bevolking

Jeremy Corbyn, de Britse Labourleider zal en moet vallen: hij neemt het op voor het arme deel van de bevolking en dat ‘kunnen we uiteraard niet hebben in de huidige ijskoude, inhumane neoliberale maatschappij….’ Vandaar dat de politiek in samenwerking met de reguliere Britse (en ook buitenlandse) media Corbyn op alle mogelijke manieren belasteren en demoniseren met leugens en andere achterklap……

Jonathan
Cook schreef een uitgebreid en prima artikel over de krachten die
alles op alles zetten om Jeremy Corbyn, de Britse Labourleider, ten
val te brengen en te voorkomen dat hij de volgende landelijke
verkiezingen zal winnen…..

Cook
wijst op de politieke gang van zaken in Groot-Brittannië, al voordat
Trump in de VS aan het bewind kwam. Een groot deel van het volk zag en ziet volkomen terecht de politiek als vooropgezette lobby ten gunste van de bedrijven en de
welgestelden, zaken waaraan eerdere Labourleiders meededen en die zoals gezegd werden gesteund door de reguliere media…. Het neoliberalisme had
immers ‘het communisme’ overwonnen, ‘het communisme’ dat nooit
werkelijk heeft bestaan op onze aarde, althans voor zover bekend is (gezien de voorhanden zijnde en niet gemanipuleerde geschiedenis*).

De reguliere westerse media en politici zijn zelfs zover gegaan dat ze Corbyn durfden te beschuldigen van
antisemitisme, terwijl Corbyn in zijn partij o.a. wordt bijgestaan
door politici die Joods zijn, voorts was hij bevriend met Hajo Meijer, het intussen overleden bestuurslid van Een Ander
Joods Geluid….. En waarom die beschuldiging van antisemitisme? Omdat Corbyn regelmatig
volledig terecht het Israëlische terreurbeleid t.a.v. de Palestijnen
heeft bekritiseerd, zeker als Israël weer een zoveelste bloedbad aanrichtte
onder de Palestijnen…. De Palestijnen, als de Joden voor en tijdens
WOII, het vervolgde volk, niet in Duitsland maar in Israël, NB een illegaal gestichte
staat waar o.a. Joden naar toe vluchten om zaken te voorkomen, die Israël tegen de Palestijnen gebruikt…… 

Jeremy Hunt, een psychopathische mafketel van de Tories, durfde Corbyn af te schilderen als de nieuwe Hitler…… Te ernstig om over te lachen, daar er voldoende figuren zijn die een tweede Hitler met veel plezier om zouden leggen, zeker voordat deze politieke macht krijgt….. Ofwel Hunt heeft Corbyn een schietschijf omgehangen en dat met een bewering die kant nog wal raakt…..

Nogmaals: nooit heeft Corbyn anti-Joodse geluiden laten horen, het gaat uitsluitend om kritiek op de staat Israël, iets dat volkomen legitiem is en niets met antisemitisme te maken heeft…..

In de VS
heeft men een grote bek over de ‘door de Russen gemanipuleerde
presidentsverkiezingen van 2016’, waar geen flinter aan bewijs voor
werd geleverd, anders dan een aantal advertenties die qua kosten niet eens in
de schaduw kunnen staan van de bedragen waarmee die verkiezingen
worden gekocht……. Terwijl diezelfde VS in persoon van o.a. Pompeo
heeft gesteld dat Corbyn de volgende landelijke verkiezingen in GB
niet mag winnen….. De VS zou nu zelfs al actief in GB bezig zijn met het
demoniseren van Corbyn…… Zo geeft Pompeo toe (waarschijnlijk ongewild, het is bepaald geen intellect) dat de VS overal en nergens de
verkiezingen manipuleert, als men de idee heeft dat belangrijke figuren als politici op belangrijke posities niet in het belang van de VS en/of Israël zullen werken…..

Lees het
volgende artikel van Cook (eerder gepubliceerd op Common Dreams en overgenomen van Anti-Media) en zegt het voort, er moet een eind komen aan de smerige campagne tegen Corbyn, een campagne waar ook Nederlandse media aan meewerken…..

The
Plot to Keep Jeremy Corbyn Out of Power

July
5, 2019 at 9:24 am

Written
by 
Jonathan
Cook

As
the establishment’s need to keep him away from power has grown more
urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks

(CD Op-Ed) — In
the latest of the interminable media “furores” about Jeremy
Corbyn’s supposed unfitness to lead Britain’s Labour party –
let alone become prime minister – it is easy to forget where we
were shortly before he won the support of an overwhelming majority of
Labour members to head the party.

In
the preceding two years, it was hard to avoid on TV the figure of
Russell Brand, a comedian and minor film star who had reinvented
himself, after years of battling addiction, as a spiritual
guru-cum-political revolutionary.

Brand’s
fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political
order, calling it discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative,
was greeted with smirking condescension by the political and media
establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become
president of the United States, the British media were happy to
indulge Brand for a while, seemingly believing he or his ideas might
prove a ratings winner with younger audiences.

But
Brand started to look rather more impressive than anyone could have
imagined. He took on supposed media heavyweights like the
BBC’s 
Jeremy
Paxman
 and
Channel 4’s 
Jon
Snow
 and
charmed and shamed them into submission – both with his compassion
and his thoughtful radicalism. Even in the gladiatorial-style battle
of wits so beloved of modern TV, he made these titans of the
political interview look mediocre, shallow and out of touch. Videos
of these head-to-heads went viral, and Brand won hundreds of
thousands of new followers.

Then
he overstepped the mark.

Democracy
as charade

Instead
of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was
in fact so rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that
western democracy had become a charade. Elections were 
pointless.
Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our
political leaders were there to represent not us but the interests of
globe-spanning corporations. Political and media elites had been
captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become
irrelevant.

Brand
didn’t just talk the talk. He started committing to direct action.
He 
shamed our
do-nothing politicians and corporate media – the devastating
Grenfell Tower fire had yet to happen – by helping to gain
attention for a group of poor tenants in London who were taking on
the might of a corporation that had become their landlord and wanted
to evict them to develop their homes for a much richer clientele.
Brand’s revolutionary words had turned into revolutionary action

But
just as Brand’s rejection of the old politics began to articulate a
wider mood, it was stopped in its tracks. After Corbyn was
unexpectedly elected Labour leader, offering for the first time in
living memory a politics that listened to people before money,
Brand’s style of rejectionism looked a little too cynical, or at
least premature.


Ideologically he was resolutely against the thrust of four decades of a turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism. (Photo: Anthony Devlin/Getty Images)

Ideologically
he was resolutely against the thrust of four decades of a
turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism. (Photo: Anthony
Devlin/Getty Images)

While
Corbyn’s victory marked a sea-change, it is worth recalling,
however, that it occurred only because of a mistake. Or perhaps two.

The
Corbyn accident

First,
a handful of Labour MPs agreed to nominate Corbyn for the leadership
contest, scraping him past the threshold needed to get on the ballot
paper. Most backed him only because they wanted to give the
impression of an election that was fair and open. After his victory,
some loudly 
regretted having
assisted him. None had thought a representative of the tiny and
besieged left wing of the parliamentary party stood a chance of
winning – not after Tony Blair and his acolytes had spent more than
two decades remaking Labour, using their own version of entryism to
eradicate any vestiges of socialism in the party. These “New
Labour” MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the
interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people.

Corbyn
had very different ideas from most of his colleagues. Over the years
he had broken with the consensus of the dominant Blairite faction
time and again in parliamentary votes, consistently taking a minority
view that later proved to be on the 
right
side of history
.
He alone among the leadership contenders spoke unequivocally against
austerity, regarding it as a way to leech away more public money to
enrich the corporations and banks that had already pocketed vast sums
from the public coffers – so much so that by 2008 they had nearly
bankrupted the entire western economic system.

And
second, Corbyn won because of a recent change in the party’s
rulebook – one now much regretted by party managers. A new internal
balloting system gave more weight to the votes of ordinary members
than the parliamentary party. The members, unlike the party machine,
wanted Corbyn.

Corbyn’s
success didn’t really prove Brand wrong. Even the best designed
systems have flaws, especially when the maintenance of the system’s
image as benevolent is considered vitally important. It wasn’t that
Corbyn’s election had shown Britain’s political system was
representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate
power had made itself vulnerable to a potential accident by
preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to maintain the
illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident.

Brainwashing
under freedom’

Corbyn’s
success also wasn’t evidence that the power structure he challenged
had weakened. The system was still in place and it still had a
chokehold on the political and media establishments that exist to
uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these
forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further,
even more disastrous “accident”, such as his becoming prime
minister.

Listing
the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn
would sound preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these
media-constructed narratives. But almost all of us have been exposed
to this kind of “
brainwashing
under freedom

since birth.

The
initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist,
unstatesmanlike, a national security threat, a Communist spy –
relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like of which no other party
leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more
outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only
failed but backfired – not least, because Labour membership
rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the largest in Europe.

As
the establishment’s need to keep him away from power has grown more
urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks.

Redefining
anti-semitism

Corbyn
was extremely unusual in many ways as the leader of a western party
within sight of power. Personally he was self-effacing and lived
modestly. Ideologically he was resolutely against the thrust of four
decades of a turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism unleashed by
Thatcher and Reagan in the early 1980s; and he opposed foreign wars
for empire, fashionable “humanitarian interventions” whose real
goal was to attack other sovereign states either to control their
resources, usually oil, or line the pockets of the
military-industrial complex.

It
was difficult to attack Corbyn directly for these positions. There
was the danger that they might prove popular with voters. But Corbyn
was seen to have an Achilles’ heel. He was a life-long anti-racism
activist and well known for his support for the rights of the
long-suffering Palestinians. The political and media establishments
quickly learnt that they could recharacterise his support for the
Palestinians and criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. He was soon
being presented as a leader happy to preside over an
“institutionally” anti-semitic party.

Under
pressure of these attacks, Labour was forced to adopt a new and
highly controversial definition of anti-semitism – one 
rejected by
leading jurists and later 
repudiated by
the lawyer who devised it – that expressly conflates criticism of
Israel, and anti-Zionism, with Jew hatred.

One
by one Corbyn’s few ideological allies in the party – those
outside the Blairite consensus – have been picked off as
anti-semites. They have either fallen foul of this conflation or, as
with Labour MP Chris Williamson, they have been tarred and feathered
for trying to defend Labour’s record against the accusations of a
supposed endemic anti-semitism in its ranks.

The
bad faith of the anti-semitism smears were particularly clear in
relation to Williamson. The comment that plunged him into so much
trouble – now leading twice to his suspension – was videoed. In
it he can be heard calling anti-semitism a “scourge” that must be
confronted. But also, in line with all 
evidence,
Williamson denied that Labour had any particular anti-semitism
problem. In part he blamed the party for being too ready to concede
unwarranted ground to critics, further stoking the attacks and
smears. He noted that Labour had been “demonised as a racist,
bigoted party”, adding: “Our party’s response has been partly
responsible for that because in my opinion … we’ve backed off far
too much, we have given too much ground, we’ve been too
apologetic.”

The
Guardian has been typical in mischaracterising Williamson’s remarks
not once but each time it has covered developments in his case. Every
Guardian 
report has
stated, against the audible evidence, that Williamson said Labour was
“too apologetic about anti-semitism”. In short, the Guardian and
the rest of the media have insinuated that Williamson approves of
anti-semitism. But what he actually said was that Labour was “too
apologetic” when dealing with unfair or unreasonable allegations of
anti-semitism, that it had too willingly accepted the unfounded
premise of its critics that the party condoned racism.

Like
the Salem witch-hunts

The
McCarthyite nature of this process of misrepresentation and guilt by
association was underscored when Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), a group of
Jewish party members who have defended Corbyn against the
anti-semitism smears, voiced their support for Williamson. Jon
Lansman, a founder of the Momentum group originally close to Corbyn,
turned on the JVL 
calling them
“part of the problem and not part of the solution to antisemitism
in the Labour Party”. In an additional, ugly but increasingly
normalised remark, he added: “Neither the vast majority of
individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be
said to be part of the Jewish community.”

In
this febrile atmosphere, Corbyn’s allies have been required to
confess that the party is institutionally anti-semitic, to distance
themselves from Corbyn and often to submit to anti-semitism training.
To do otherwise, to deny the accusation is, as in the Salem
witch-hunts, treated as proof of guilt.

The
anti-semitism claims have been regurgitated almost daily across the
narrow corporate media “spectrum”, even though they are
unsupported by any 
actual
evidence
of
an anti-semitism problem in Labour beyond a marginal one
representative of wider British society. The allegations have reached
such fever-pitch, stoked into a hysteria by the media, that the party
is now under 
investigation by
the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – the only party apart
from the neo-Nazi British National Party ever to face such an
investigation.

These
attacks have transformed the whole discursive landscape on Israel,
the Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism in ways unimaginable 20
years ago, when I first started reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Then the claim that anti-Zionism – opposition to Israel
as a state privileging Jews over non-Jews – was the same as
anti-semitism sounded patently ridiculous. It was an idea promoted
only by the most unhinged apologists for Israel.

Now,
however, we have leading liberal commentators such as the Guardian’s
Jonathan Freedland 
claiming not
only that Israel is integral to their Jewish identity but that they
speak for all other Jews in making such an identification. To
criticise Israel is to attack them as Jews, and by implication to
attack all Jews. And therefore any Jew dissenting from this
consensus, any Jew identifying as anti-Zionist, any Jew in Labour who
supports Corbyn – and there are many, even if they are largely
ignored – are denounced, in line wth Lansman, as the “wrong kind
of Jews”. It may be absurd logic, but such ideas are now so
commonplace as to be unremarkable.

In
fact, the weaponisation of anti-semitism against Corbyn has become so
normal that, even while I was writing this post, a new nadir was
reached. Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary who hopes to defeat Boris
Johnson in the upcoming Tory leadership race, as good
as 
accused Corbyn
of being a new Hitler, a man who as prime minister might allow Jews
to be exterminated, just as occurred in the Nazi death camps.

Too
‘frail’ to be PM

Although
anti-semitism has become the favoured stick with which to beat
Corbyn, other forms of attack regularly surface. The latest are
comments by unnamed “senior civil servants” reported in the
Times 
alleging that
Corbyn is too physically frail and mentally ill-equipped to grasp the
details necessary to serve as prime minister. It barely matters
whether the comment was actually made by a senior official or simply
concocted by the Times. It is yet further evidence of the political
and media establishments’ anti-democratic efforts to discredit
Corbyn as a general election looms.

One
of the ironies is that media critics of Corbyn regularly accuse him
of failing to make any political capital from the shambolic disarray
of the ruling Conservative party, which is eating itself alive over
the terms of Brexit, Britain’s imminent departure from the European
Union. But it is the corporate media – which serves both as
society’s main forum of debate and as a supposed watchdog on power
– that is starkly failing to hold the Tories to account. While the
media obsess about Corbyn’s supposed mental deficiencies, they have
smoothed the path of Boris Johnson, a man who personifies the word
“buffoon” like no one else in political life, to become the new
leader of the Conservative party and therefore by default – and
without an election – the next prime minister.

An
indication of how the relentless character assassination of Corbyn is
being coordinated was hinted at early on, months after his election
as Labour leader in 2015. A British military general 
told
the Times
,
again anonymously, that there would be “direct action” – what
he also termed a “mutiny” – by the armed forces should Corbyn
ever get in sight of power. The generals, he said, regarded Corbyn as
a national security threat and would use any means, “fair or foul”,
to prevent him implementing his political programme.

Running
the gauntlet

But
this campaign of domestic attacks on Corbyn needs to be understood in
a still wider framework, which relates to Britain’s abiding
Transatlantic “special relationship”, one that in reality means
that the UK serves as Robin to the United States’ Batman, or as a
very junior partner to the global hegemon.

Last
month a private conversation concerning Corbyn between the US
secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and the heads of a handful of
rightwing American Jewish organisations was leaked. Contrary to the
refrain of the UK corporate media that Corbyn is so absurd a figure
that he could never win an election, the fear expressed on both sides
of that Washington conversation was that the Labour leader might soon
become Britain’s prime minister.

Framing
Corbyn yet again as an anti-semite, a US Jewish leader could be heard
asking Pompeo if he would be “willing to work with us to take on
actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the UK”.
Pompeo 
responded that
it was possible “Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get
elected” – a telling phrase that attracted remarkably little
attention, as did the story itself, given that it revealed one of the
most senior Trump administration officials explicitly talking about
meddling directly in the outcome of a UK election

Here
is the dictionary definition of “run the gauntlet”: to take part
in a form of corporal punishment in which the party judged guilty is
forced to run between two rows of soldiers, who strike out and attack
him.

So
Pompeo was suggesting that there already is a gauntlet – systematic
and organised blows and strikes against Corbyn – that he is being
made to run through. In fact, “running the gauntlet” precisely
describes the experience Corbyn has faced since he was elected Labour
leader – from the corporate media, from the dominant Blairite
faction of his own party, from rightwing, pro-Israel Jewish
organisations like the Board of Deputies, and from anonymous generals
and senior civil servants.

We
cheated, we stole’

Pompeo
continued: “You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those
things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It’s too
risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.”

So,
Washington’s view is that action must be taken before Corbyn
reaches a position of power. To avoid any danger he might become the
UK’s next prime minister, the US will do its “level best” to
“push back”. Assuming that this hasn’t suddenly become the US
administration’s priority, how much time does the US think it has
before Corbyn might win power? How close is a UK election?

As
everyone in Washington is only too keenly aware, a UK election has
been a distinct possiblity since the Conservatives set up a minority
goverment two years ago with the help of fickle, hardline Ulster
loyalists. Elections have been looming ever since, as the UK ruling
party has torn itself apart over Brexit, its MPs regularly defeating
their own leader, prime minister Theresa May, in parliamentary votes.

So
if Pompeo is saying, as he appears to be, that the US will do
whatever it can to make sure Corbyn doesn’t win an election well
before that election takes place, it means the US is already deeply
mired in anti-Corbyn activity. Pompeo is not only saying that the US
is ready to meddle in the UK’s election, which is bad enough; he is
hinting that it is already meddling in UK politics to make sure the
will of the British people does not bring to power the wrong leader.

Remember
that Pompeo, a former CIA director, once effectively America’s spy
chief, was unusually frank about what his agency got up to when he
was in charge. He 
observed:
“I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It’s –
it was like – we had entire training courses.”

One
would have to be remarkably naive to think that Pompeo changed the
CIA’s culture during his short tenure. He simply became the
figurehead of the world’s most powerful spying outfit, one that had
spent decades developing the principles of US exceptionalism, that
had lied its way to recent wars in Iraq and Libya, as it had done
earlier in Vietnam and in justifying the nuclear bombing of
Hiroshima, and much more. Black ops and psyops were not invented by
Pompeo. They have long been a mainstay of US foreign policy.

An
eroding consensus

It
takes a determined refusal to join the dots not to see a clear
pattern here.

Brand
was right that the system is rigged, that our political and media
elites are captured, and that the power structure of our societies
will defend itself by all means possible, “fair or foul.” Corbyn
is far from alone in this treatment. The system is similarly rigged
to stop a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders – though not a
rich businessman like Donald Trump – winning the nomination for the
US presidential race. It is also rigged to silence real journalists
like Julian Assange who are trying to overturn the access journalism
prized by the corporate media – with its reliance on official
sources and insiders for stories – to divulge the secrets of the
national security states we live in.

There
is a conspiracy at work here, though it is not of the kind lampooned
by critics: a small cabal of the rich secretly pullng the strings of
our societies. The conspiracy operates at an institutional level, one
that has evolved over time to create structures and refine and
entrench values that keep power and wealth in the hands of the few.
In that sense we are all part of the conspiracy. It is a conspiracy
that embraces us every time we unquestioningly accept the
“consensual” narratives laid out for us by our education systems,
politicians and media. Our minds have been occupied with myths, fears
and narratives that turned us into the turkeys that keep voting for
Christmas.

That
system is not impregnable, however. The consensus so carefully
constructed over many decades is rapidly breaking down as the power
structure that underpins it is forced to grapple with real-world
problems it is entirely unsuited to resolve, such as the gradual
collapse of western economies premised on infinite growth and a
climate that is fighting back against our insatiable appetite for the
planet’s resources.

As
long as we colluded in the manufactured consensus of western
societies, the system operated without challenge or meaningful
dissent. A deeply ideological system destroying the planet was
treated as if it was natural, immutable, the summit of human
progress, the end of history. Those times are over. Accidents like
Corbyn will happen more frequently, as will extreme climate events
and economic crises. The power structures in place to prevent such
accidents will by necessity grow more ham-fisted, more belligerent,
less concealed to get their way. And we might finally understand that
a system designed to pacify us while a few grow rich at the expense
of our children’s future and our own does not have to continue.
That we can raise our voices and loudly say: “No!”

By Jonathan
Cook
 / Creative
Commons
 / Common
Dreams

====================================

* Je zou
de eerste christengemeenschappen kunnen zien als communistisch, daar
iedereen er gelijk was en men samen besliste over de dagelijkse gang
van zaken. Echter gegarandeerd dat die gemeenschappen in
werkelijkheid meer weg hadden van een sekte, daar de enige echte
autoriteit het godsgeloof was en twijfelen aan die autoriteit zou
tot onmiddellijke verstoting/uitstoting hebben geleid…..

Zie ook:

BBC heeft Corbyn afgemaakt als antisemiet, terwijl het zelf al jaren een racistische serie uitzendt…….

Verkiezingen Groot-Brittannië: de lastercampagne van de afhankelijke BBC en andere massamedia tegen Corbyn heeft gewonnen………

Verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië gemanipuleerd door de massamedia

Opperrabbijn Mirvis besmeurt Labour vlak voor verkiezingen, over het ongeoorloofd beïnvloeden van verkiezingen gesproken

Boris Johnson vs. Jeremy Corbyn en de massamedia

Niet Rusland maar Trump beïnvloedt nu al de verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië

Jackie Walker, een joods journalist, spreekt over de met beschuldigingen van antisemitisme gevoede heksenjacht op Labour en haarzelf

Gedreven politicus zet BBC presentator te kakken die Labour de schuld wilde geven van de armoede in GB

Honger in GB anno 2019: uitsterfbeleid voor werklozen en andere arme Britten >> velen krijgen geen voedselhulp

Britse kinderen lijden anno 2018 honger, vooral in de vakanties…….

Voor meer berichten over Corbyn, antisemitisme, Israël en of de Palestijnen, klik op de betreffende labels, direct onder dit bericht.